US intervention in Syria could be a tipping point

It is just over two weeks now since the United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian government airfield. The US move was in response to a chemical weapons attack on Syrian citizens that had launched from the same airfield just two days earlier. The images of innocent children and civilians whose lives were brutally cut short by their own leader left many across the globe aghast.

Notable in this deeply impacted group was US President Donald Trump, who made a 180-degree shift in policy from his campaign rhetoric of abstaining from getting involved in such conflicts. While many across the US political spectrum viewed the response favourably, many of his most strident campaign supporters were deeply upset, viewing the military activity as a broken promise to stay out of new conflicts in the rest of the world.

In the weeks since the missile strike, the international community has been abuzz as to what it means and how the elaborate chess game is going to play out in Syria and across the Middle East — a region that has long been a concern and priority for US foreign policy. We don’t yet know what this means for Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s stranglehold on power. Likewise, we don’t know if Syria will forcefully respond, or whether the US will pursue further interventions.

What we do know, however, is that much of the official concern in the United States has come from politicians, and this is similarly the case in the Middle East. Syria’s chemical attack caused a political and humanitarian outrage in the region, not only because of the mass human suffering, but also because nearly everyone believed that Syria’s chemical arsenal had been depleted years ago when the United States and Russia reached an agreement to strip Al Assad of these brutal weapons of mass destruction. We now know, it seems, that the world had been hoodwinked.

The outrage and concern has not ended with political leaders, as the business community in the Middle East has concerns of its own. Businesses headquartered or operating within the region need stability in order to flourish and prosper, and as we have seen countless times throughout history, any external intervention threatens the established status quo and carries the risk of upsetting what the world knows is a very delicate balance.

This is a balance that the United States had played an active role in maintaining for decades. In recent years, however, as the US has refocused its priorities, it largely chose not to act, and, for the most part, withdrew from the region. With the spread of paralegal militias undermining states, Iran trying to become a regional power, and Russia attempting to fill the vacuum caused by the US pullout, the United States’ role as an agent of balance was absent at a time when it was needed most.

Thus, instability abounds. This has not only affected the influx of foreign direct investment (FDI), but it has also driven away local investments that are sorely needed for businesses to grow.

Here in Dubai and across the region, the reaction to US action in Syria was highly welcomed as it was not only justified from a moral perspective, but it was also seen as harbinger that US policy with regards to the region may be shifting back to its fundamentals.

Make no mistake: this is a positive contribution toward security and peace across the Middle East. With commentary from the Trump administration and across the region focused on speculation that Al Assad’s rule is coming to an end, there is much at stake with this perhaps forced transition of power. Al Assad is not expected to go that easily, but it looks like go he will — one way or another.

Syria has been a headline issue, but the fact that the shift in US policy may be a prime opportunity to further the goals of peace — with regards to Iraq, Iran, Yemen and other countries of concern to the US — has received far less coverage. There remains a nagging fear that US intervention could escalate, but on the whole, business leaders are hopeful that the goals will now shift towards calming things down and putting in place constructive dialogue that will, at long last, yield fruitful results.

In order to do this, however, the business community needs to see US foreign policy toward the region crystallising into a clear policy with regard to regional issues. The world needs to see a clear and balanced strategy, not just one that reacts to horrifying local events, and in so doing, the US can help to drive change by showing it is committed to serious long-term and big-picture action.

While the White House is facing issues from both the right and the left, and is taking on the challenges posed by both Russia and Syria, the Middle East is embracing the possibility of security and stability. It remains to be seen whether US action in Syria was a one-off event or part of an ongoing strategy. But it has been encouraging to the business community that the Trump administration seems more willing, for the time being, to resume its traditionally active role in calming long simmering tensions.

This is a net win. In a long unstable region, more stability will yield more prosperity. The mere possibility that recent US intervention may be a tipping point toward peace is, we hope, going to play out as a step in the right direction, and not just a short-sighted reaction.

Dr Habib Al Mulla is a Dubai-based attorney, specialising in arbitration. He created the concept of financial free zones in the UAE and was the architect of the legal framework establishing the Dubai International Financial Centre.