Moscow’s and Washington’s contradictory strategies in fighting terrorism in the Middle East

The decision by Russia (September 30) to send its jet fighters to bomb terrorists in Syria and its alliance with Iran and Iraq to share intelligence information about terrorism has surprised Washington which tactically altered its grand design for the Middle East. Logically, such a decision should be a welcome development for Washington. Instead, Washington has strongly denounced Russia and has presented its attempt as a threat to U.S. interests in the region.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter has warned that Russia’s campaign in Syria is certainly “doomed to fail” and “It will only pour gasoline on the civil war of Syria.” The reason, according to the Washington Post (October 5), is that the extremist groups, mostly foreign, have suffered greatly. The Post states, “A group of 41 rebel brigades, including Islamist battalions and many of those who have received U.S. backing, issued an appeal for help Monday from their Arab allies to counter the Russian intervention, which they called “a clear invasion of the country.”’

Most of these extremists, including the Salafist Ahrar al-Sham, Jeash Al Fatah, Suqour al-Jabal, Tajamu al-Izza, etc., have received help in the form of weapons and training provided by the United States and its allies (Washington Post, Oct. 5). These groups have routinely altered their names as deemed necessary by their sponsors (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey). Nevertheless, these extremists have consistently worked closely with al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra and even ISIS.

The Wall Street Journal (August 2, 2015) reported that President Barack Obama has authorized using air power to defend what the White House calls moderate armed forces in Syria if they are “attacked by Syrian government forces or other groups, raising the risk of the American military coming into direct conflict with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.” At the same time, the New York Times (Sept 26) reported about “30,000 foreign recruits have now poured into Syria, many to join the Islamic State.” These recruits were organized by the same countries that are allied with Washington.

AlMaydeen TV of Lebanon reported (October 4, 2015) that Turkey recruited thousands of terrorists from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechenia, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, among others, and sent them into Syria to join ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. In the meantime, 52 influential Saudi religious scholars have called upon followers to “give all moral, material, political and military” support to what they term a jihad, or holy war, against Syria’s government and its Iranian and Russian backers” (Reuters, October 5).

Politicians in the West and self-proclaimed experts claim that Russia’s decision to interfere militarily in Syria is a rekindling of the Cold War and that Russia has imperialist motives. These critics ignore the fact that in the early stage of the protest in Syria, the U.S. ambassador, Robert Ford, in 2011, had several meetings with numerous groups and traveled to other cities in Syria to incite protests against the Syrian regime (Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2011; Christian Science Monitor 2011). Furthermore, Washington has established operation rooms in both Turkey and Jordan, in coordination with the intelligence agencies of these countries and Israel’s Mossad.

The aggressive attempt by Washington to change the regime in Syria and to destabilize Iraq and Libya should not be viewed merely as a colonial plan. Rather, it must be viewed in the context of the prevailing culture in Washington. In the last few decades, Washington has been primarily dominated by elite groups who are either blindly committed to Israel’s views and the necessity to place America’s superior military at the service of Israel, the neoconservatives, or a group whose members benefit from the oil and or weapons industries. This group advocates the interests of Saudi Arabia and supported its decision in 2006 to replace the Syrian government after the latter declined to ask Lebanese resistance forces to repel Israeli aggression against their country.

Both groups have been incredibly adept at silencing those who put the interests of the U.S. ahead of foreign countries. These groups not only aggressively promote their agendas but have been effective in shaping Washington’s culture. In recent months, both the Israeli lobby, including neoconservatives, and that of the oil and weapon industries have joined forces to get the White House and Congress behind their design, especially for Iraq and Syria.

Probably, these groups have no regard for the American foundation and principles promoted by the Founding Fathers. In his farewell address, George Washington warned of the rise of “ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country.” However, neither the public nor current politicians heed the instructions of the Founding Fathers as Washington has become infested with neoconservatism and greed. Indeed, it has become abnormal for any politician not to follow the dictates of the neoconservatives and the oil and weapons lobbyists. For this very reason, the Middle East has been destabilized and the situation there, politically and economically, will become even worse without a profound change in Washington’s culture.

In fact, regional experts have made a persuasive argument that the majority of people in Syria and Iraq have become increasingly doubtful about Washington’s seriousness in fighting terrorism and have cheered the Russian decision to bomb terrorists’ locations (Al Mustagila, Feb. 17, Sotaliraq, Sept. 29). After years of suffering and setbacks, these people have reached the conclusion that once Washington gets its hands on any Arab country, that country experiences perpetual chaos and it becomes impossible for it to regain its health in any foreseeable future.

For years, the U.S. has claimed that it is fighting terrorism in the region. However, terrorism has thrived and become a potent force in destabilizing many states and in deepening the fragmentation and destruction of these countries. Does this mean Washington’s strategy is ill conceived? This is a practical question that needs a thoughtful answer. Strategies are drawn up to achieve certain objectives. Both Moscow and Washington have different objectives in the context of terrorism in the Middle East.

Russia, since Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, has dramatically experienced a decline of its global influence and the West has gradually added many of its republics and allies to NATO. Furthermore, both Gorbachev and Yeltsin relinquished Russia’s influence in the Middle East. President Putin has tirelessly resisted NATO’s incursion in what used to be part of Russia’s sphere of influence. More importantly, he has strategically looked at the extremists from Russian and Central Asian countries who were led to fight in Syria and Iraq as immediate destabilizing forces for Russia and instruments of its fragmentation. His belated action in Syria is thought to be a strategic move to prevent widespread terrorism in Russia and to make a point that terrorism is a threat to every country.

Washington, on the other hand, has viewed events in the Middle East through an Israeli lens. The objectives are to ensure Israeli superiority and protect the ruling family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Elites in Washington regard stability in the region and prosperity of the people as an immediate threat to aforementioned objectives. Therefore, Washington’s elite view controlled conflicts, perpetual instability, social unrest, sectarianism, and totalitarianism as instruments to keep people in the region in chronic chaos and perpetual disorientation.

While Moscow’s and Washington’s strategies are contradictory, the people in the region seek to end their misery and bloodshed immediately. For them, silence about their tragedies is unacceptable and indifference toward their ordeals is indicative of a tacit participation in the ongoing genocide. These people have reached a conclusion that Washington is on the wrong side of history and, given its prevalent culture, Washington is not a serious actor in fighting terrorism in the Middle East.

Abbas J. Ali is Professor of Management, Eberly College of Business and IT, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.