Syria’s Neighbors Fear US War Would Mean Spillover Violence

British Army Chief Also Warns Against Intervention

With sudden shift in Obama Administration “belief” on Syria’s putative chemical weapons use has fueled more speculation about the possibility of a US military intervention in Syria, either through air strikes or an invasion.

But even nations openly backing the rebels in the ongoing Syrian Civil War are balking at the ramifications of US involvement on the rebel side, seeing a US deployment as likely to fuel spillover violence and rising regional sectarianism.

There was a time when the reaction may have been different, but as the war has grown and the rebellion has taken on an increasingly Islamist tone, nations like Jordan and Turkey see a lot more to lose from a US war in Syria. This isn’t a stable region to begin with, and lingering anger at the US occupation of Iraq would come rushing back into view across the Middle East should they move into Syria.

Even Britain seems to be balking at the situation, with reports that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Sir David Richards warning David Cameron that a “limited” intervention in Syria would quickly expand into an all-out war. The warning echoes similar testimony from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Congress recently, cautioning them that they “better be damned sure” before they commit the US to any conflicts in Syria.

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.