ISSN 2330-717X

What Future For Syria? – OpEd

By

In March 2011 a few teenagers in a southern Syrian city – fired up no doubt by the revolutionary fervour sweeping the Middle East at the time – daubed some inflammatory slogans on a school wall. Unfortunately for them, the Syria that President Bashar al-Assad had inherited in 2000 from his autocratic father was a tightly controlled police state, in which a powerful and all-encompassing security machine ensured that the slightest hint of opposition to the régime was ruthlessly crushed.

The youngsters were hunted down, arrested and tortured. When details of their ordeal became known, protesters took to the streets. The security forces, unable to break up the demonstration, eventually fired into the crowd. That was enough to spark widespread rebellion. Groups antagonistic to Assad’s government began nationwide protests. Gradually, popular dissent developed into an armed revolt. The opposition, consisting of a variety of groups, but primarily the Free Syrian Army, were finally seeking to overthrow the despotic Assad régime and substitute a democratic form of government.

Had assistance of any sort been forthcoming from the US or other Western governments at that early stage, Assad could have been defeated, to be replaced by a democratically elected government. But President Obama hesitated, and then continued vacillating even after it was clear in August 2013 that Assad had used chemical weapons against his opponents, utterly indifferent to the extensive civilian casualties that ensued.

Why did Obama shrink from action? Because he had set his sights on a nuclear accommodation with Iran, which always regarded Syria as essential to its Shi’ite empire. Rather than put his projected nuclear agreement in jeopardy, Obama reneged on his declared intention to punish Assad if he deployed chemical weapons. Instead he seized on a deal brokered by Russia, under which Assad would nominally surrender the whole of the chemical arsenal that he had originally denied possessing.

However the Assad régime did no such thing, concluded US intelligence agencies in July 2015. On the contrary it concealed certain deadly chemical stocks and, adding insult to injury, actually continued developing a new type of chemical munition using chlorine.

Now, more than four years after it began, the full-blown civil war that developed in Syria has killed over 230,000 people, half of them civilians. In addition, the UN estimates, nearly 8 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes. When the additional 4 million Syrians who have fled into neighbouring countries are taken into account, it follows that a humanitarian disaster has overtaken more than half of the country’s pre-war population of 23 million.

This is the outcome to date of the complex series of battles that have developed within Syria over the past five years. An overview of the devastated battlefield that Syria has become reveals no less than six separate conflicts in progress.

There is first the initial domestic battle between the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition seeking a democratic alternative. Both sides are supported by outside forces – Assad by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah; the Syrian opposition by Sunni Arab groupings. The second major battle is between the forces of Assad and those of Islamic State (IS), which is set on extending its territorial gains to encompass the whole of Syria and Iraq.

Thirdly there is the struggle between IS and the US-led coalition that, fighting under the less-than-inspiring slogan of “no boots on the ground”, confines itself to training local forces and supporting their operations with air-strikes. Fourthly, Turkey has renewed its attacks on the Kurdish PKK. As soon as Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, decided to join the fight against IS, he mounted air strikes equally against the Kurds, whose campaign for autonomy is a long-standing source of friction within Turkey.

The fifth conflict on Syrian soil is that of the Kurdish Peshmerga troops against IS – a notably more successful effort than most of the other anti-IS activity over the past few years. Finally, IS finds itself battling intermittently against a number of jihadist Sunni groups that reject the claims of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to be caliph of all Muslims, and his organization to be the basis of an eventual world-wide caliphate.

This maelstrom that is Syria has thrown up three recent attempts to settle the future. One, sponsored by Saudi Arabia, calls for the removal of Assad and his régime, and supports the Sunni Arab rebellion against it. Another, sponsored by Saudi’s rival, Iran, is a four-point plan calling for an immediate ceasefire, a national unity government, the safeguarding of minority rights, and internationally supervised presidential elections – apparently reasonable proposals which did not fool the London-based Arab newspaper, Al Hayat. In an article on August 16, it reveals what it dubs “Tehran’s hidden motives”.

In 2012, the UN and the Arab League adopted a six-point peace plan for Syria, subsequently ratified in the 2014 Geneva II Conference. Integral to it was a call for Assad’s resignation. Inevitably Iran and Russia opposed the proposals, and this new Iranian initiative, Al Hayat asserts, is an attempt to by-pass the Geneva plan.

