by Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
The key to minimizing the damage from America's exit from Syria can be found in both Washington and Moscow.
Contrary to popular belief, U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to end America's military presence in Syria
in the near future was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. The opposite
is true. This is the implementation of a plan that has been formulated
for some time, one that was anchored in Trump's original position to
disengage from the centers of conflict, war and crisis that he does not
believe to present an immediate and tangible threat to American
security.
Ever since his election campaign, Trump's
view has been that U.S. involvement in Syria, initiated by his
predecessor Barack Obama's White House in 2015, embodies the dangerous
potential in getting involved in a bloody conflict. It is true that as
long as the Islamic State group constituted a central terrorist threat
in Syria, the president accepted America's continued presence in the
arena, provided it remained limited to the northeastern region, with the
Kurdish enclave at its center. Now, with the murderous organization in
significant decline, the decision to disengage is a natural move for
Trump, who has made his desire to reduce the scope of America's overall
commitment and involvement overseas abundantly clear.
The president has repeatedly reiterated his
intention to leave Syria and he did not set any preconditions, such as
achieving a comprehensive diplomatic resolution in Syria, for the exit
of foreign forces from the territory.
In other words, in Trump's minimalist view
of the array of U.S. interests, Syria does not meet the requirement for
necessary direct military intervention. Against this background, the
apocalyptic warning that the disengagement from Syria will cause massive
damage to the U.S.'s overall standing appears to be without basis.
Was the minimal presence of 2,000 American
military advisers, counselors and security officials in a narrow strip
in Syria's northeast enough to project power and dramatically influence
what transpires not only in Syria but throughout the region? Moreover,
will the withdrawal be enough to undermine the prestige of the American
superpower on a front defined by Washington as marginal from the outset
and a time in which the White House has yet to delineate the Kremlin a
sworn global enemy? It is for this reason that, although one cannot
dismiss the price the Kurdish minority may be forced to pay as a result,
the U.S. troop withdrawal is not expected to result in any tectonic
fractures in the general Syrian court.
And as for Israel, America's disengagement
was predictable and could provide Iran with greater room to maneuver and
engage in threatening actions. The key to minimizing the damage from
America's exit from Syria can be found in both Washington and Moscow. We
cannot rule out the possibility that the U.S. administration will
decide on taking a conciliatory and trust-building diplomatic step, such
as throwing its support behind the initiative now being forged in the
Senate to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. As for
the Kremlin, the U.S. troop withdrawal could lead to Russia expanding
and deepening its strategic coordination with Israel in Syria's skies,
not necessarily out of a sense of affinity or excessive sensitivity to
Israel's security concerns but rather to ensure the system of checks and
balances aimed at preventing Iran's excessive empowerment in the Syrian
sphere is preserved.
Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/a-predictable-move-in-syria/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment