Who - in the Arab world - would have a supported a US intervention in Syria to topple Assad?

What is it about?

Analysing Arab public opinion on the international community’s response to the Syrian crisis, we expand existing scholarship by injecting a non-Western perspective into the oftentimes Westerncentric debates on intervention. We demonstrate that publics in two prominent Arab Spring countries were quite willing to embrace intervention in Syria in order to depose Bashar al-Assad. More specifically, our analysis reveals that both interests and values shape support for different types of international intervention in Syria. In the context of the distinction between policydriven and culture-driven anti-Americanisms, we show that Egyptian and Tunisian evaluations of US foreign policy behaviour and, to lesser extent, US culture correlate with support for Westernled intervention in Syria.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Our findings have clear policy-implications. If the United States or other Western countries intend to increase public support for (humanitarian) interventions, they need to adopt policies that audiences in target regions see as benefitting them, or at least more clearly communicate how existing policies are of benefit. They also need to invest in and better utilize ‘soft power’ capabilities. In the end, Arab publics assess Western intervention based on a mix of perceived shared interests and shared values.