As a result of the air strikes several dozen militants were killed and about 10 buildings were destroyed. That is, the effectiveness of the bombing was no higher than yesterday. And if you factor in the cost of the cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs that were used, and other expenses for the operation, it turns out that the destruction of one “IS” militant costs at least $1 million, if not more. Thus, in order to destroy at least a thousand terrorists, you need to spend at least $1 billion. And the army of the “Islamic State” has up to 100 thousand mujahideen. The question arises – is it worth it?
It is also clear that Washington and its Arab satellites are unlikely to carry out the daily bombing for more than two weeks. There is simply not enough ammunition.
Just like in December 1998, when Bill Clinton was able to make missile and bomb strikes on Iraq for 5 days, and then announced the “successful” completion of the operation. While in fact, 177 cruise missiles killed just over 300 people, of whom more than 100 were civilians, and only a few military-industrial complex facilities were destroyed.
Another question – how do the Pentagon’s strategists plan to liberate the city of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, if there is no ground operation? And how to liberate 40% of the territory of Iraq and 30% of the territory of Syria, which is now controlled by the forces of the “IS”? So, the entire current anti-terrorist operation is nothing more than another show-off by Washington, aimed at domestic consumption in the United States and the EU, where Obama’s shares plummeted in value after the failure of an aggressive line against Russia in Ukraine. But the Middle East is once again plunged into an international conflict. And again countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and even Jordan have been involved, which have their hands full with their own internal problems.
And as is typical, Egypt, which also participated in the meeting of John Kerry in Jeddah on September 11, did not bomb the Syrian territory. Cairo is well aware that it would put millions of ordinary Egyptians in the streets of all the major cities in Egypt. What will happen in the monarchies of Arabia, where there is even a faint whiff of democracy, but there are only repressive regimes, the radical ideology of which is not much different from the extremist ideology of the “IS”, “Dzhabgat en-Nusra”, or “al-Qaeda”.
And Turkey did not participate in the American venture, although it is a member of NATO and also participated in the meeting in Jeddah. Ankara understands that the flow of refugees, the Kurds of Syria and Iraq, fleeing from the air strikes across the border, will dramatically increase the number of refugees from these two countries that are already situated in the country.
Moreover, the Kurdish question in Turkey is extremely sensitive, given that Kurds make up a third of the population of this country, and many of them adhere to the separatist positions, including the radical wing manifested in the Kurdistan Workers Party, which has now directed its fighters to help the troops of the Iraqi Peshmerge and the Syrian Kurdish militias.
Even close NATO allies of the United States in Europe, especially Britain and France, are in no hurry to take part in the bombing of Syrian territory, as opposed to air strikes in Iraq, fearing consequences of terrorism for themselves in their own territory. Indeed, many IS fighters are of British or French origin, and at any time may return home and take revenge on London and Paris in the form of major terrorist attacks. And more than 10% of the population of these countries are immigrants from Arab and Islamic countries, often professing radical sentiments. In addition, any participation in military operations is expensive, and even with Ukraine Europeans are not possibly finished. And France has the weakest link directly in the region – Lebanon, where Islamists can at any time attack the French and their local appointees. By the way, Israel is acting prudently, silently watching the scene. In contrast to Washington, London, and Paris, Tel Aviv is located directly in the Middle East, and it has its own problems with the Palestinians.
In any case, the Americans have ignited a new conflict in the region, jeopardizing the stability of their partners in the GCC through their involvement in the military air operations on Syrian territory. In Saudi Arabia, the regime “breathes incense”, and then there are still its foreign policy adventures. Since at the moment, on the southern borders of the kingdom a coup took place: In Yemen the Shiite Houthis, aligned with Iran, came to power. But on the border with Yemen there are millions of Yemenis, whose tribes are based on Saudi territory, but who support Houthis.
And Bahrain has not intervened whatsoever, given that two-thirds of its population is composed of Shiites supported by Iran, ready at any moment to overthrow the ruling Sunni royal family Al Khalifa. Three years ago, it became necessary to send Saudi troops to the island to rescue the Sunni government.
And Qatar is again involved in this adventure, although only one and a half years ago, the same Saudis there replaced the Emir and his prime minister due to their overly active steps to support terrorist organizations such as “Dzhabgat en-Nusra”, which disgraced Islam with its brutal cruelty in Syria.
The actions of the United States and the Arab countries will cause Iraq great suffering. The “IS” already has plans for an offensive against Baghdad, the capture of which would mean a victory over Washington for ISIL.
And from this Russia would also lose, given our huge economic interests in the country, especially in the oil sector.
With this approach by Obama, the war with the Islamists will drag on for many years, 3-5 years at least.
Iraq for a long time will not be able to restore oil production and exports, being in a state of permanent instability and war. The northern Iraqi fields will generally work for the terrorists who captured them and are exporting smuggled oil to neighboring countries in the amount of $3 million per day..
There is one more thing: setting a precedent. Once, without a UN Security Council resolution and the consent of the Government of Syria, the Americans and their satellites in the region can bomb terrorist positions in Syrian territory, the Syrian Air Force now has the precedent to be able to bomb training camps of the anti-Assad opposition in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other countries, insofar as this entire opposition is composed of terrorist groups. And other countries are quite legally able to conduct air strikes against illegal armed groups, such as the private “battalions” of Kolomoiskiy consisting of mercenaries and extremists, in the event of a failure of the truce between Kiev and Novorossiya. After all, on September 23 Washington finally buried all the rules of international law as regards respect for the sovereignty of foreign countries enshrined in the UN Charter.
In short, the United States let the genie out of the bottle and will not be able to get him back in unless it seeks the help of Russia and Iran. Without Moscow, no sort of international anti-terrorist coalition can be created, as without Tehran and its land forces the IS cannot be defeated.
No wonder even the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted the possibility of a ground operation against ISIL militants not be excluded. “If you’re not willing to fight with these people on the ground, you can contain them, but you cannot beat them.” said the politician on September 23 in an interview with BBC. According to Blair, air strikes on militant positions, which are now being executed by the US Air Force, is not enough. The former Prime Minister stressed that the West has “no appetite” for ground operations, and Iraqi authorities are unable to cope with the situation. According to Blair, with the help of air strikes the power of the militants may be undermined, but at some point the necessary tactical measure must be “someone’s boots on the ground”. “I’m not saying that we in the West should do it. It would be better if it was done by people who are closer to the scene and have a direct interest in the victory over them (that is, the militants)”.
The allusion to Iran and other regional countries is patently obvious. If Washington, for fear of losing face, does not want to listen to Moscow, then perhaps it makes sense to listen to Blair, who led Britain during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and in Afghanistan? Oh, he did not advise the poor Americans.
Peter Lvov, Ph.D in political science, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
