Radical
Iran-led Axis Confronted with U.S. Deterrence for First Time
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
April 11, 2017
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
 The conflict in
Syria has long ceased being a civil war, becoming instead a clash between
coalitions and blocs that divide the entire Middle East.
The Iranian-led axis is the most dangerous and highly armed bloc
fighting in Syria. Bashar al-Assad's regime is not an independent actor,
but rather, a component of this wider axis. In many respects, Assad is a
junior member of the Iranian coalition set up to fight for him.
Russia joined the Iranian axis in 2015, acting for its own reasons as
the pro-Assad coalition's air force, helping to preserve the Syrian regime.
This coalition enabled the Assad regime to conduct mass murder and
ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Syria, while also using unconventional
weapons against civilians in an effort to terrorize rebel organizations
into submission.
Feeling confident by its growing control of Syria, Iran also uses its
regional coalition to arm, finance, and deploy Shi'ite jihadist agents all
over the Middle East, and to attack those who stand in the way of Iranian
domination.
The Iranian-led axis has been able to spread violence, terrorism, and
Islamic militancy without facing repercussions.
Until recently, the United States focused its attention exclusively on
Sunni jihadist threats – ISIS and al-Qaida-affiliated groups. While these
terrorists certainly need to be attacked, turning a blind eye to the
activities of the more powerful radical Shi'ite coalition did nothing to
stop the region's destabilization. In this context, Assad's numerous crimes
against humanity went unanswered.
This helped embolden Assad to use chemical weapons. It also gave the
Iranians confidence to magnify their meddling in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen,
Bahrain, and to target many other states. The end result is Iran's enhanced
ability to export its Khomeiniest Islamic fundamentalist doctrine.
That sent a troubling message to America's regional allies, who, in the
face of these threats, formed a de facto coalition of pragmatic Sunni
states – a coalition that includes Israel
On April 6, the U.S. sent a signal that something may have changed. A cruise missile attack on an Assad regime air base, in
response to a savage chemical weapons massacre in Idlib, Syria, was, first
and foremost, a moral response to an intolerable act of evil.
But the strike also carries a wider prospective message about
Washington's new willingness to enforce red lines against Assad and his
Shi'ite allies.
Potentially, it is an indication that the U.S. is willing to use its
military prowess beyond the objective of targeting ISIS, and that it
recognizes that Sunni jihadists are not the only global security threat
that warrants the use of military force.
Statements by senior Trump administration officials indicate that a
shift has occurred. "What you have in Syria is a very destructive
cycle of violence perpetuated by ISIS, obviously, but also by this regime
and their Iranian and Russian sponsors," National Security Adviser H.
R. McMaster told Fox News Sunday.
Russia must choose between its alignment with Assad, Iran, and
Hizballah, and working with the United States, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said Tuesday. The firm comment was made hours before he touched
down in Moscow for talks.
According to U.S. officials, the April 6 missile attack destroyed
20 percent of Assad's fighter jets. It represents the first time that
Washington has taken military action against a member of the Iranian-led
coalition.
The strike could evolve into a 'dialogue of deterrence' that the U.S.
initiates against dangerous actors. These radical actors all have 'return
addresses,' and are likely to prove responsive to cost-benefit
considerations, despite their extreme ideology. They may think twice before
considering further development and usage of unconventional weapons.
Washington is now able to exercise muscular diplomacy – the only kind
that is effective in the Middle East – and inform all members of the Iran's
pro-Assad coalition that the deployment of unconventional weapons will not
be tolerated. It can also begin to rally and strengthen the pro-American
coalition of states in the Middle East, who seek to keep a lid on both ISIS
and Iran.
With American officials indicating that they are "ready to do more"
in Syria if necessary, signs suggest that the strike represents the start
of a policy of deterrence, and leaving open future options for drawing
additional red lines.
In theory, should Washington decide that Iran's transfer of weapons and
extremist Shi'ite military forces to other lands has reached unacceptable
levels, or that Iran's missile development program has gone far enough, it
could call on Tehran to cease these activities. This call would carry
substantially more weight following last week's missile attack on the
Syrian airbase.
