The New Middle East: Egypt & Syria (Part Four of Four)

I’d love to finish this Middle East Political series by discussing the countries of Egypt and Syria. It just seems appropriate to end with the two countries continually making the news on an international scale.

            Egypt has made sure to stay true to their “cease-fire” agreement from 1978 (Yes, I’m referring to the Camp David Accords) regarding Israel. At the same time, they have been very stagnant regarding accountability for their government’s administration. While the country is rich in culture and vast knowledge of history, it is also abundant in chaos and turmoil. With the Arab Spring happening, Egypt decided to go a different direction and elected a leader that was part of the Muslim Brotherhood – Mohammed Morsi.

Due to the nature of changing administrations and ideology, this new government didn’t last that long enough to get many things accomplished. In fact, Morsi was in power a little over year before he was ousted in a military coup.  This captured the attention of the world because it presented the challenge of how to asset and handle the situation. It is interesting because while the coup was of a military origin, it is close to the uprising that is going on in Syria at the current time.

            Even before 2010, the Syrian government and the rest of the world didn’t know how to deal with each other.  The fact that I can’t really speak to things previous to 2010 is, in a way, sad because even if I did follow such events it would be confusing. Since 2010, the Syrian government has undergone major obstacles such as dealing with the United Nations regarding their reactor program – which the alleged reactor was in fact destroyed by air raids conducted by the Israelis. Even the Arab League voted to suspend Syria and impose sanctions on them due to their lack of adhering to the Arab peace plan (this was in November of 2011 by the way). Since that time, the Syrian Government has removed governors of the northern areas, endured suicide bombings, further sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, and the decision to use heavy weaponry and other military tactics on its own citizens; this, in turn, resulted in multiple deaths within the nation of Syria at the hands of their own government.

            Syria also gets into a rift with Turkey that resulted both countries banning each other’s plans from entering their respective air spaces. Israel also exchanged both war or words and heavy artillery because of Syria’s occasional shelling of bordering towns from the Golan Heights area (also the first time since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 – same year the Camp David Accords were signed; and, the exchange continues into this year). In fact, Syria was under the impression that the growing opposition of its citizens were actually Israelis impostors (again, it’s their speculation and wasn’t ever proven).  It is because the citizens of Syria were so fed up with their government; and, the government got fed up with its new found opposition. The United States, Great Britain, France, Turkey, and other Gulf states formally recognized this wave of “insurgency” as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people” as they were in formal opposition against their government.

            To fast forward to the present moment, I think we have to consider the current state of both countries and not just one over the other. Both situations propose extremely sensitive challenges for United States foreign policy.  As much as the United States is hesitant to get re-involved in the Middle East, at this point it is the only thing that makes sense politically.  Let me be very clear here: I am NOT advocating for the United States to get into another war. I think when a President states that a line has been crossed and that the United States will examine and deal with the issue, should it happen (and by the way, it did), the United States will handle it with a proportional response. The line being crossed is the continuing facts pointing to Syria using chemical weapons against it’s own citizens.

            Personally, there are a couple of questions and concerns I have regarding the potential scenarios facing the United States. Let’s discuss!

     1)     The United States is part of the United Nations. I firmly believe that the U.S. should wait until the Security Council is able to figure out how to deal with the human rights violation conducted by Syria. A lot of people think the U.N. is a joke, but I firmly believe we have to give the U.N. enough time to meet its obligation as an international body.  The last thing I would want to see is the United States to undergo a unilateral response. It would just be the Iraq situation all over again and I don’t want the next decade to sending our troops in Syria;

     2)    Let’s say the worst possible scenario plays out and the United States does go into Syria. I think the United States wouldn’t be going into Syria alone. In fact, I think the U.S. would be able to rely on Saudi Arabia to assist within the region. The rationale behind Saudi Arabia getting involved to overthrow the current Syrian government would be to dissolve the Syrian-Iran alliance that has been in place for a long time. By minimizing that alliance, Saudi Arabia would be able to re-gain a conservative ally in the region; and for the United States, it would be able to greatly diminish any pressure Iran – and other countries that are anti-Semitic - places on Israel’s existence;

     3)    I will be the first one to stand up and fully support the United Nations; however, I also know that they are not always effective. There is only so much that can be done with sanctions. Some of these nations, such as Syria & Egypt, need to have a little more force given to make them sit up and pay attention. The fact that Russia is even saying, “whoa, we need to figure out how to deal with Syria regarding these human rights violations” was both amazing and comical at the same time (I will discuss why it is comical in a future blog piece…trust me Russia will be the topic of a whole new post).  If the United Nations can continue to impose sanctions, have a positive review of the areas in Syria regarding chemical weapons, and the International Criminal Court bring Syria on crimes against humanity, then I think the United Nations would be able to more credible to the rest of the world...finally;

     4)   If the United States does decide to send in strikes against Syria (in the form of Tomahawk missiles), would that be considered an act of war? The reason I pose this question is because if Syria retaliates, that would set of a potential chain reaction. Here is one potential scenario – US fires on Syria, Iran attacks the US because they have an alliance with Syria, Israel attacks Iran because they are an US ally, Iran decides nukes should be used against Israel, etc. It may seem like a excerpt from a Tom Clancy novel, but things can escalate just that fast and over the smallest of things; and,

     5)   I only bring this up because of the human rights violation brought on by Syria. The United States has an obligation to intervene because   we have done so in other instances. It would not be ethical to “pick and choose” which cases to intervene within the world.  The question becomes, “Why will the United States intervene in Libya but not Syria” or “they will liberate the Afghanistan people and the Iraqis but not the Syrians” or even the fact that they the United States wants human rights for all people, except for those that do not present a special interest to their way of life.

      I do not envy President Obama for the decisions he will have to make in the upcoming days or even weeks. This is an area of the American Presidency that no President wants to engage in, but yet it is a job description that often gets neglected except when presidential candidates are in a political debate. I think the best option is for the United States to wait until the outcome of the United Nations is made known; if things are not ideal, then a coalition needs to be built so it can confront the issue of Syria and the way they treat their citizens. I view Syria as a mild form of totalitarianism and the United States should be greatly concerned regarding this form of government since certain elements of this concept is running rampant in American Politics.

      To be a leader, one has to recognize where they want to progress to and also where they ethically, philosophically and ideological refuse to go. The United States needs to stand by its statements and convictions while at the same time treading very carefully to make clear that another road to invade the Middle East does not remain the only option.