«Both parties, writes The Wall Street Journal about major us parties, entertained the hope that the US can defeat Islamic state, deviating from the broader conflict in Syria, but now we find out that it is probably impossible. American F-18 shot down a Syrian bomber on Sunday to protect American allies, fighting ISIS, and on Monday, Russia and Iran in response has threatened to shoot down American planes».
The risk of escalation is real, but it’s not the collision, which the United States can easily afford, it said in an editorial. Assad and his supporters in Moscow and Tehran know that the days of ISIS control over Raqqa in Syria are numbered. They wish to assert control over the largest possible territory, and it means to break the US-backed «Democratic forces of Syria» (SDF), argue the authors.
«In this predicament the United States has put President Obama: his renunciation of Syria gave an opportunity to Putin to intervene. If the United States established a no-fly or some other safe area to protect refugees, the Kremlin may have behaved more cautious,» – says the WSJ.
Trump is the candidate supported the idea of safe zones for refugees and opposition forces, however, showed no interest to the larger strategic goal than the victory over the IG. It is time to think about it, calls the publication, «because Syria, Russia and Iran know what they want».
«Assad wants to regain control of the whole of Syria, not a country divided into Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish parts. Iran wants a Shiite sphere of influence from Tehran to Beirut. Putin satisfied the Mediterranean port and a demonstration that Russia guarantees the support of its allies, unlike America. But all this is contrary to the national interests of the United States,» reads the article.
The WSJ says: «the Alternative for US is to show that Assad, Iran and Russia will pay dearly for his ambitions.» «We expect that Russia wants to participate in military action with the United States not more than the United States with Russia, but Russia will continue to insist on the benefit, if trump will show more firmness than his predecessor.»