Sometimes it’s useful to take s few steps back and try to retrace the steps to where we are today. I believe that could explain what has happened in West Asia, and what is going to happen. When the Arab League debated Iraq in 2003 Syria and Libya spoke out against intervention. Iran was in a tricky situation because after fighting off an invasion attempt from Iraq during most of the 1980’s, the regime in Tehran was not exactly thrilled about supporting Saddam Hussein, but not interested in inviting American troops next door either. But I think it’s safe to say that they didn’t support the US invasion of Iraq. Assad of Syria was especially adament that it would destabilize Iraq, and consequently Syria, as they share a long border. It turned out he was right.
When NATO-countries really want us to see the Iranian and Syrian regimes as the two biggest threats to world peace my couriosity is being aroused. Why are they dangerous to us? I’m asking because Iran has a relatively low military budget compared to other countries in the region. Saudi Arabia was the biggest spender ( $ 63.7 billion) in 2016 behind the three big ones, USA, China and Russia, which makes them the biggest military threat in the region. Iran is number 19 on the list and spent $ 12.3 billion on the military last year, which is 5.5 less than Israel. So why do Israel and the USA maintain that Iran is preparing a nuclear attack on Israel? There is no evidence for this claim, but you could probably argue that Iran, whether they have nukes or not, want to deter their enemies. Apart from the ordinary and expected verbal threats against Israel, they seem more interested in self-preservation.
“We” have been decent enough to stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now we are working on Syria. Most people can’t remember how or why the war in Syria started, so it might be useful to go back. Iran, Syria and Libya didn’t want American involvement in Iraq. Does it appear to you that we have been terribly succesful? The truth is that defense and deterrence is a threat if you have other plans. If your plan is to violate international law by replacing the regime with one that will follow your orders, then of course defense is a threat.
I think we can expect to see an attack on Iran if Syria falls. What does this tell us about the war on terror? At the very least it’s very confusing. NATO like to say that they work with moderate Muslims in Syria. These are around 1000 groups that have formed different alliances and affiliations with Al Qaida, Taliban and similar organizations. There is also evidence to suggest that NATO have been supporting ISIL because that is a way to attack the regime indirectly. I am sure there are moderate Muslims among these, but there are not enough to go around. In any case, the war on terror is crap, and I believe all the touching words about helping the children in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs and other Syrian cities are equally false.
I don’t think Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi were good men according to our standards. I am not convinced that Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad are any better, but I believe they love their countries. It’s not a governance the way we want it, but can we really offer them something better? Besides, what happened to our own democracies? It’s not exactly something I’d gladly give away as a gift to a friend.
As for Russia, I think Putin has multiple reasons for supporting the Syrian regime. He wants to keep the Russian base and an ally in West Asia, but as a leader of an old Christian culture I suspect that Putin also considers the 10 percent Christian population in Syria. I suspect he also thinks about Russia’s responsibility to maintain the balance between the powers, or to stop Western imperialism. That’s how occupied countries tend to see our interference, and I think it’s a correct perception. So if you ask what alliance is the biggest threat to world peace I am not sure the answer should be Russia, Syria and Iran.