Not only does Washington lack a strategy on Syria but also the Syrian crisis is turning into a puzzle for the Obama administration. While it is clear that Washington prefers to see the removal of Assad from power, many senior officials in the American administration view the potential victory of radical groups as a strategic threat.
Thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Washington is still grappling as to how to reconcile between its desire to see an end to Assad’s regime and its fear of the ascendance of radical groups.
Hawkish figures, such as John McCain, have for long argued that Washington would be better off to work with moderate Sunni rebels and help them get united. Recently, some even went as far as suggesting that the United States should put pressure on moderate elements to cooperate with Assad to inflict a stinging defeat on Al-Qaeda and other radical groups. For some, such cooperation may lay the ground for power sharing between the moderate elements and the Alawites.
With Secretary of State John Kerry pushing for a Geneva II conference to end the fighting in Syria, one could argue that it would be hard to envision the mere convening of the conference, let alone its success. On one hand, Sunni moderate groups are reluctant to attend the conference, but on the other hand, Assad is not expected to budge. Not long ago, Assad demanded that the rebels put down their weapons first. If anything, this is a recipe for the continuation of the fight.
Surprisingly, there are those in the US who make the case for a possible cooperation between the moderate rebels and the Alawites. The argument is that Alawites are skeptical about the radicals’ intentions in the future. Simply put, the Alawites believe that if the radicals won the war, they would turn against the Alawites to finish them off. And yet, if the Alawites see the moderates winning the final battle, they may seek cooperation rather than confrontation.
Perhaps, Washington needs to be realistic about the situation in Syria. What has been taking place is no longer a civil war. Rather, it is a war that has drawn in some regional actors thus creating a stalemate. Many Arab observers believe that US is looking for cutting a deal with Russia and possibly with Iran while turning its back on its traditional allies. Perhaps, the US has yet to realize that regional actors are locked in a sort of existential battle that they cannot afford to lose.
Let us get to the bottom of the issue and say that the failure of the US in making a difference in the ongoing Syrian conflict has compelled many in the Arab World to rethink their perspectives on the US influence. The feeling among the Gulf countries that the US has let down the Sunni Arabs is ubiquitous.
Kerry is seen as paying a lip service to the interests of the moderate Arab countries. Soon, the Arabs will realize that Kerry is not the man cut for the job.
There is a no quick fix for the unfolding conflict in and over Syria. While the US quest for a solution to the Syrian crisis is noble, still it would not be savvy to push divided opposition in Syria to announce its participation in the Geneva conference if it is to convene.
It seems that Washington is taking a risk by pushing for Geneva conference with the Syrian regime still defiant while the rebels are suffering from disunity and in some case confrontations.
In the words of Aaron David Miller, the conference may risk “making matters worse by legitimizing a murderous regime and showcasing a fractious and dysfunctional opposition. If a second Geneva conference fails, it is unlikely another could be held anytime soon. Then Syria’s fate won’t be decided at a negotiating table in Switzerland but on the battlegrounds of a seemingly endless, bloody and vicious civil war.”
Email: [email protected]
