Foreign Policy Diary -
Escalation in Syria leads to a global war

The recent developments show a significant change in the strategies of the Western countries involved in the Syrian conflict. The US has sent ground forces including special operations units into the region.

French Air Force has sharply increased its number of sorties, and France's rapid reaction troops and naval units are being moved closer to Syria.

The United Kingdom has also begun to participate in the US-led anti-ISIS coalition strikes on Syrian soil.

Likewise, Germany has begun to deploy its aircraft and is relocating almost 1,200 quick-reaction troops to the Syria-Iraq battlefield.

Turkey is deploying a large military attack force, including a number of armored units at the border with Syria.

It seems that NATO powers have realized the strategy aimed at Asad's ousting by a diverse range of militant groups, including ISIS which is backed by Turkey and the US, has failed.

According to the initial scenario, created by the West, ISIS and other militant groups - deceptively called the 'moderate opposition' - were to carry out a Libya-like scenario in Syria, and oust or preferably kill, Asad and plunge the whole country into chaos.

Then the US-led coalition would start a fullscale military operation to stop the terrorists threatening the moderate opposition in Syria, deploy NATO forces on the ground, and take control of the crucial oil and logistic infrastructure.

Western oil corporations, supported by NATO, would then restore the state of affairs as it existed more than forty years ago. Syria would fall victim to total exploitation by overseas powers, the Mediterranean would become the alliance's internal lake.

Now it's clear that Syria won't fall under terrorist group pressure.

The Syrian forces, backed by Russian and Iran are gaining momentum, recapturing cities and facilities earlier controlled by militants.

The NATO allies urgently need a new plan to hold control at least of the northern oil corridior from Iraq and try to take advantage of this opportunity to involve Russia in a long, expensive war. In other words to accomplish that which they failed to do in the Ukraine.

It means that the military contingent must occupy crucial infrastructure, including oil fields, before the Syrian government forces liberate it.

Anti-government, meaning anti-Russian and anti-Iranian forces, would be established in parts of divided Syria.

The need for an excuse to implement the changed approach could be the reason the November 13th Paris attacks weren't prevented by Western security services.

The implication of the Western plans to divide Syria into a number of vassal entities leads to three main scenarios:

  1. Military buildup and escalation in the region could lead to open military conflict between NATO and the alternative anti-ISIS coalition tha t is led by Russia.

    This regional conflict could easily lead to a global war.

    Moreover Turkey, a NATO member state, has already shown that it is ready to escalate the situation to defend its illegal oil businesses linked with ISIS.

  2. If the Syrian Arab Army, with support [of] their militia forces, Iran and Russia, [yet] isn't able to show significant success on the battlefield, Syria could easily be divided by the Western-backed ground forces supported by NATO airpower and intelligence assets.

    Direct military intervention to take control of the oil structure and crucial logistic points also remains possible. Even if NATO and allies successfully take control of a significant part of the country, this escalation is unlikely to be avoided.

    The situation will become more acute due to the establishment of an aggressive puppet regime on Syria's territory.

    Considering that the alternative anti-ISIS coalition won't lay down its arms, an open conflict could easily be provoked by the interested powers.

  3. If the Syrian government forces, supported by Russia and Iran, take control of the country's key areas the US-led coalition will face the fact that Syria is de facto liberated from terrorist groups.

    That could prevent a direct military intervention by NATO.

    In this case, the NATO countries would strengthen their presence in Iraq and use it as a foothold to launch further destructive actions against Syria. However, it's the safest scenario, most likely to avoid a global escalation.