Syrian Bluff

Jerusalem Post, 6/11

Syrian Bluff

The west has conceded the continued existence of both Assad and Islamic State, despite attempts to create a different impression.

Talks in Vienna last Friday intended to relaunch the diplomatic process on Syria produced predictably little.  Meanwhile, the latest announcement from the US of its intention to send a small number of special forces operators to north east Syria represents an undoubted improvement on the previous disastrous and now abandoned ‘train and equip’ program.

But the presence of the US ‘advisors’ is unlikely to lead to major changes on the ground.

Both the fruitless Vienna meeting and the limited dimensions of the latest US engagement in Syria indicate that whatever its stated policy, the west has effectively conceded both the continued incumbency of Bashar Assad, and the continued existence of the Islamic State for the foreseeable future.  What is being pursued today is a policy of containment.  The attempt to create an impression that anything beyond this is being conducted is a bluff.

The talks in Vienna brought together 20 countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, to discuss ways to end the civil war in Syria.   No common ground was in evidence.  Indeed, the single point of commonality on which all participants could agree was itself devoid of connection to reality: this was the joint commitment that Syria’s ‘territorial integrity’ should be preserved.

Given that Syria is currently divided into four distinct entities (the government enclave in Damascus and the western coastal area, the Kurdish autonomous area in the north, the areas controlled by the Sunni rebels and the Islamic State area, which itself stretches deep into Iraq) this is a commitment to ‘preserving’ a state of affairs which no longer exists.

The participants in the Vienna talks also managed to agree that they should re-convene within a few weeks.

Later, however, even this achievement appeared to be in doubt.  Iran on Monday announced that it was considering not participating in future talks, because of what it described as the ‘unconstructive’ role being played by Saudi Arabia.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in a statement detailing his impression of the Vienna talks, described them as ‘very effective.’

In a way, Kerry was right.  The Vienna talks were effective in demonstrating once again the irreconcilable positions of the Sunni backers of the rebellion (Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar chief among them) and the supporters of the Assad regime (Iran and Russia chief among them).

There has been much speculation in the media in recent days regarding supposed differences between Moscow and Teheran concerning Syria’s future.  But while there are genuine and important differences between the two on both broader regional strategy and on how best to help Assad, the bottom line commitment of both countries to the survival of the regime is not in doubt.

So given that none of the combatant sides appear close to victory, and given the pitiful state of the diplomacy around the conflict as evidenced in Vienna, it appears that the wars in Syria are set to continue.

Where does this leave western policy vis a vis the Islamic State, which President Obama has vowed to ‘degrade and eventually destroy’?

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 27th, described current US policy vis a vis the Islamic State as consisting of ‘three R’s’ – namely Raqqa, Ramadi and raids.

Carter’s statement preceded a US announcement that 50 special forces operators were to be deployed in northern Syria to advice and assist fighters engaged in the battle against IS.

What this means is that the US is supporting a slow battle of attrition against the Islamic State, designed to chip away at its holdings, rather than seriously threaten its existence.

Re Raqqa,  Washington is supporting a new coalition called the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces.’  This consists of the redoubtable Kurdish YPG, which has partnered successfully with US air power in northern Syria since October, along with a number of small non-jihadi Arab rebel groups.  There are no signs of this formation launching a large scale assault on the IS capital in Raqqa city any time soon.

The Kurds, who are the main component, are clearly not interested in adding Sunni Arab Raqqa to their canton system.   It has already become clear to them that any attempt to integrate Arab majority areas into their area of control will produce protests and claims of ‘ethnic cleansing’ from supporters of the Syrian rebellion – as took place after their conquest of Tel Abyad.

Rather, the Kurdish and Arab rebel forces are presently engaged in a campaign to push IS back in the countryside of south-east Hasakeh province.

Their intentions toward Raqqa city at present appear to be to isolate, rather than conquer it.

Similarly, regarding Ramadi, Carter’s naming of this IS controlled city west of Baghdad indicates that the US has abandoned any hopes of an early re-conquest of Mosul, the main urban holding of IS in Iraq.

Instead, the Iraqi government’s preferred approach of concentrating on challenging IS in Anbar province is to be followed.  But here too, the Iraqi armed forces and the Shia militias appear to be in no particular hurry to re-conquer majority Sunni Ramadi.  A US backed government offensive has been under way since early October and has made some headway.  The presence of Sunni tribal fighters among those fighting IS in the area indicates US desires to avoid the battle turning into a straight sectarian fight.  But as of now, despite some gains in the surrounding area, the city remains in the hands of the Islamic State.

As for the third ‘R’ – raids – it appears that behind the scenes, US personnel in Iraq will continue to observe and sometimes participate in targeted actions against IS facilities, as in the Hawija raid on October 22nd.  But no one is under the impression that such raids pose any threat to the continued existence of IS.

So the US and allied war against IS effectively consists of support for those elements to the north, east and south of the borders of the jihadi entity, to prevent further advances by IS, and to chip away at its edges.  That is, a war of containment.  Even in these terms, IS has been left free to continue to advance in a western direction, because here its enemy is the Assad regime, which is not part of the coalition.  IS this week captured the town of Maheen from Assad’s forces, in south west Homs province.

The Administration has tacitly accepted the continued existence of Islamic State and is engaged in trying to contain it.  Russia too constitutes no apparent great danger for the jihadis. Moscow’s  intervention as presently constituted is directed against the rebels, and even then mainly to preserve the regime enclave rather than to embark on a major reconquest of territory for Assad.

What all this means is that the conflict systems taking in what used to be Iraq and Syria (and Lebanon) remain at stalemate.  The de facto partition of these countries is therefore  set to remain for the foreseeable future.    The diplomatic and military noise suggesting otherwise is a bluff.

About jonathanspyer

Jonathan Spyer is a Middle East analyst, author and journalist specializing in the areas of Israel, Syria and broader issues of regional strategy. He is the director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and analysis (MECRA), a research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for strategy and Security (JISS) and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Syrian Bluff

  1. Yonatan Karmi says:

    Maheen looks to be a significant conquest. It’s only 20km or so from the main Damascus to Aleppo highway (M5), which is also the main artery leading up to the Alawite heartlands. Russia may be forced to intensify its attacks in that area, but will bombing from the air be enough? Or will more Hizballah fighters be called upon to sacrifice themselves?

    As for the wider conflict, perhaps the time has come for the West to start fighting Da’esh in earnest. It would mean a temporary alliance of convenience with Assad and Putin, but based on two clear conditions :- 1) the barrel bombing should stop immediately and 2) Assad should step down so that an interim government, which includes Sunnis, can be formed. It means the West abandoning Turkey and Saudi Arabia in its policy towards the area formerly known as Syria. And it means Europe exposing itself to an increased risk of home-grown terror. Truth be told, the Europeans don’t have the balls and the Americans are too far away to really care. Drift and confusion seems to be the order of the day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s