Assad emerging as victor in Syria
It’s hardly a secret that the Obama
administration’s plan to topple Syrian President Bashar-Al-Assad has
long since been derailed by the rise of the Islamic State that now
controls over one-third of Syrian territory and swathes of Iraq.
But the
evolution of Obama’s rhetoric across successive State of the Union
speeches illustrates just how baldly the U.S. has abandoned the prospect
of regime change in Syria something it once demanded.
As a result of it
now Syrian President Bashar-Al-Assad now at least in near future sees
his position secured. But the forces of change coupled with strong
Iranian and Russian backing and a splintered rebel movement have been a
major advantages for Mr Assad.
US Secretary of State John Kerry recently
said it is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their
people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which
are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of
their efforts to remove Assad.
He made no call for Mr. Assad’s
resignation, a notable omission for Mr. Kerry, who has typically
insisted on it in public remarks. Instead, he spoke of Mr. Assad as a
leader who needed to change his policies. It clearly shows major policy
shift of US with regard to Syria.
Not only America but other western
countries are also looking in mood of tolerating Assad regime. The
political solution will of course include some elements of the regime
because we don’t want to see the pillars of the state fall apart,
France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said last week.
But this
drastic change in the policy of US and West regarding Syria doesn’t
happen all of a sudden it’s a results of very clever strategy of Bashar-
Al-Assad. President Assad casts himself as the nation’s guardian
against Sunni jihadists, but he has deliberately encouraged the rise of
extremism.
The Syrian president’s forces have allowed ISIS to
consolidate a rump caliphate in north-eastern Syria as a visible warning
about what the alternative to his rule looks like. Indeed, Assad’s
troops rarely battle ISIS, saving their fire for more moderate enemies.
Many analysts now believes Islamic State did not appear from nowhere but
was part of a diversionary tactic by the Assad regime to undermine the
credibility of its opponents. The regime released jihadists from Syrian
jails, and they were able to make common cause with Iraqi militants who
profited from America’s departure from Iraq on a timetable set by US
electoral considerations. The regime has now won that trick, with some
unwitting help from the Americans.
As a result of this strategy of Assad
regime they have got a de facto coalition partner in the form of the
United States itself, which has not only launched strikes against
Islamic State targets within Syria, but also targeted other groups
battling the Assad regime like the Khorasan group. American planes now
bomb the Islamic State group’s militants in Syria, sharing skies with
Syrian jets. American officials assure Mr. Assad, through Iraqi
intermediaries, that Syria’s military is not their target.
The United
States still trains and equips Syrian insurgents, but now mainly to
fight the Islamic State, not the government. While the Americans and Mr.
Assad ostensibly share a common enemy, the two parties are not formally
collaborating. Yet American fighter planes regularly invade Syrian
airspace to bomb Islamic State targets and Syrian armed forces don’t
show any reaction against US aircrafts.
It’s a clear sign of informal
understanding between Syrians and Americans. If the main threat is the
Islamic State and the goal is to defeat it, might the West at some point
be forced to work formally with Mr. Assad. The greater threat in the
eyes of west is not now Mr. Assad but the Islamic State, especially if
it continues to expand in Syria, entices more foreign fighters into its
ranks and uses its territory to launch attacks on the West.
A recent
study by the Rand Corporation which does research for the government,
says the collapse of the Assad regime, while unlikely now, would be the
“worst possible outcome” for American interests depriving Syria of its
remaining state institutions and creating more space for the Islamic
State and other extremists to spread mayhem.
Americans see an emerging international
consensus on the need for a long-term diplomatic solution between Mr.
Assad and diverse rebel groups.
There is also interest in United
Nations-led cease-fires in local communities like Aleppo that might
serve as a basis for a broader peace. Now the Russians are stepping in
and trying to bring the two sides i.e. Syrian Government and Oppositions
groups into talks with the apparent aim of a more gradual change in
Syria.
The prospect of these talks taking place are dim. But the
diplomatic move confirms the clear shift in emphasis of US foreign
policy away from removing the Assad regime to stopping the ISIS advance.
Syrian reconciliation seems bleak but still Assad has enough reason to
be confident that he will stay in power at least for some time to come.
With his uncompromised grip on the power, Assad seems to have proven his
ability even to the US and west by tightening the rope around Syria’s
belly. Although Syria still occupies world attention, it is isolated and
stuck within Assad’s political narrative dynamics.
Source: khaama
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento