Risks are too great to ask the question – why should the US get involved in the faraway Syria’s conflict at all? By no stretch of imagination could such an operation be considered a move to enhance US and West’s security.
What happened in Syria on April 7 had been expected. While raising hue and cry over the alleged chemical attack in Douma, a rebel-held suburb of the capital, Western officials and media wasted no time to put the blame on the Assad government.
The efforts applied so far by Russia, Turkey and Syria will go down the drain. This time the US will not be alone to have substantial presence on the ground. It’s hard to imagine that the French forces arrived in Syria could be anything but the start of broader NATO presence with other members of the bloc to follow the French example.
No, it’s not a return to George Kennan and his containment policy. It looks more like a slow strangulation, with mounting pressure everywhere.
It looks like we now have another actor getting involved in Syria by putting boots on the ground. On March 29, French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to send troops to Manbij in support of the US-led Syrian Democratic Forces and block Turkish advances into the region.
35 years ago, Ronald Reagan unveiled his space-wars program to intercept and destroy incoming missiles and other weapons for battling in this new domain. It never came to fruition, as the technology that existed at that time was insufficiently advanced to meet the requirements. But times change.
EU foreign ministers have expressed solidarity with the UK but failed to take the final step. They have fallen short of offering their unanimous support for the allegations that Russia was behind the Salisbury spy poisoning.
Washington’s plan includes the goal of partitioning Syria in such a way that a large chunk of it would remain under the control of the US-led coalition. The Americans are already assembling municipal councils on the lands east of the Euphrates River.
Today America’s maneuverability in Syria is very much constrained. It has no vested interest in that country. Losing Incirlik significantly weakens its military capabilities in the region. It could be an ominous sign warning that there may be graver consequences yet to face.
North Korea's nuclear program is being adroitly used by Tokyo as a pretext for militarization that will threaten Russia and China. While the global media “cry wolf” over Iran's and N. Korea’s nuclear programs, they are surprisingly quiet when it comes to nuclear capability Japan could acquire in just one year.