“By promoting a plan of its own, supported by Russia,” says Al Hayat, “Tehran is … trying to use a cease-fire in order to give an official status to the militias it has built in Syria…The leaders in Tehran talk about a diplomatic solution in Syria, while deploying more and more Revolutionary Guard militias, supported by Hezbollah, to fight alongside Assad. It uses noble rhetoric to deceive the international community.”

The third current peace initiative, conceived by Staffan de Mistura, a UN special envoy, was endorsed by the UN Security Council in mid-August. Although the plan is based on the Geneva II proposals, it calls for a transitional government “on the basis of mutual consent “, implying that Assad and his regime would be party to the arrangement. This plan does envisage the eventual removal of Assad, but at some unspecified time in the future. It has been positively welcomed by Iran, and is backed Russia – possibly one reason for recent media rumours that Russia and Iran are considering abandoning their unquestioning support for Assad.

So what might Syria’s future be? A country wholly over-run by IS, and under its control? A country from which IS has been expelled, the government returned to Bashar el-Assad, and therefore once again firmly within the Iranian sphere of influence? A country split into its component parts, one of which might be an autonomous Kurdish area, possibly linked to Kurdistan in Iraq? A country with a new constitution and a democratically elected government? The possibilities are many and various.

It is, as they say, in the lap of the gods.

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

Neville Teller

Neville Teller's latest book is ""Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020". He has written about the Middle East for more than 30 years, has published five books on the subject, and blogs at "A Mid-East Journal". Born in London and a graduate of Oxford University, he is also a long-time dramatist, writer and abridger for BBC radio and for the UK audiobook industry. He was made an MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours, 2006 "for services to broadcasting and to drama."

One thought on “What Future For Syria? – OpEd

  • September 7, 2015 at 12:49 pm
    Permalink

    There are as many narratives about Syria as there are story-tellers to tell them. The consistency lies in assigning al-Assad the role of
    ruling Demon and claiming that if only he can be removed, Syria
    will experience peace and democratic rule. Nonsense. Every player in the area has a stake in who controls Syria: Israel wants to keep the Golan Heights and break up Syria into less powerful units for security reasons; the US has covertly encouraged and armed all of al-Assad’s opponents, including ISIS; Saudi Arabia, lead Sunni state among the Gulf Sunni monarchies and arch-enemy of Shia Iran, wants Sunnis to control the Middle East, and therefore opposes Shia power wherever it can be found, including Iraq, which, for some odd reason, the US decided to turn from a Sunni-controlled state to a Shia-controlled state (but is now pushing for Sunni inclusion again); Turkey, troubled by the PKK internally, feeds fighters and weapons into Iraq in order to prevent an independent Kurdistan from establishing itself. Russia plays roughly the same role in the Middle East that the USSR played during the Cold War; it keeps its role as Syria’s protector in order to prevent US hegemony from completing itself in a major oil-producing area. Russia’s situation is complicated by the fact that the US Congress recently voted (minus only 10 votes) for a new Cold War targeting Russia after the dual-citizen neo-Cons in D.C. replaced Kiev’s legal government with a US puppet govt. led by Victoria Nuland’s hand-picked guys, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko. In April, 2014, CIA Dir. Brennan himself went to Kiev to direct Kiev’s attack on the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces, who, against Putin’s advice, had voted for independence. As anyone can see who troubles himself to read Z Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard,” the prize is the energy resources of Eurasia
    (Caspian Sea basin) and the major obstacle is Russia, next to the US, the major producer of oil/nat. gas, which the US is determined to control. The goal is to eliminate Russia, by whatever means–bankruptcy, colour revolution, war–on the push through Eurasia to “contain” China. The fate of the entire world is at stake here and the building of oil/nat. gas pipelines is the key to everything. Google TAPI, the completed pipeline from Turkmenistan through
    Kandahar (Afgh), through Quetta (Pak) to SE Asia and its energy customers, and you will see why the US has been in Afgh. for 13
    years and why it has installed the current Ghani (puppet) govt. there. Our Afghan effort had nothing to do with bin Laden or with the Taliban. It’s all about resources. So, give up this nonsense about if we can just rid ourselves of the current Hitler (al-Assad) the world will become a place of peace, democracy, and tranquility. It’s a fairy story, having nothing to do with reality.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Vivienne Perkins Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.