With Russia's entry into the bag of dog doo that is Syria, the chattering classes are all astir over who's up, who's down, who's winning and who's losing. Russia is the usual nominee for winner. But what exactly has Russia won? It can't win the war. Between ISIS, the Kurds and various other rebel groups, most of Syria is no longer in the hands of the Assad regime. Russia can't afford to commit the tens of thousands of ground troops, equipment and air power that would be needed to retake and hold all this ground, and the Assad regime's army appears too depleted to mount the major offensives that would be needed. All Russia can do is prop up an Assad rump regime in western Syria that would be under constant attack. That would mean an indefinite commitment to a war with no end in sight and no possibility of a Russian victory.
Russia's puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, isn't a winner; he has only avoided becoming a big loser. His diminished army can't reconquer what he's lost in Syria. Russian air strikes will allow him to bolster his lines and tighten up his defenses. But a few dozen Russian air craft don't begin to provide enough air power to support an offensive that could retake all of Syria. At the same time, Assad's authority is diminished. Now, he will have to do whatever Putin tells him to do, and like it, as well.
The Iranians, who apparently negotiated an alliance of sorts with Russia, have had their weakness revealed. For all their bluster and unacknowledged efforts to build nuclear weapons, they don't have the strength to prop up a two-bit dictator in a small nation. They had to call in first, their Hezbollah allies, and then Russia. Maybe the Iranians are claiming a propaganda victory. But they just ceded power to Vlad the Invader, and it's generally a bad idea to give power to an aggressive despot. Has the Islamic Iranian government forgotten that one reason Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi allied himself so closely with the United States was because the Russians wanted to take over Iran after World War II?
The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has cozied up to Russia and allowed Russian military planes to fly over Iraqi air space in order to reach Syria. Maybe it had no choice; its Iranian handlers could have told it to cuddle up to Putin. But, reality is you can't be an ally of America and an ally of Russia. If the Iraqis snuggle up to Putin too much, America may not provide as much military equipment or intelligence to Iraq as it once did. It may see less value in supporting a Shiite government in Baghdad and perhaps more value in supporting the Kurds.
The Sunni rebel groups--ranging from ISIS to the various metastasizes of al Qaeda to the tiny and shrinking handful of moderate rebels supported by the United States--are ships out of luck. They can't win, not with Russian military assets located in and protecting western Syria. They will be battered by Russian air power, and will have to hunker down.
Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies have quietly been supporting various of Assad's opponents, hoping to unseat him and install a Sunni-friendly government. That ain't happening now, not with Russian soldiers in Latakia.
The Kurds have enjoyed notable success in Syria, carving out safe havens for themselves and others who aren't Sunni or Shiite crazies. But Russian air power will likely preclude further Kurdish gains. The Kurds will have to concentrate on holding what they have.
Turkey has been fighting Russia for centuries. Now, with Russian military aircraft in Syria, the Russians just flanked Turkey and can hit it from two sides. Not that Putin has expressed any unfriendly intentions toward Turkey, but given the centuries of war between these two nations, nothing needs to be said.
Israel has been fighting various Russian allies almost since its inception. Never, however, have Russian military assets been so closely positioned to Israel. Had Iran been so brazen as to station military aircraft in Latakia, Israel's more advanced air force would have swarmed in the next morning before dawn and walloped the warm living yogurt out of the Iranians. But Israel cannot attack Russian forces. It can only watch, and hope that Syria proves to be a hopeless morass for Russia.
And last, but not least, the United States has seen its modest influence in Syria diminish even more. By propping up Assad, Putin precludes any possibility of an American victory. Not that it matters since, at this point, America isn't even really engaged in Syria. The Obama administration issues a steady stream of press releases about Syria, but it's doing little more than talking. Since it's not engaged in Syria, it doesn't have the leverage to get the Russians out. Hopes that Russia will join hands with the U.S. in attacking ISIS are delusional. ISIS has weakened America's position in the Middle East. Why would Putin want to weaken ISIS, which is doing the dirty work for him? All he needs to do is prop up Assad, his puppet in Syria, while ISIS and America batter away at each other, neither able to conclusively defeat the other.
