US-Led Strikes On Isis In Syria Have Opened A New Middle East Battlefront
Involvement of Sunni nations, in defiance of Shia Iran and its Syrian ally, could expand Syria-Iraq conflict across region
Simon Tisdall
The Guardian, Tuesday 23 September 2014 08.41 EDT
By taking the fight to Islamic State (Isis) militants in Syria, Barack Obama has opened up a broad new Middle East battlefront – and started something that, by his own admission, he cannot finish. The US president warned this month that his vow to “degrade and destroy” Isis would take years to achieve. Obama’s successor in the White House is now likely to inherit, as did Obama in 2009, an ongoing, costly and intractable Middle East conflict.
The intervention is highly significant in several other respects. Obama has stepped into the middle of Syria’s civil war after three years of resolutely striving to keep out. The possible consequences of this volte-face are unfathomable. The scale of Tuesday’s attack, involving fighter bombers, drones and sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, represented a major escalation compared with the more limited strikes on Isis in Iraq since August. Obama’s action was triggered by fears of an imminent massacre of Syrian Kurds, who fled in large numbers across the Turkish border last weekend in the face of Isis attacks.
But it is clear joint military planning with Arab allies has been under way for some time: John Kerry, secretary of state, visited the Gulf earlier this month to coordinate preparations. The direct involvement of Sunni Muslim-led Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, in defiance of Shia Muslim Iran and its Syrian ally, potentially expands the Syria-Iraq conflict into a region-wide struggle.
The US-led air strikes in Syria raise other key questions:
Legality
The legality of any western or foreign military action in Syria, present and future, is of paramount importance, given the still controversial history of the 2003 Iraq intervention when the US and Britain acted without UN authorisation.
Unlike the Iraqi government, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has not requested outside assistance in fighting Isis. American officials admit Assad’s permission was not sought, although the regime was informed of the air strikes in advance. The UN security council has not sanctioned military action, nor given Russia’s hostility is it likely to. On the other hand, under international law, UN members have a “responsibility to protect” groups of civilians, such as the Syrian Kurds, when their lives are imminently threatened. The US maintains Assad is no longer a legitimate leader following his alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians, a position echoed by Britain’s David Cameron. But this view is legally dubious.
more...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/us-strikes-isis-syria-new-battlefront
= new reply since forum marked as read
