After last week’s suspension of non-lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army by the US and UK,
western strategy towards the country lies in tatters. Washington and London were forced to
act after Islamist rebels, including the Al Qaida-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,
took over the headquarters and warehouses of the western-backed Free Syian Army (FSA) and
reportedly seized anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, some of which are said to be American-
supplied.
This humiliating defeat shows the rise of the Islamist rebels, most of whom oppose political
dialogue with President Bashar Al Assad’s regime and call for the establishment of a Quranic-
based state. It also demonstrates the near-collapse of the FSA, which the west had hoped
would unify the rebels, lead the campaign to topple Assad, and then take on Al Qaida. Many of
the armed groups, including the powerful Islamic Front, say they do not recognise the
western-backed political opposition, the Syrian National Coalition, as a legitimate
representative and warn it against participating in next month’s proposed peace conference in
Geneva.
In the past year warfare among the armed rebels has overshadowed the bigger fight against Al
Assad, allowing his forces to gain the upper hand and make tactical gains in Homs, Damascus
and even the rebel stronghold Aleppo. Emboldened, Al Assad and his henchmen, with the
backing of Iran and Russia, have repeatedly reminded the opposition they will not go to
Geneva to hand over power to a transitional government.
Last week, the US defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, conceded that Washington’s approach to
Syria is in disarray. Even Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, called on the rebels to
“avoid discord and unite”, reflecting Moscow’s anxiety that the opposition’s fragmentation
does not bode well for the peace talks.
Hopes buried
After almost three years of urban warfare, the uprising has mutated and produced unintended
consequences. It has been hijacked by religious hardliners, criminal warlords and regional
rivalries. The early hopes and dreams of millions of Syrians of an open, inclusive and
pluralistic post-Al Assad government are now buried in the country’s killing fields.
From the beginning, the odds were against the nationalist opposition. It was always
overwhelmingly dependent on regional powers for military and financial support, which left it
vulnerable to external manipulation.
Alongside this, the Obama administration’s initial grandstanding insisting that Al Assad must
step down and that his days were numbered was not matched by credible strategic planning
or an accurate assessment of conditions on the ground. Britain and France repeated the US
line without preparing for the fact that Syria could implode and trigger a catastrophic
humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by the recent freezing temperatures, and a regional war.
Syria is now mainly a battlefield where Saudi Arabia and Iran are waging a proxy war, with
devastating sectarian repercussions. It is doubtful the peace talks can be even convened, let
alone produce results, without an implicit understanding between the two warring Gulf
powers. While Saudi Arabia exercises considerable influence on Islamist rebels, Iran is crucial
to Al Assad’s survival.
Both have much to gain from preventing Syria’s implosion. Under its new president, Iran may
be willing to cut the umbilical cord with Al Assad, who has become a big liability for Tehran in
the Arab world. Similarly, if Saudi Arabia can use its influence, it may avoid militant Islamist
rebels haunting Syria’s neighbours for years to come. It is a tall order, but the stakes for the
Syrian people and the international community are huge.
0 comments:
Post a Comment