In the end, the absence of anyone strong enough to impose peace and order in Syria means that the country will be de facto partitioned. That's what happened to Yugoslavia. It's what's happening now in Iraq. The flood of refugees into Europe will continue. The truth is everyone is a loser in Syria.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2015
Thursday, December 5, 2013
A World of Foreign Policy Gambles
It is almost axiomatic that when a political leader faces domestic problems, he or she will turn to foreign relations as a way to divert disgruntled constituents from their daily travails. Appeals to national pride easily tap into the often reflexive patriotism that many people have. Folks tend to rally 'round the flag whenever there's a dustup with some bunch of dang foreigners. Since foreign relations tend to be largely in the domain of Presidents, Prime Ministers and other national executives, legislative interference is less of a problem and credit for success can be hoarded.
With essentially all of the world's major economies unimpressive, sluggish or even tending toward torpid, it's hardly a surprise that some world leaders are indulging in cross-border shenani . . . , well, activities. China has a slowing economy, with a real estate bubble, a debt bubble, increased competition from lower wage nations around the world, growing unemployment, a lack of high-value innovation, and a demographic demon of too many elderly and way too few young workers that's far, far worse than America's social security issues. So what does China do? Make noise about territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea. America responds by flying B-52s into an area claimed by the Chinese. The Japanese, with a sludgy economy and a recently elected Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who appears to be of a nationalistic bent, contest the Chinese claims with their military aircraft, sabre-rattling as good as they've been rattled at. Japan and China are quietly drifting into an arms race, while the U.S. military is expanding its presence in Asia. And of course, there's North Korea, an economic dead zone, which engages in virtually nonstop sabre-rattling to legitimize its autocracy.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, a newly elected Iranian leadership faced with a sanctions-hammered economy that's circling the drain, are suddenly open-minded about a deal to slow down their nuclear program. An American President, crippled by the virtual non-launch of his showcase domestic health insurance program, decides it's okay to let Iran continue to enrich uranium up to the 5% level, even though this isn't exactly a complete freeze of Iran's nuclear program. (Even though Iran says it wants to have 5% uranium to develop nuclear power, since when does a country with gobs of petroleum reserves need to develop nuclear power?) This deal could be seen as an effort by the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East (so it can increase its presence in Asia). Does that make war in the Middle East less likely? Or will the increasingly nervous Israelis act on their own, as they have in the past? And if they do, will America be militarily dragged into the consequences?
Over the past century and a half, foreign policy adventurism has tended to end badly. Sometimes, very badly, with 20 million dead in World War I and 60 million dead in World War II. This isn't to suggest that America and other nations should become isolationist. The world is interconnected and some degree of international engagement is necessary. But citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, who often have much to gain by stepping up their rhetoric and actions. The recent popular outcries against American and British military action in Syria over its use of poisonous gas is an example of how the levelheadedness of the citizenry can cool the jets of a handful of very powerful people who may spend too much time talking to each other. If a nation's leader seems to have a gambling problem in the foreign policy arena, citizens should stage an intervention.
