“We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace”
This was the famous sentence used by Obama in his speech at the United Nations – quoting the prominent Muslim Scholar Bin Bayyah - to justify renewed American intervention in the Middle East.
However this quote is far from reality, as the outcome desired by the US is nothing related to peace. While the US rallies the international community to form a coalition to target terrorism in Iraq and Syria, represented by the Islamic State (IS), Jabhat Al-Nusra or even the American discovery, Khorasan group, it is apparent that the main target is to preserve the hegemonic American structure in the Middle East.
The recent American intervention started when IS stunned the world transforming itself from a radical militant group, active in Syria (where there are plenty of militant groups) and in Iraq, to a functional body controlling vast areas in both countries, but most importantly threatening the US dominated power structure in the region.
American airstrikes started promptly when IS threatened the Kurdish Regional Government, where the Peshmerga proved inefficient in stopping the persistent march of IS. The US claims that its intervention was mainly to save the Yezidis minority from an imminent genocide by IS.
For over three years, the US silently witnessed a continuous massacre committed by Assad’s regime against its own people. Assad’s regime, despite not being as pro-American as the Kurdish one, nor Israeli friendly like many other regimes in the region, still plays an important role in the hegemonic structure of the region, for which the US has no alternative.
Despite all the horrific atrocities his regime committed, Assad proved to be making more noise than posing an actual threat to the US regionally. This also explains the American rejection of the Turkish proposal to include the Assad regime as a part of a grand strategy to eliminate terrorism and the environment that creates it.
While the US airstrikes proved effective in halting the IS march towards Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, it let the Syrian town of Kobane become a field of mini-Stalingrad style confrontation between IS and the PKK-affiliated YPG. The target was to blackmail Turkey to intervene in the fight and be part of the American strategy to destroy and degrade IS.
While many in the world were crying for Kobane and blaming Turkey for allegedly allowing the barbarians to encroach on the city, nobody seems to care about the hell unleashed by Assad's jets throwing barrel bombs on Aleppo, Daraa or Hama.
'Syria has many Kobanis. What will happen to Aleppo, Latakia, Turkmen and other people after Kobane is saved?'
This question was asked by the Turkish President Erdogan and remains unanswered, as the US along with its coalition restricted the fight to what threatens the rulers of the Erbil, Damascus or Baghdad regimes and not what threatens the people.
Nobody questioned the US polices that support Maliki and turned a blind eye to his repressive sectarian practices, qualifying him for the “Shiite Saddam” title for practices that led to the alienation of Sunni Muslims, leaving them to choose between the sectarian Iraqi army and ISIS militia men.
IS was created by lack of justice, dignity and governance. Instead of tackling these root issues, the US chose to target the outcomes through brutal terrorism to maintain its hegemonic power structure in the region.
Contrary to what many observers believe, the US is completely aware of this complex situation which is not just limited to Syria and Iraq, but to the whole region.
In Egypt, the US favored the continuity of the Mubarak regime, even without Mubarak himself. Despite some diplomatic condemnations, it seems that Washington is welcoming the obliteration of hope for Egyptian democracy by installing a military-backed government through a coup.
While Egyptian university students demonstrating for freedom were being shot, Kerry was posing with the same security forces responsible and endorsing Egypt’s transition to democracy under the rule of the army generals. The same can be seen in Palestine, Yemen and Libya.
With growing instability in the Middle East, it is clear that the favorable conditions for terrorism will continue, especially if we add the term “state terrorism” to the vague definition of terrorism that revolves around threats to western interests.
However, the US’ favored choice of using military tactics and airstrikes to face violence, and terrorism to maintain its hegemonic power structure in the region at whatever price, proves that there is no value for the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.