On the 24th of August, North Korea launched what’s known as a SLBM, a submarine-launched ballistic missile. The missile flew about 300 miles from the submarine to land in the Sea of Japan. This test of the North Korean missile program was a success by many measures and has worried much of the world over the possibility of North Korean first strike capabilities. On the 25th, Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats "harassed" a U.S. Navy ship in an area between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, further degrading relations between two long-time enemies.
Yet, has anyone been talking about Syria?
In Syria this week, Turkey launched an incursion to both seize the IS's last major border holding as well as prevent Kurdish forces from taking more land for a potential Kurdish state. While this might appear to be simply a minor move in a wider war, the implications of such actions threaten to redefine the status quo of the Middle East.
This new status quo, like many before it, will have far-reaching consequences that will not only shape Middle Eastern policy, but international policy for the United States and its allies. However, judging by the asymmetric coverage of this event, or even Syria in general, one would be led to believe that the Syrian Civil War is just another unimportant war in a Middle Eastern hellhole, which it definitely is not.
The Syrian Civil War is the powder keg of the Middle East, ready to explode and take the rest of the region with it. Every major regional actor has a finger in the pie and something to lose. For Russia, the loss of an ally like Bashar al-Assad could reshape its influence in the Middle East. For the U.S., the fall of the Syrian regime would be a boost to its regional power, assuming the secular rebels are the ones in power when the smoke clears. For Turkey, the collapse of the al-Assad regime would be the death of one of its rivals, opening up Turkey to pursue its regional aspirations. For Iran, maintaining its control of the regime will allow it to both increase its influence and have a strategic counter to the United States, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region. With so much at stake, where is the media?
Apparently North Korea, Iran and the election are much more interesting matters. Donald Trump’s bombastic, headline-making statements apparently deserve more coverage than a civil war that threatens to shake up power in the Middle East. That’s not to say that any of those events are unworthy of extensive media coverage; however, why is Syria, which could be part of a defining moment of this decade, ignored? Even when Syria is covered, half the news consists of human interest stories and other topics that simply provoke emotion rather than inform.
With the death toll of the Syrian Civil War fast approaching 500,000 and international involvement rapidly increasing, the public deserves to be informed. Whoever the next president is will have to deal with the Syrian Civil War and its potential escalation, meaning that it should factor into our decision in November. To do that successfully, the public must at least understand the basics of what is at stake in Syria, from both a geopolitical and humanitarian angle. Democracy thrives on an informed electorate, a goal unachievable without appropriate media coverage.