With essentially all of the world's major economies unimpressive, sluggish or even tending toward torpid, it's hardly a surprise that some world leaders are indulging in cross-border shenani . . . , well, activities. China has a slowing economy, with a real estate bubble, a debt bubble, increased competition from lower wage nations around the world, growing unemployment, a lack of high-value innovation, and a demographic demon of too many elderly and way too few young workers that's far, far worse than America's social security issues. So what does China do? Make noise about territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea. America responds by flying B-52s into an area claimed by the Chinese. The Japanese, with a sludgy economy and a recently elected Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who appears to be of a nationalistic bent, contest the Chinese claims with their military aircraft, sabre-rattling as good as they've been rattled at. Japan and China are quietly drifting into an arms race, while the U.S. military is expanding its presence in Asia. And of course, there's North Korea, an economic dead zone, which engages in virtually nonstop sabre-rattling to legitimize its autocracy.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, a newly elected Iranian leadership faced with a sanctions-hammered economy that's circling the drain, are suddenly open-minded about a deal to slow down their nuclear program. An American President, crippled by the virtual non-launch of his showcase domestic health insurance program, decides it's okay to let Iran continue to enrich uranium up to the 5% level, even though this isn't exactly a complete freeze of Iran's nuclear program. (Even though Iran says it wants to have 5% uranium to develop nuclear power, since when does a country with gobs of petroleum reserves need to develop nuclear power?) This deal could be seen as an effort by the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East (so it can increase its presence in Asia). Does that make war in the Middle East less likely? Or will the increasingly nervous Israelis act on their own, as they have in the past? And if they do, will America be militarily dragged into the consequences?
Over the past century and a half, foreign policy adventurism has tended to end badly. Sometimes, very badly, with 20 million dead in World War I and 60 million dead in World War II. This isn't to suggest that America and other nations should become isolationist. The world is interconnected and some degree of international engagement is necessary. But citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, who often have much to gain by stepping up their rhetoric and actions. The recent popular outcries against American and British military action in Syria over its use of poisonous gas is an example of how the levelheadedness of the citizenry can cool the jets of a handful of very powerful people who may spend too much time talking to each other. If a nation's leader seems to have a gambling problem in the foreign policy arena, citizens should stage an intervention.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
If You're Concerned About the Price of Oil, Watch Israel and the U.S. Fifth Fleet
Israel, it's just been reported, recently conducted a military exercise that appeared to simulate an aerial attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Two years ago, Israel fought a war in Lebanon against Iran's proxies, Hezbollah. Things didn't go well for Israel, to a large degree because Israeli intelligence severely underestimated Hezbollah's military capabilities. No doubt Israel now takes Iran very seriously, just as Iran takes Israel very seriously. The exercise could be the prelude to the real thing. This is all the more likely because the hawkish, but soon to be concluded George W. Bush presidency may offer the Israelis a degree of support that future presidents, chastened by the failure of the Iraq War, would not provide.
The Iranians will probably have trouble stopping an Israeli air raid. Israel's capability for long distance air attacks is legendary. Iran's air force is a mulligan stew of miscellaneous aircraft, some pretty modern but most out of date and lacking in spare parts. Many of them are not in operational condition. Iran's air defense system is of uncertain quality, with an apparently disappointing performance in the Iran-Iraq War during the early 1980s.
But the Iranians appear to subscribe to the notion that the best defense is a good offense, and have a good understanding of asymmetric warfare. Iran has built up its ballistic missile force, and is modernizing its navy with submarines, frigates and other ships that can deliver missiles. Missiles are hard to stop. Israel found this out in its 2006 war with Hezbollah, during which Hezbollah missiles bombarded Israeli cities that no enemy airplanes could possibly approach.
Iran likely hopes to prevent an Israeli attack through a policy of modified mutual assured destruction. If Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran likely will do everything it can to stop the flow of oil to the industrialized world. With its arsenal of missiles, Iran would surely bombard Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Persian Gulf oil producers. Since the most productive oil fields in the world are in eastern Saudi Arabia, an easy ballistic missile shot from Iran, Iran's ability to disrupt the world's oil markets is plain to see.
While the Saudis, Kuwaitis and other Persian Gulf nations have modern military aircraft, courtesy of the United States, F-15s aren't designed to stop barrages of hundreds or thousands of missiles. Indeed, they might need reinforced concrete bunkers as protection against such attacks. And even if the Saudis and Kuwaitis have Patriot missile defense systems, those systems won't defend oil tankers trying to pass through the Persian Gulf from Exocet or other cruise missiles.
