Shahzad Masood Roomi
The contours of Russian future policy towards the
Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current
US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic
approach to address the problem.
“We propose to launch under the auspices of the
UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in
all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also
that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab
nations and Israel."
He also pointed out
longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.
“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian
issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the
main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit
more and more new Jihadists.”
Most importantly, he
raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS
which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.
“We warned against a temptation
to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian
President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’
seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of
our attention.”
Analysis:
This is something we don't often
see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US
about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the
reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia,
every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed.
Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The
US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS
even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from
this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a
moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for
ongoing campaign against ISIS.
But still this military campaign
is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is
pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This
argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities
like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According
to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral
high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign
questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.
For now, the US and allies have a
strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to
do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms
to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has
already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine
and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot
allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate
one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious
challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into
another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick
closure?
If that happens one thing is
certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies
would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent
statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure
in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to
look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well
aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with
sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options
against the Russian overtures.
In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.
In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.
On the other hand, any prolonged
war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would
escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in
initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings
of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the
governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging
for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack
on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a
scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!
