After raising international tensions to new heights, it now seems that Israel and the United States are going to postpone a direct attack upon Iran until next year, aiming to get elections in both countries out of the way and to give sanctions against Iran a last chance to work. However, the proxy war against Iran in strife-torn Syria seems likely to be intensified once the US presidential elections are over in early November.
Both US presidential candidates have made it clear that some action must be taken soon about the civil war in Syria. The warlike Mitt Romney, should he win the election, has virtually promised an American invasion of Syria. However, he would not formally take up office until early next year, so he could not exercise his powers as American commander-in-chief until then.
A re-elected President Obama could act much sooner. He would no doubt like to repeat America's arms-length role in securing victory for the anti-Gaddafi insurgents in Libya in 2011. This would mean imposing an air and sea blockade and deploying special forces to assist the local rebels. This strategy worked against the friendless Gaddafi regime in Libya, but it seems less likely to bring a swift and cheap victory over President Assad in Syria, given his close support from Iran.
The United States would obviously like its NATO ally Turkey to carry out any direct military intervention in Syria if that is required. However, the Turkish government has clearly stated that it will only authorize a military invasion if it receives open and substantial assistance from those NATO states which have talked most loudly in favour of outside intervention in Syria, namely the United States, Britain, and France (the former colonial power in Syria).
Turkey has already lost one warplane to Syria's air defences. It will expect support from other NATO air forces and particularly that of the United States. Whether by accident or design, Britain, France, and the United States will all have amphibious task forces in the eastern Mediterranean in the next month or so. Will this be an opportunity for British, French and American marines to storm ashore on Syria's Mediterranean coastline?
If this is the NATO plan, it seems extremely foolish. One of the areas of strongest support for President Assad's regime is along Syria's Mediterranean coastline, where so many of his fellow Alawites live. Even with the distraction of a Turkish land invasion to the north, Syrian government forces may well be able to put up considerable resistance to a NATO amphibious assault.
Another problem with Syria's Mediterranean coast is that it is home to Russia's only overseas military base - the naval facility at the port of Tartus. So far Russia has given much support to President Assad's regime, albeit mostly in the dipolmatic sphere. Would Russia move to direct military aid if NATO threatened to invade Syria? This seems unlikely. Despite Russia's supposed military revival during the Putin years, it remains incapable of any serious overseas power projection. In 1999 the Russians let down their Serb friends when they were the victims of NATO air attacks; in 2012 it seems unlikely the Russians will do anything very different if a NATO assault is launched against Assad's forces in Syria.
If Russia remains powerless in the Syrian crisis, what will Israel do? Although the Israelis almost reached Damascus in both the wars of 1967 and 1973, it seems unlikely that they will mount a direct invasion of Syria at the moment. Nevertheless an Israeli military build-up in the occupied Golan Heights would no doubt be useful to distract President Assad's forces while NATO operations took place on Syria's northern borders. Already the Syrian civil war is spreading into neighbouring Lebanon, and that is one area where Israel might be ready to intervene. It will hope to crush Hezbollah, friends of both Assad and Iran, more effectively than it did when it attacked Lebanon in 2006.
One would have thought that after more than a decade of ineffectual but costly combat in Afghanistan, NATO countries would have grown tired of launching wars in Islamic states. Apparently not. No doubt encouraged by the supposed NATO victory in Libya in 2011, the alliance seems ready to plunge into a new conflict in Syria without having the slightest idea where it will lead. NATO countries are said to be democracies, but neither Turkey, Britain, France nor the United States have any mandate from their electorates to initiate a new war in the Muslim world.