All of which is a long way of saying that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. will have to get involved, like it or not. The best way to stop Iranian retaliation against oil producing nations would be air attacks by U.S. forces against Iran's missile forces. The Israelis don't have the capability to launch the massive attacks needed against Iran's missiles. Only the United States, with its vast surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and its enormous array of cruise missiles, piloted aircraft, drone aircraft and smart weapons, could have any hope of containing Iran's missiles.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is assigned to the Persian Gulf region, would play a crucial role. While the U.S. already has air forces involved in the Iraq War, those forces likely aren't enough to fight on the Iranian front as well as the Iraqi front. The Fifth Fleet, beefed up with more than its usual complement of carriers, would have to be brought to bear.
Thus, the movements of the Fifth Fleet and Israel's pronouncements about Iran bear watching. If there's a scenario for $200 a barrel oil in the next six months, this is it. After that, a new President will reside in the White House, no doubt putting a restraining hand on Israel's air force. It's possible that the Bush administration's turn in the last couple of years toward diplomacy in the Middle East will bear fruit. By all accounts, few Iranians want war with America, and even fewer Americans want war with Iran. But if we had control over events, oil wouldn't now be trading at $135 a barrel.
The Iranians will probably have trouble stopping an Israeli air raid. Israel's capability for long distance air attacks is legendary. Iran's air force is a mulligan stew of miscellaneous aircraft, some pretty modern but most out of date and lacking in spare parts. Many of them are not in operational condition. Iran's air defense system is of uncertain quality, with an apparently disappointing performance in the Iran-Iraq War during the early 1980s.
But the Iranians appear to subscribe to the notion that the best defense is a good offense, and have a good understanding of asymmetric warfare. Iran has built up its ballistic missile force, and is modernizing its navy with submarines, frigates and other ships that can deliver missiles. Missiles are hard to stop. Israel found this out in its 2006 war with Hezbollah, during which Hezbollah missiles bombarded Israeli cities that no enemy airplanes could possibly approach.
Iran likely hopes to prevent an Israeli attack through a policy of modified mutual assured destruction. If Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran likely will do everything it can to stop the flow of oil to the industrialized world. With its arsenal of missiles, Iran would surely bombard Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Persian Gulf oil producers. Since the most productive oil fields in the world are in eastern Saudi Arabia, an easy ballistic missile shot from Iran, Iran's ability to disrupt the world's oil markets is plain to see.
While the Saudis, Kuwaitis and other Persian Gulf nations have modern military aircraft, courtesy of the United States, F-15s aren't designed to stop barrages of hundreds or thousands of missiles. Indeed, they might need reinforced concrete bunkers as protection against such attacks. And even if the Saudis and Kuwaitis have Patriot missile defense systems, those systems won't defend oil tankers trying to pass through the Persian Gulf from Exocet or other cruise missiles.
All of which is a long way of saying that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. will have to get involved, like it or not. The best way to stop Iranian retaliation against oil producing nations would be air attacks by U.S. forces against Iran's missile forces. The Israelis don't have the capability to launch the massive attacks needed against Iran's missiles. Only the United States, with its vast surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and its enormous array of cruise missiles, piloted aircraft, drone aircraft and smart weapons, could have any hope of containing Iran's missiles.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is assigned to the Persian Gulf region, would play a crucial role. While the U.S. already has air forces involved in the Iraq War, those forces likely aren't enough to fight on the Iranian front as well as the Iraqi front. The Fifth Fleet, beefed up with more than its usual complement of carriers, would have to be brought to bear.
Thus, the movements of the Fifth Fleet and Israel's pronouncements about Iran bear watching. If there's a scenario for $200 a barrel oil in the next six months, this is it. After that, a new President will reside in the White House, no doubt putting a restraining hand on Israel's air force. It's possible that the Bush administration's turn in the last couple of years toward diplomacy in the Middle East will bear fruit. By all accounts, few Iranians want war with America, and even fewer Americans want war with Iran. But if we had control over events, oil wouldn't now be trading at $135 a barrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
