The collapse of the preparatory round of Geneva 3 talks last week was expected. The government delegation was not ready to acquiesce to opposition demands that the humanitarian clauses of UN Security Council resolution on Syria 2254 be implemented in order to create the right conditions for serious talks. Nor was it ready to discuss cease-fire terms.
But what was especially shocking is the fact that regime forces, supported by heavy aerial bombardment by Russian jets, had intensified their offensives in the Aleppo region and in the southern province of Darra while the UN special envoy, Staffan Di Mestura, was attempting to launch the political process. Russia, which had pushed for the convening of Geneva 3, had derailed that political process.
So what does Russia want? It is now clear that Moscow’s only concern is to secure military victories for the Damascus regime before serious negotiations can begin. Russia’s actions had embarrassed parties that had insisted for years that there was no military solution to the Syrian crises. In fact recent military victories in Aleppo and other areas had tipped the balance of power in favor of the regime for the first time since 2013.
Since Russia’s direct military intervention in Syria, at the end of last September, the rules of the game had changed. Russian jets concentrated their attacks on opposition groups in northern Latakia, Damascus countryside, Darra, Aleppo and Idlib, even when Russian officials claimed they were targeting Daesh. The fact of the matter is that since September Russian air strikes were mostly directed at opponents of the regime of Bashar Assad. Now the fate of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and an important base for the armed groups opposed to the regime, is about to change. Its fall, which is predicted to happen in the coming few days, will mark a major shift in the trajectory of the Syrian conflict.
Coinciding with Russia’s intensive bombardment of anti-regime groups was America’s gradual but clear abandoning of the Syrian opposition. These groups, including the western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), have complained that the US has stopped or reduced shipments of military supplies. US Secretary of State John Kerry has reportedly rebuked the opposition’s delegation for walking out of Geneva 3 talks in protest of Russian air strikes.
The strategic shift in the balance of power in Syria has alarmed key regional players such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Government forces are few kilometers from borders with Turkey and if their advances go unchecked they will soon cut all supply routes to opposition groups. Ankara is also worried about US support of Syrian Kurdish groups, whose fighters are now engaging Daesh in northeastern Syria.
Saudi Arabia, which has supported the political process and helped unify the Syrian opposition, now sees Iranian influence quickly expanding in Syria. Riyadh is also puzzled by the US position and its apparent abandonment of Syrian rebel groups. Local analysts now believe Washington has delivered Syria to the Russians and Iranians while claiming to be focusing its attention on fighting Daesh in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
Changing military and political realities have encouraged the Saudis to declare that they are willing to participate in a ground campaign to fight Daesh in Syria. The Saudi move, which has obviously annoyed the Iranians and sent shock waves in Damascus, represents a critical development in the course of the Syrian crisis.
Weakening and dividing the Syrian opposition has always been a Russian objective. Securing Aleppo and other strategic areas will strangulate Assad’s opponents and pave the way for a humiliating concession once and if both sides meet at the negotiation table. For both Washington and Moscow the fate of Assad is no longer part of the political process. And sadly the objectives of the five-year-old Syrian uprising, which had cost hundreds of thousands of lives, no longer matter to most parties in the international community.
If a second round of Geneva 3 does take place later this month the geopolitical conditions would be different. Assad’s forces, backed by Iran, would have made major gains and the regime’s readiness to yield to any conditions would be faint. That would seal the fate of the political process and debunk the myth that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis.
The Russians and the Iranians know that saving the Assad regime would ensure their long-term interests in Syria and the region. It is difficult to ascertain what benefits would be achieved by Washington through this scenario. It is difficult to assume that the US has a clear policy on Syria. These new realities are keeping regional powers on their toes. What they decide next will determine the future of Syria.
