Since the onset of the Syrian revolution, President Bashar Assad has never considered stepping down. With the international community putting pressure on him, he opted for a strategy of buying time to decide the matter on the ground. Not surprising, his most recent plans for re-election are widely seen as a sort of defiance and in contradiction with the American-Russian understandings included in the Geneva I agreement.
To be sure, the growing rift between Russia and the United States over the Ukrainian crisis convinced Assad that Russia would not exert pressure on him. In fact, Russia’s assertiveness against the international community — the West in particular — has encouraged Assad to go on with his plan for re-election. Now, with no date set for the resumption of the Geneva talks and with the harsh verbal exchange between the West and Russia, it seems that Russia will not ask its ally in Damascus to compromise.
Additionally, Assad is bolstered by some military gains in the past few weeks. Many analysts argue that Assad will stay around for some time to come. Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said a few days ago: “It is hard to imagine that Assad is going in the short term and even in the medium term, to lose control of the area between Aleppo south to Damascus and then over to the coast…He will control that area — geographically it is maybe a fourth of the country…But the other three-quarters will be under the control of different armed elements or contested among different armed elements.”
This reading should not be surprising. Ford cites three reasons for Assad’s ability to maintain power. The Syrian opposition has failed to assure the Alawites and other minority groups who support Assad. Also, the financial and military support from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraq has helped Assad to hang on to power. Another important factor is the discord among the components of the Syrian opposition.
Though no date has been set for elections, Assad seems willing to run barring new developments in the few months to come. Undoubtedly, the planned elections will put the Geneva peace talks at risk. Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League envoy for Syria said, “If there is an election, then my suspicion is that the opposition ... will probably not be interested in talking to the government.” The opposition made it perfectly clear that Assad cannot be part of any transitional government.
The point, and herein lies the crux of the matter, is that Assad feels emboldened by the new developments in Ukraine. He suspects that the Russians will not cooperate with the American administration over Syria. For this reason, Assad seeks to finish off the opposition’s military forces on the ground.
Paradoxically, Assad is being helped by the hesitant Obama administration, which has failed to make a difference on the ground. Thus far, the Obama administration has been debating how to respond to the Syrian crisis. Time and again, President Obama said that Assad would not be at the helm of the Syrian politics. Yet, the administration has failed to back up its rhetoric with substantive actions.
The American cautious approach has been the bone of contention with key regional countries. Seen in this way, Assad’s assertiveness is not without objective reasons. Had the West supported the opposition in a meaningful way, the Syrian regime would have compromised. But the truth is Assad has tested the resolve of the West in August last year — when his forces used chemical weapons. The failure of the Obama administration to act has persuaded Assad that Washington has neither policy nor a strategy with regards to Syria.
In a nutshell, the new developments in Ukraine and the lack of leadership on the part of Obama helped Assad to be assertive. Barring new developments, Assad is likely to run for elections thus burying the Geneva agreement and the likelihood of peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Email: [email protected]
