By OSAMA AL-SHARIF
US President Joe Biden and his top foreign policy team are yet to unveil a policy on the decade-old Syrian crisis. So far, the State Department under Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reiterated its commitment to implementing tough economic sanctions under the Caesar Act, while the Pentagon announced recently that the US military in eastern Syria will no longer be responsible for protecting oil fields. Instead, it will focus on fighting Daesh. But is this enough? It falls short of a clear and stable approach to resolving a crisis that continues to erode the country’s social and economic fabric, resulting in the potential destruction and eventual partition of Syria.
It is not clear if Syria will emerge as a foreign policy priority for the Biden administration, with early indications pointing to a lack of vision on how to proceed after years of failed, myopic strategies. But the fact remains that the Syrian crisis, with its multinational dimensions, is a major regional disruptor. One cannot resolve the Iran question — including the nuclear deal and Tehran’s regional agenda in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen — without addressing the complex Syrian crisis.
Successive US administrations have failed to implement a valid strategy in Syria. The Obama White House opted to back anti-Assad rebels, including nationalists and leftist and extremist elements, in a bid to topple the regime. That policy had a disastrous effect on the people of Syria and paved the way for the emergence of Daesh, while also failing to bring down the regime. Millions of Syrians have been displaced and almost half a million killed, while the world stood by as Damascus deployed chemical weapons against its own people. Both the regime and rebel groups stand accused of gross war crimes. Barack Obama left Syria in turmoil, just as he did with Libya.
President Donald Trump inherited the Syrian crisis and, while he sought to end US involvement in the region, he was faced with the dire challenge presented by Daesh in both Syria and Iraq. His policy, not often clear, focused on defeating the terror group while enforcing economic sanctions on the Damascus regime. Russia’s military intervention in Syria took place in 2015 and became permanent in 2017. That was a game-changer in the dynamics of the civil war, which both Obama and Trump failed to appreciate.
Coinciding with the Russian intervention, Turkish forces crossed the border with Syria in 2016 to contain and repulse Syrian Kurdish rebels allied with Arab and other ethnic minorities east of the Euphrates. These forces were labeled as terrorist groups by Ankara and associated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Meanwhile, the Assad regime allowed thousands of Iranian and Hezbollah fighters to come to its aid, thus sounding alarm bells in Israel.
There is no doubt that Syria presents a major geopolitical challenge for the region and beyond. Russian initiatives to find a political settlement have come up short. The UN, which is sponsoring efforts to write a new constitution for the country, has also made little progress.
The US cannot solve the Syrian crisis on its own. It needs the help of the EU — as an economic powerhouse — as well as that of Moscow and Ankara as major players on the ground. The US approach should be part of a bigger vision for its policy in the region. So far, Biden has shown a desire to reduce US military involvement in the region in a bid to give diplomacy a chance. That can be seen in his view of the conflicts in Yemen and Libya. But Syria is much more complicated.
One alternative is to admit that the regime is not going away any time soon and that the international community should engage it in an effort to force it to embrace reforms in return for the easing of sanctions, adopting a road map for the reconstruction of the country and repatriating refugees. This quid pro quo is not guaranteed to succeed, but it could entice Moscow to put real pressure on Bashar Assad. Russia’s support for the regime cannot be open-ended and is unlikely to include economic aid.
Leaving things as they are would be dangerous in the long run. It would spell the de facto partitioning of the country, allowing Turkey, Iran and Russia, each with a different agenda, to remain in the country for many years, with the real risk of triggering a major conflagration, say between Israel, which wants the Iranians out, and Tehran. It also leaves uncontrolled pockets of territory for Daesh, allowing it to regroup and present new threats.
So far, Biden has shown a desire to reduce US military involvement in the region in a bid to give diplomacy a chance. –AN
