“This would involve killing Russian troops”

Welche Ziele verfolgen die USA mit ihren Drohungen gegen Syrien und Russland? Und wie sehen die militärischen Optionen aus? Drei Texte aus dem transatlantischen Establishment geben Aufschluss.

Fangen wir mit den Zielen an. Auf Fox-News stellt der demokratische(!) Ex-Senator Lieberman seine Vision der Lage in Syrien dar. Interessanterweise dient ihm die Krise um Duma nur als Vorwand für viel weitergehende Ziele: den Iran auszuschalten.

Any meaningful counter-Iran policy must start in Syria. Despite the difficulty of the situation, the United States does have options.

The first and easiest thing the United States can do is to ensure that no territory controlled by its partner forces is handed over to the pro-Assad coalition.

As well as providing a geographic break in Iran’s “arc of control” – as new National Security Adviser John Bolton has called it – the U.S.-underwritten zone in eastern Syria contains important resources. These include oil that would allow Iran to stabilize its presence in the country and perhaps even make a profit from it. This must be prevented.

Interessant dabei der Verweis auf den neuen Trump-Berater Bolton. Der Mann ist für seine “strategische Weitsicht” bekannt…

Der nächste Text kommt von der Crisis Group, einem internationalen Thinktank von Sicherheitsexperten. Er räumt offen ein, dass es bisher keine klaren Beweise – ja nicht einmal klare Anschuldigungen – in Sachen Chemiewaffen gibt.

So far, no international party has said definitively or presented conclusive evidence that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons use.

Dennoch stellt sich die Crisis Group (wie üblich) hinter die USA und Frankreich – denn dem Assad-Regime sei alles zuzutrauen:

While the lack of access makes it difficult to immediately verify, chemical weapons use would be consistent with past behaviour by the Syrian government. The government has repeatedly employed chlorine and, more infrequently, sarin gas against areas under rebel control, as documented by nonpartisan international bodies such as the United Nations-established Joint Investigative Mechanism and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Chemical attacks fit within a broader strategy the government has used of targeting civilians and fighters alike in rebel-held areas. Through brutal means, this strategy renders these areas highly dangerous and ultimately unlivable, permitting no viable alternative to government control.

Im dritten Text geht es um die militärischen Optionen. Er kommt aus einem britischen Thinktank, der sich auf Militärfragen spezialisiert hat. Hier zitiere ich nur die düstere Conclusion:

When all is said and done, the US, France and potentially the UK have the means to undertake another round of symbolic but ultimately ineffective strikes using standoff weapons against Assad’s airbases and potentially weapons storage areas. However, this is unlikely to affect the regime’s determination or ability to continue its military efforts to crush the opposition using urban sieges, massive bombardments and chemical weapons.

A larger effort to annihilate the Syrian air force or even the regime’s ability to continue the war effectively would require a large-scale air campaign which could be only conducted if it involved the suppression – by force – of the Syrian air defence network and possibly the Russian military’s air defences. This would by necessity involve killing Russian troops and, for this reason, is an extremely dangerous and unlikely course of action.