The U.S. is in a better position to inform Assad and his allies that
there is a limit to how far they can go in pursuing their murderous
ambitions.
While the objective of creating a renewed American deterrent posture is
vital, it should not be confused with plans for wider military intervention
in the seemingly endless Syrian conflict.
There is little reason to believe that conventional weapons use against
Syrian civilians is going to stop any time soon, or that the enormous
tragedy suffered by the Syrian people is about to end.
And there is certainly no indication that the U.S. is planning to
initiate large-scale military involvement in this failed state
Hence, the missile strike should be seen for what it is: an attempt to
boost American deterrence, which can then be leveraged to restrain radical
actors that have, until now, been operating completely unchecked
That is a message that will likely be heard loud and clear not only in
Damascus, but also in Tehran, which has not given up its long-term ambition
of building nuclear weapons.
North Korea, which helped build Syria's plutonium nuclear plant
(destroyed in 2007 in a reported Israeli air strike), and which maintains close links
with Iran's nuclear and missile programs, can be expected to take note as
well.
If a policy of strategic deterrence follows the strike, it could have an
impact on a coalition that is not just keeping Assad's regime alive, but
spreading its radical influence in many other areas.
In Syria, the Iranian Republican Guards Corps (IRGC) oversees ground
operations across many battlefields to prop up Bashar al-Assad. Iran has
gathered and armed tens of thousands of Shi'ite militia members from across
the region into Syria, and manages a local force composed of 100,000 members. They
fight alongside the Syrian Arab Army against Sunni rebel organizations,
thereby increasing and entrenching Iranian influence.
The IRGC and its elite Quds Force are also helping to fill Hizballah's
weapons depots in Lebanon, with a vast array of surface-to-surface
projectiles that are all pointed at Israel, often using Syria as an arms
trafficking transit zone. Syria acts as a bridge that grants Iran access to
Lebanon, and allows it to threaten both Israel and Jordan.
Jordan, an important U.S. ally, is deeply concerned by Iran's actions in
Syria, as evidenced by recent comments made by King Abdullah, who told the Washington Post that "there is an
attempt to forge a geographic link between Iran, Iraq, Syria and
Hezbollah/Lebanon." IRGC forces are stationed within a mere 45 miles
from Jordan's border, he warned, adding that any hostile forces approaching
the Hashemite Kingdom "are not going to be tolerated."
Hizballah, a Lebanese-based Iranian Shi'ite proxy, evolved into a
powerful army by sending 7,000 to 9,000 of its own highly trained members into
Syria's ground war. It helped rescue the Assad regime from collapse, and
took part in battles stretching from Aleppo to the Qalamoun Mountains
northeast of Damascus.
Last year, the Arab League and the Sunni countries of the Gulf
Cooperation Council all declared Hizballah to be a terrorist entity.
Just as Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias have poured into Syria, the same
has happened in Iraq, where 100,000 fighters supported by Tehran fight alongside
the Iraqi government forces against ISIS. The IRGC's network extends to
Yemen's Houthi Ansar Allah forces, who receive Iranian assistance. Ansar
Allah, a heavily armed Shi'ite military force, fires ballistic missiles at
Saudi Arabia on a regular basis.
The IRGC and Hizballah have been linked to a recent large-scale terrorist plot in
Bahrain.
If the message addressed in the cruise missile strike is followed up
with a strategy of deterrence, addressed to Ayatollah Khamenei as much as
it was addressed to Assad, the U.S. could begin projecting to the world
that it recognizes the threat posed by Shi'ite jihadists as much as it
takes seriously the threat from their fundamentalist Sunni equivalents.
Washington's campaign to pressure Russia to distance itself from its
Middle Eastern allies could play an important part of this message.
Yaakov Lappin is a military and strategic affairs correspondent. He
also conducts research and analysis for defense think tanks, and is the
Israel correspondent for IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. His book, The
Virtual Caliphate, explores the online jihadist presence.
Related Topics: Yaakov
Lappin, Syrian
civil war, Iran,
Shi'ite
axis, Bashar
al-Assad, chemical
weapons, H.R.
McMaster, Rex
Tillerson, foreign
policy, IRGC,
Hizballah,
Ansar
Allah
|
Print
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment