 |
| Foto: |
Idea of a "NATO Base in Damascus" is Highly Improbable
VISTORBELITUNG.COM,International relations in the Middle East are undergoing a major transformation. With the gradual withdrawal of the United States from its role as regional policeman and the growing influence of Russia and China, a power vacuum has emerged. In this vacuum, regional powers like Iran and Turkey have expanded their influence, while global powers like Russia have established a deep military foothold in Syria, especially since 2015.
The European Union (EU), with France as its most vocal military and diplomatic leader, views these developments with profound anxiety. Stability in the Middle East has a direct impact on European security, from terrorism and energy to refugee flows. Therefore, the discourse on enhancing Europe's role in the region is increasingly prominent.
Why the Idea of a "NATO Base in Damascus" is Highly Improbable
Although interesting to discuss, this proposal faces nearly insurmountable challenges:
1. Sovereignty and Legitimacy of the Syrian Government: Damascus is the capital of Syria, controlled by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Russia is Assad's most important military and political ally. Establishing a NATO base in his capital would require the approval of a regime protected by Russia a virtually impossible scenario. It would be seen as a declaration of war against the legitimate Syrian government and its allies.
2. Direct Confrontation with Russia: Russia has a significant airbase at Khmeimim and a naval base in Tartus. Stationing NATO troops just kilometers away from Russian bases would create an extremely dangerous flashpoint, similar to the situation on the NATO-Russia border in Eastern Europe, but with a much higher risk of escalation and unclear rules of engagement.
3. The Positions of China and Iran: China has major economic interests in the region (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) and would strongly oppose any action that disrupts stability. Iran, which has proxy militias throughout Syria, would view a NATO base as an existential threat to its axis of resistance.
4. Divisions within NATO and the EU: Such a proposal would never achieve consensus among the 32 NATO member states. Countries like Germany, Hungary, or Turkey would most likely reject such a provocative plan. It would also trigger a crisis within the EU, where many countries favor a more cautious foreign policy.
5. The Security Situation on the Ground: Syria remains a fragmented conflict zone. Protecting a NATO base from attacks by Iran-backed militias or jihadist groups would require an enormous commitment of troops and resources.
The Real Ambitions of France and the EU: Seeking Influence Through Other Means
Although a base in Damascus is fictional, the ambition of France and the EU to become a "key player" in the Middle East is real. They are seeking to achieve it through different means:
· Diplomacy and Partnerships: France is actively building partnerships with Arab states in the Gulf (like the UAE and Saudi Arabia) and pushing for a political process in Syria that excludes Assad. It is also investing in diplomacy to counter Russian and Chinese influence.
· Existing and Limited Military Presence: France has bases in Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and participates in anti-terrorism missions in the Sahel and Iraq. These presences are reinforced to combat extremism and protect interests, not for direct confrontation with Russia or China.
· Soft Power and Economics: The EU is the world's largest trading bloc and provider of development aid. It uses these economic tools to shape policies and build influence, offering an alternative to the models presented by Beijing or Moscow.
Conclusion: Ambition vs Reality
The idea of a French-backed NATO base in Damascus reflects Europe's strategic fears more than a concrete plan. These fears are of marginalization in a critical geopolitical theater, where Russia, China, Iran, and even a withdrawing US, appear to be more decisive in shaping the region's future.
France's ambition to lead Europe as a balancing power in the Middle East is real. However, its path is not through direct military confrontation in Russia's "backyard," but rather through strengthening regional alliances, persistent diplomacy, and targeted security presence. Such steps, although less spectacular than establishing a base in an enemy capital, are more realistic and likely more sustainable in the long term for building influence.