In 1914, through the operation of traditional power politics and a series of fatal misjudgments, the world was plunged into a devastating war. The recent decision by the Arab League to suspend Syrian membership is another step on a slippery slope to a major war in the Middle East - one that almost no one wants.
As the Libyan conflict begins to wind down, other Mideast conflicts remain. One of these, Syria, appears increasingly likely to lead to a wider regional conflict.
Press reports indicate that the Assad regime appears unable to reassert control. Human rights reporting indicate the regime continues to resort to wide-scale torture and detentions of opponents. But this is not halting the rebellion. In fact elements of the opposition, namely the Free Syrian Army, have now taken up arms.
Repression and abuse of domestic opponents is not new in the Middle East. But what makes the current situation in Syria a powder keg are the regional considerations.
Chief among these is the shift in the position of the Turks. A relative economic powerhouse with the largest and best-equipped military in the region - the Turks are at NATO standards - Ankara has now turned decisively against Assad. Opposition Syrian armed elements are being sheltered in southeastern Turkey. The Turks prior policy of ensuring friendships with its neighbors was tipped by a developing refugee crisis and disgust with Syrian repression. Turkey, governed by party that embraces its Islamic heritage, has a historic role as a protector of Sunnis and the apparent rise of sectarian conflict in Syria provokes its concern. Finally, the Turks do not want chaos in Syria to lead to yet another Kurdish enclave similar to the one created in Iraq, particularly as its battle with its own Kurdish separatists heats up once more.
Second is the way the Syrian conflict plays out as part of the regional rivalry between the Saudi Monarchy and the Ayatollahs in Iran. The Arab Spring has roiled the Gulf States and many Arabs see the hand of historic Persian imperial ambitions. The UN report on Iranian nuclear ambitions may be a tipping point - an Iranian nuclear capability (added to the already presumed Israeli capability) is likely to fuel an even greater arms race in the region. The Iranians, for their part, feel threatened by the US-Gulf State alliance, which they view as continuing to seek regime overthrow.
Third is the demise of US power in Iraq. By December 2011, all US combat forces will be out of that country. While you can argue the pros and cons of the presence of American power in the area, it seems clear that once we leave many local actors will move to fill the vacuum. The Iraqi Sunnis, whose power centers border Syria, seem to be squaring up once more to challenge the Iraqi Shia dominated government, whom they view as beholden to Iran. The flash point of Kirkuk, which sits atop important oil fields and is competed over by Arab, Kurd and Turkmen ethnic groups, may be the spark that sets off round two of an Iraqi Civil War. Turkey and Iran, which contested this region for centuries, as well as the Saudis and their coalition of Arab allies, all have their proxy actors in the country.
Fourth is Lebanon, on Syria's western frontier. The UN report squarely placing blame for the murder of former Lebanese PM Hariri on Hezbollah operatives ensures that tensions remain high. While Lebanese do not want another ruinous civil war of their own, the fragile situation there is inexorably enmeshed with events in Syria, whose sectarian make-up and tensions mirror Lebanon's. All the major regional states have their proxies in Lebanon.
Egypt is another player, although domestic turmoil may preoccupy them. Cairo is another regional military heavy-hitter. Egyptian special forces reportedly joined Qatar in helping Libyan rebels against Gaddafi and the Arab League decision to suspend Syrian membership may be the precursor for a similar effort in Syria (assuming one is not already underway). The Egyptians won't stand by and watch Turkey supplant them in influence in what is expected to be an eventual Syrian successor regime. The rise of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's political power likewise ensures political forces in Egypt will take note of the bloody crackdown in Syria against the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in places like Hama.
And then there is Israel, which is issuing increasingly heavy hints that it may actually strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. These threats should not be discounted. Israel bombed Iraq's facilities at Osirak back in June of 1981. Iran has made clear that if it is attacked, it will launch global counterattacks, although the likeliest retaliation will come from Hezbollah in Lebanon and from its Iraqi proxies. Hezbollah has been rearming and preparing for a resumption of its border war with Israel and feels increasingly threatened and desperate as its Syrian patrons teeter. But Hezbollah is a tough capable force. Iranian allies in Iraq, which ironically include elements of the US-trained and equipped Iraqi-Shia dominated security forces, will have a range of juicy targets, especially the massive US Embassy complex in Baghdad. An Israel-Iran conflict will likely ignite another oil crisis, with tremendous global impacts.
It looks increasingly likely that Syria will become a cockpit of war among regional powers, likely through proxies but possibly directly. That war could easily spread to involve Iran and Israel, and thus drag in the US and rest of the world. This is all, of course, happening at a time of global economic turmoil and distress.
There are too many moving pieces, too many imponderables, too many wild cards, to hazard a solid prediction of what might happen. It could be that all sides pull back from the brink.
Let's hope so. If the tectonic plates that are rubbing together here crack and shift, the conflagration that is released could be a terrible one.