Will US attack IS in Syria?

For American senior officials, the beheading of the American journalist James Foley is a game changer. All of a sudden, American officials began to consider attacking the Islamic State (IS) inside Syria. Both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey made it perfectly clear that it would be hard to defeat the IS’ rampage without going after the radicals in Syria.
Since the start of the Syrian revolution, the American administration failed to take the initiative and act timely. The lead-from-behind strategy was a smoke screen that concealed the fact that US President Barack Obama was both hesitant and with no strategy. More often than not, Obama dismissed his critics who insisted that arming the Syrian opposition would have made a difference in the war on Assad and his regime. American inaction was a strong message to Iran and Russia to continue helping Assad regime.
Not a while ago, the former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford heavily criticized the administration’s Syrian policy. Ambassador Ford was reported to have said, “We have been unable to address either the root causes of the conflict in terms of the fighting on the ground and the balance on the ground, and we have a growing extremism threat.”
Indeed, Ford resigned because he could no longer defend the American “behind the curve” strategy in Syria.
And yet, President Obama is now under pressure. After three years of avoiding Syria, it seems that the administration cannot stand idly by while the IS rampage continues unchecked. All along, Obama’s decisions have been shaped by his insistence not to involve his country in armed clashes in the Middle East. Even in the face of the growing threat in both Iraq and Syria, Obama maintained the mantra that there would be no boots on the ground. If anything, Obama’s position and his weak image have emboldened the radicals to grow. Many of Obama’s critics could make the case that Obama’s hesitant policy contributed to no small amount to IS’ growth and expansion.
With the execution of James Foley, the American president finds himself being dragged into a military action in Syria. A few days ago, the Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes insinuated that the administration was considering attacking IS’ targets inside Syria. In fact, the US is already gathering information and intelligence on the location of IS leadership in Syria.
It is not yet clear if the US will coordinate with the Syrian regime. Both Hegel and Dempsey talked about the need to have a broad-based approach that also includes establishing a regional and international alliance to defeat the IS. To be sure, Assad is happy to see the US struggling against the IS. Perhaps, he would not mind an American strike against them in Syria. But Assad may ask for a political concession on the part of the American administration. Of course, Assad has played up the terrorism card in the past. And now, he seeks to reap the benefits of dragging America in the fight against the IS.
Assad is not oblivious of the fact that he is pretty much loathed in the West and in the region. But his fight is not to earn love and affection. He seeks to present his regime as the lesser of the two evils and a possible ally against terrorists.
The most recent developments in Iraq have changed the calculations of many players, the US included. Although Obama has long resisted being involved in the Syrian crisis, the beheading of James Folly provided a new pretext for an intervention in Syria. But the possible military intervention in Syria will not be designed to punish the Syrian regime and his troops but to cripple the IS. Of course, this will benefit Assad’s regime and will tip the balance of forces in in Syria in Assad’s favor.
—
Email: hbarari@gmail.com