The military operation in Syria did not bring significant results to Washington. The “signal” that the US and its allies sent to Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to the alleged chemical attack was so weak that the political leadership in Washington, Paris and London should not spend the money that was spent on jet fuel and winged rockets. This entire performance speaks of the fact that many people already know that President Donald Trump does not have a strategy for Syria.
This is a fair point of view, but it does not explain why Washington can not only resolve, but at least manage the Syrian conflict, which destabilized almost the entire Middle East and the EU? This state of affairs existed before the Trump administration came to power. This issue is a part of a broader discussion about the role of the United States in the world.
According to experts, the US is in a
intermediary period. No one in the US understands a new era of foreign policy… What interests of the US should pursue in it? For this reason, both US presidents – Barack Obama and Trump – could not resolve the conflict, which caused great damage to the long-term US interests in the Middle East.
The evolutionary development of the Syrian conflict from the “uprising” to the civil war, which then turned into a proxy war with the participation of world powers, gave rise to a staggering level of complexity. The Syrians paid an unimaginable price: almost half a million people died, 11 million – about half of the country’s pre-war population – were displaced or injured. The responsibility for these massacres and suffering lies largely on the United States and its allies.
The sins of the West are numerous. At the basis of most of them lie attempts to give out what is desired for reality, exhaustion or stupidity. How well-informed people could come to the conclusion in 2011 that the fall of the Assad regime is only a “matter of time”? Why did these people underestimate the possibilities of the Iranian and Russian factors?
What was the result? Going beyond the struggle with ISIS, the US is stuck in the region. This is evidenced by the Middle East policy of Washington. On the one hand, Trump decisively justifies the attack on Syria inflicted on the night of April 14, on the other hand – he confirmed his decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
Washington shows inconsistency of its actions not only in Syria. The same problem arose with regard to Yemen, Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement and even against Iran. Each of these countries is a separate complex foreign policy situation. Washington does not know what it specifically wants to achieve with respect to each of these countries. Neither the current US president nor his predecessor ever said what the US interests in the region are.
What is happening now? The fight against terrorism has not lost its importance, but now that the United States intends to become the world’s largest oil producer, the commitment of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf may not be relevant.
The decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem markedly complicated the US relationship with the Islamic world.
In recent years, the US have been rapidly losing influence in the Middle East. The revelry of the “Arab Spring” of Russia was stopped in Syria, where a whole coalition is now pushing out pro-American and terrorist groups.
Washington Lost one of the most valuable allies in the region – Ankara, as the Turkish leadership now openly opposes the US.
Even traditionally, America’s most loyal ally of Saudi Arabia, buys modern weapons from Russia. It gives a signal that the undivided influence of the States in the region came to an end.
The US itself feeds anti-Americanism.
The US Middle East strategy was simple: to seize Iraq and a number of other key countries in order to establish control over energy resources and to “pour” the world market with cheap oil, bringing down its quotes. However, the Americans got stuck in the “Middle Eastern quagmire” and the strategy failed.
President Vladimir Putin at the beginning of 2000s called the US aggression in the Middle East a mistake. Now the situation is such that every new failure pulls the next, and Washington desperately tries to keep the remnants of influence on the region “by cardinal decisions.” One example is the course on Jerusalem. There will be others. But will they lead to success? The question remains open.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *