Four US hurdles for attacking Syria
This file photo shows a meeting of the UN Security Council.
Given the blatant US threats against Syria, a question arises about the legal basis of such threats and whether regional and international circumstances would allow the West to stage a military intervention in Syria.
In response to this question, one must say that the US can no longer pursue its interests and provide its security through military adventurism in the Middle East because:
1. The critical situation in the Middle East prevents the Americans from embarking on a new military adventurism in Syria even if they wanted to. The problems stemming from US military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen reduce the chances of the US entering a new phase of intervention. Additionally, one must take into consideration that military action against Syria will bring the Middle East region face to face with a bigger crisis and would be striking a match in a powder keg which would be difficult to contain.
2. In terms of international law, convincing members of the UN Security Council to agree to a new attack and military intervention in another independent state under Chapter VII of the UN Charter regarding “action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression” is extremely difficult. One must take into consideration that receiving permission to attack Syria would require the approval of Russia and China, which have both been against such a move in the past. A single nay vote would be enough to veto military action. Russia and China’s behavior in the past and the vetoing of any action against Syria clearly indicates these two players would not be willing to cooperate on any campaign against Syria.
3. The US economy is still suffering from the aftermath of the 2008 recession in the country. The economic situation in the US shows this country is incapable of starting and funding a new war. The economic shock resulting from such a US adventurism would definitely be met with widespread domestic opposition from the movement known as the 99 percenters (or the Occupy Wall Street Movement).
Economic estimates show that the US has spent over two trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and its earnings from these wars have not been considerable. Even if, for example, the US seized all of Iraq’s oil resources it would still need to take a few years in order to provide for the costs of this war. At the same time, due to Washington’s discovery of shale reserves, it is reducing its dependency on Middle East oil and turning its attention to the Far East.
4. Some believe that the Pentagon needs militarism and warmongering in order to survive and therefore Syria can give it the pretext to wage a war and justify its expenses. However, such a behavior would be justifiable under normal circumstances and not under the current circumstances in the Middle East, which resembles a “powder keg” because the US will not be able to benefit from this situation.
In reality, the theory that the US has previously created crises and is benefiting from these crises could not be applied because, in the event of a war, the US will suffer from internal crisis.
In conclusion, one must say that the US is not after a military attack on Syria and is merely trying to further its political game in Syria through espionage and sabotage. Additionally, the atmosphere in the country would not allow the US to carry out military operations albeit on a small scale in the country. Washington has learnt through experience that continuing proxy wars is much more in its interests.
