Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
“We have decided not to enter Geneva talks unless it is with dignity, and unless there is a successful transfer of power with a specific timeframe, and without the occupier Iran at the negotiating table.”
-Syrian National Coalition President Ahmad Jarba
The Syrian Opposition is drifting closer to the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and farther away from the UN and Geneva II.
They demand:
1) A timeframe for power transfer form President Bashar al Assad’s regime to the National Coalition
2) No Iranian presence at talks.
President Assad wants a ceasefire but does not want to surrender his political control. As long as he believes that he will remain President, he is willing to negotiate for truce only, not ‘his’ livelihood. This new vigor and confidence comes from a change in combat conditions; the US and the EU posture and the chemical weapons ploy to deny the West a chance to get into the Civil War more directly.
For the Opposition, as long as that man Assad remains the President of Syria, there will be no negotiation. Even if Assad gave up all of his power, Ahmed Jarba would likely not be accepted by the rebels that are putting their lives on the front. The more extreme jihadist elements are not willing to negotiate at all and they will not stop until Assad is tortured, humiliated and killed. One of these is al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the others are technically not affiliated with al Qaeda, but also want an Islamic state. They will certainly depose Jarba just as easily as Assad and accept only a state similar to Saudi Arabia or even Afghanistan.
A political solution is not dead in Syria but it is certainly in limbo as long as both sides feel stronger than they really are- receiving life-line support from foreign parties. They are war-weary- Assad the most. The Syrian economy is shattered. There is no order, just territorial holding, which Assad’s government has earlier claimed as a stalemate. Obviously, he will not regain the control he had before the Civil War but with the rebels fighting themselves, the government is presently making gains. Millions of people are homeless, many are hungry and the jihadists are not the ones with anything to lose.
On a purely nation-to-nation power projection, the Syrian Civil War involves on the one side Saudi Arabia and parties [Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait] against Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah launching from Lebanon. The US and the EU appear to have dropped out.
Outside elements continue to spin the civil war and many jihadists are turned loose on their own taking supplies but not loyalty to the Saudis. The Saudi Kingdom does not care, as they view this as a war against Iranian and Russian intrusion. Fundamentalists have always been viewed as containable or absorbable under their control. They feel that they can redirect their rage outward or make cosmetic concessions within their society to appease them. While this strategy has worked for a while, it not only forces them to now depart from the UN, the EU and the US, but it furthermore encourages a short-term delay in a politically negotiated settlement. For the US, their actions both internally and externally are and have been a danger to US national security. Growing international jihadists and sending them at one enemy is only training the next jihadists who will be far more sophisticated than the Taliban [who will also reemerge on the international scene with the US departure next year].
Short of a political vehicle for conflict resolution in Syria, the US must not remain inactive. America should run a monthly special international media campaign on how it is helping the Syrian refugees; that the war must stop and it will take all the nations to do so. As of now, to the region and to the world, America looks as though it is doing absolutely nothing positive at all. It must prove them wrong, but remain with its national interest and principles in place. Backing the words up with increased humanitarian aid and assistance is needed in the countries of Jordan, Turkey and most critically Lebanon. The US role would be one of the champion of refugees and the hungry.
If one can help even a distant friend or a near enemy in a crisis, they reveal a greater political and even religious legitimacy to the larger populations of Muslim countries. But only if the pro-American message reaches the people in the area. The delay of action is already gaining an anti-US backlash which can be not only diverted but championed to its advantage.
The larger reality issue is that Central Asia is slipping away from the US influence and the American image in the region seems just as low even without large numbers of American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. It must recover from this if it wishes to have a share of the region. Russia and Iran are looking more attractive as a partner than Saudi Arabia and the international jihadist camp. The Shia appears less radical than the Sunni bunch. Israel is not made in America- it continues its own destiny and is essentially over-funded with less and less political returns to the American people.
Shifting American partnerships is really only the shifting of the sands in the dunes. The landscape remains fundamentally unchanged in nature but it is not possible to stop the new realities that are emerging at this time. Unfortunately, the US is no longer a controlling element but a traveling emissary lacking strategic insight and design for radical redevelopment and political reassertion.
A trip to Riyadh by the US Secretary of State is a goodwill gesture of historic cooperation only. The US must drop Saudi Arabia eventually before it will face a greater embarrassment as the Saudis drop ties with the US and the West in order to appeal to their domestic political needs.
Comments are closed.