Last Update 20:21
Friday, 26 May 2017

Superpowers must act: The puzzle of US action in Syria

As the US mulls military involvement in Syria, Ahram Online untangles the diplomatic web of consequences behind direct strikes

Bassem Aly , Friday 29 Aug 2014
Al-Assad, Obama
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and US President Barack Obama (Photo: Reuters, AP)
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1315
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1315

Many reports this week have suggested the hesitancy of US President Barack Obama over military involvement in Syria against fierce jihadists. Ironically, the administration of the US president was ready to launch a military strike against Bashar Assad's regime in September of last year in order to deter its troops from using chemical weapons against civilians.

A last-minute deal saved the situation as the Russians, Assad's key international ally, persuaded him to surrender his chemical stockpile. Now, 11 months later, Obama is talking about US airstrikes against the Sunni militants of the Islamist State (IS) who control large parts of Syria and northern Iraq.

But will airstrikes leave the regime untouched? And could the US get closer to an anti-western regime after decades of enmity? Experts have stressed the need for a multi-dimensional vision and plan which must be finalised in advance.

Studying action, but not with Assad

Indeed, IS's regional threat has become intolerable for the international community. The threat is big enough for Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem to admit that Syria is ready to "cooperate and coordinate" with any side, including the US. Yet he said that any unilateral move, uncoordinated with the Syrian government, would amount to "aggression."

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it clearer. "The west will have to choose what is more important: to change the regime and satisfy personal antipathies with the risk that the situation will crumble, or find pragmatic ways to join efforts against the common threat, which is the same for all of us - terrorism," Lavrov was quoted as saying in Moscow.

The US rebuffed the offer. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki pointed out on Tuesday that "we're not going to ask for permission from the Syrian regime." That statement came a day after the White House revealed that Obama has not made a decision to launch military operations against IS militants in Syria.

In an interview with Ahram Online, Daniel Serwer - a former minister-counselor at the US State Department - explained the rationale beyond the US's decision to avoid direct, joint cooperation with the Syrian regime. Serwer sees Assad as part of the problem in Syria - and not the solution.

Syria's uprising against the regime has turned into an ongoing, bloody civil war between government troops and rebels in the last three years, causing the death of more than 170,000 people and a huge refugee crisis that has put a strain on neighbouring countries.

"Cooperating with Assad in any way would ruin any chance of attracting Sunnis away from supporting IS. That would wreck any chance of defeating the Islamic State," said the ex-foreign official.

Even indirect collaboration does not interest Serwer. He said the only available "third parties" on good terms with Assad are Iran and Russia. "The Americans won't be asking the Russians too many favours, given what is going on in Ukraine. And Washington has more important issues than Syria to discuss with Iran," he said.

Steps taken, so far

Until now, Obama has only approved surveillance flights - not military action - over Syria. The US military, however, has launched airstrikes against IS militants inside Iraq since early August. Sources told AFP on Tuesday that the US is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Syria through Iraqi-Russian channels. These comments came a day after the Syrian foreign minister's statements over willingness to cooperate.

Wayne White, a policy expert with Washington's Middle East Policy Council, claimed that even US communication with Assad's regime through an intermediary is "highly risky." He indicated that the US government is prone to leaks, and as such any indirect contact would probably be "leaked and cause great embarrassment for the administration."

"The (Assad) regime might not react to the airstrikes (despite harsh protests) because it also benefits from any weakening of IS and does not want to lose more combat aircraft and experienced pilots," White said.

Last Monday, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said once he determines that IS militants in Iraq have become a direct threat to the US homeland, he will recommend the US military to move directly against the group in Syria.

White described aerial strikes as the "only logical step" after surveillance flights. Moreover, White argued that increasing aid to so-called "vetted non-extremist rebels" - especially in terms of quantity and quality - could serve as an on-the-ground alternative to airstrikes.

"They need much heavier firepower against IS, such as anti-armor weapons and heavy mortars. The controversial issue of shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles is not in play in this case: IS has no air force," said the ex-deputy director of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau for the Near East and South Asia.

Who's in?

US news outlets have lately unveiled the preparatory steps for a potential war in Syria, including the available options. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that the US administration is having a "constant conversation" about what options could be necessary to "go after IS" whether in Iraq, Syria or "wherever they train or operate."

One of these steps - according to anonymous administration officials who spoke to the New York Times - is mobilising a broad coalition of allies prior to launching military operations. The report pointed out that the White House started a "diplomatic campaign to enlist allies and neighbours in the region to increase their support" with Syrian moderate opposition groups that back US operations.

These countries include Australia, Britain, Jordan, some Gulf states and Turkey, which possesses military bases that might be used, the same officials said.

Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Centre for Human Rights Studies (DCHRS), told Ahram Online that any US operation in Syria has to be built upon two main points.

First, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) - the military wing of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) - should be supported in a manner that allows its members to push IS out of areas controlled by its militants.

Second, Ziadeh called for cooperation with Syria's opposition figures in order to "boost the political process, just as what happened in Iraq, in order to achieve an organised transfer of power."

"Otherwise, the whole operation will be useless," claimed Ziadeh, a former member of the anti-regime SNC.

Nevertheless, he admitted the difficulty of simultaneously ending the on-ground presence of jihadists and regime troops in order to pave the way for a transitional period handled by the SNC.

"Unfortunately, there are no serious guarantees for any of these demands, but what all Syrians care about is putting an end to this tragedy and returning displaced people and refugees - but not the US's interests," he concluded.
 

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
3



Aladdin, Egypt
30-08-2014 04:20am
25-
2+
Different Name
I appeal to media to stop calling Daach as the Islamic State and start calling it "Terrorist State' based on what they are doing. It has nothing to do with ISLAM.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
2



alatif
29-08-2014 07:26pm
0-
1+
ISIS
SAUDI ARABIA AND GULF STATES HAVE TO TAKE REAL ACTION TO COMBAT ISIL, ALL EXTREMIST MUSLIM. We.Moderately educated Muslim,who live in 21st Century urge King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia strongly to denounce the primitive and sadistic punishment... We urge Saudi Arabia, and Gulf States strongly to join USA to fight and punish the IS,Al Qaida, Taliban, Al shahab etc. If you are really against terrorist Muslim.. ISIL and Al Qaida are the supremacy Muslim like the supremacy Nazi and Stalin. They are very dangerous and will bring disaster and misery for people. Those who love to live in peace and harmony have to stand together against the extremist Muslim...otherwise the extremist Muslim will bring disaster,misery and sorrow for human being. Extremist Muslim Scholars have so much hatred in their heart. They drunk with religion and killing of innocent people such as children and women. This is a terrible ferocity and brutality . They do not have compassion, love and tolerance.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Sam Enslow
29-08-2014 04:13pm
0-
0+
Arab Cooperation?
There are no good guys in Syria. However, a major factor influencing US actions or lack of action is the reaction. Of Arab countries. Those who now say Obama must do something will start screaming, 'America thinks it is policeman to the world.' As soon as he does anything. The first civilian killed will cause cries of 'Americans are once again killing innocents.' There is no reason Syria can not be resolved by Arabs. They have the arms - at least they have spent billions on them - and' more importantly a greater knowledge of local customs and languages. I have read those critical of US lack of action, but I have heard no suggestions from the Arab world about what they want done and will support in public and what they are willing to do themselves.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment

Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.