President Bashar al-Assad made an important speech in Damascus on Sunday, outlining – before an audience of diplomats – his vision of the transition toward a political settlement in Syria.
Assad gave notice to those foreign powers who have pushed a regime change agenda – an agenda that has spectacularly failed – that he expects them to abandon their residual links with rebel groups. He said: “There will be neither security cooperation, nor the opening of embassies, nor a role for certain states that say they want to find a way out [of Syria’s war], unless they explicitly cut their ties with terrorism.”
Assad had in mind the US and its regional and western allies – principally Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France. He duly highlighted the robust support received from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in turning the tide of the war, but also dwelt on the “big picture.” The “strategic future of Syria,” he said, “must be towards the East.” He ended with the tantalizing remark that Syria needs to reconsider the map of its external relations.
Evidently, Assad intends to regain control of the entire country and is confident that such an achievement is not far off. The Astana talks and any UN-sponsored peace process have become sideshows; the accent now is on crushing rebel groups through a mix of coercive diplomacy and sheer military power. Syrian government forces will press ahead with their military offensive to liberate the city of Deir Ez-Zor; they’ll then cross the Euphrates and take control of the southern regions bordering Iraq, vanquishing Islamic State (ISIS).
“There will be neither security cooperation, nor the opening of embassies, nor a role for certain states that say they want to find a way out, unless they explicitly cut their ties with terrorism”
To be sure, the US has to take some major decisions in the weeks ahead. It has set up 12 military bases in the Kurdish regions of northern Syria, indicative of plans for a prolonged stay in Syria. The Kurds, allied to the US, expect a permanent American presence. The US objective still appears to be to beat the government’s forces to Dier Ez-Zor and seize control of the oil fields in the north-eastern province of Hasaka (which are important for ensuring the economic viability of a Kurdistan in northern Syria.) This plan looks increasingly like a pipe dream, however.
Traditionally, Syrian diplomacy has been quite adept at exploiting the fault lines in regional and global politics to preserve the country’s own strategic autonomy. The bottom line is that a sort of inter-dependency has developed in the Russian-Syrian alliance. Syrian forces cannot make headway in their offensive along the banks of the Euphrates in the coming weeks without Russian air cover; but this is also emerging as part of a joint enterprise to prevent a long-term US military presence in Syria and the balkanization of the country.
It is also in Iran’s interest that the US retrenches from Syria. Tehran’s best bet is that Assad holds onto power. Both Russia and Iran are stakeholders in Syria’s unity and territorial integrity.
A shift in the overall military balance in Assad’s favor is borne out by reports that Hezbollah has cut back its involvement in Syria from a peak level of 20,000 fighters in Syria to a force level of 5,000
The visit by the head of Iran’s General Staff of the Armed Forces, Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, to Turkey last week, which was the first such event in over four decades, and the signing of a Turkish-Iranian military agreement on August 17 in Ankara to expand military cooperation, signifies that the two countries have shared interests in preventing any independent Kurdish entities appearing on the maps of Iraq or Syria. Simply put, all these factors work to Syria’s advantage.
An additional booster for Syrian diplomacy comes in the guise of the nascent Russian-Turkish-Iranian axis, which is compelling Turkey to terminate its support for extremist groups in Syria. Russia has been cajoling Turkey with appreciable success and the Turkish-Iranian entente hastens that process. Equally, acute contradictions in the Turkish-American relationship make the US military presence on a long-term basis in northern Syria unsustainable.
The US faces an uphill task to cobble together a credible rebel force that can challenge the might of the Syrian government forces and Iran-backed militia in the southern and eastern regions of Syria. A shift in the overall military balance in Assad’s favor is borne out by reports that Hezbollah has cut back its involvement in Syria from a peak level of 20,000 fighters in Syria to a force level of 5,000.
All in all, therefore, the big question is not whether but when US commanders decide to call it a day in Syria. That point is still not within sight. But Assad has made it clear that although Syria will be open to negotiating diversified external relationships, in this conflict the winner will take all.
Branka Alhamdy Wonderful post. Thanks
Branka Alhamdy US has no legitimate interest in Afghanistan .
What is at stake in Syria is US ability to stay in the Middle East. If Bashar al-Assad wins and finds a political solution acceptable to the more moderate opposition, the US military will have to leave both Syria and Iraq, and will keep only – for the short term – some bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Due to the weakness of Saudi Arabia the US will be left without any means to project its power in the ME. Israel alone will not do, and Israel may in the end make peace with Bashar al-Assad in order to keep Iran away from its borders. Turkey will turn definitely to Russia and may leave NATO, and Iran will become too strong for the US to risk going to war against it. In short, the US is on its way out of the ME, which should quickly improve the situation there.
West has failed miserably in Syria, and that is a very good thing. Now the western ISIS members are coming home and the consequences are in the news almost weekly. West gambled and lost and their citizens are now paying for it.
The imminent liberation of Deir ez-Zor puts all prospects of US remaining Syria at peril.
Branka Alhamdy Interesting thoughts, points
They already did. It is just that US is not yet ready to withdraw without a "victory". In last night’s speach Trump has outlined the policy on Afghanistan that sounds very similar to his Syria policy. "Victory" means defeat of terror groups, means no nation building, and means eventual peace process. Transfering the control of the persectution of war to generals, like in Syria, wil result in the clear, narrow and exectuable path to "victory", and not be subject to politicians continuous redefiniton of the goals and objectives. This is what keeps the wars going, as they get redefined politically, and hence, permanent. It will be interesting how this will work in Afghanistan, and even more interesting if coming down on Pakistan will be a winner in getting India to feel good — or blackmailed. Much remains to be seen, but it is a starting point. Define the enemy, crush the enemy, get government to function, and go from there. The problem for US is the one of economy. The only way Afghanistan will develop is to join the Central Asian development projects under dual tracks of Chinese Road-Belt initiative, and Russian Euroasian Economic Union. Both are actually working towards the same goal. The first one is in infrastructure buidling, while the EEU is about the tarrif and legal infrastructure that allows today for container traffic to move without stopping from China, accross Kazakhstan and Russia, to Belarus-Polish border with EU. Most containers go to German land-port, Duisburg, where the containers get redirected accross Europe, from Spain in the Wast to Belgium, Netherlands and Danmark in the North, and France in the South. While the infrastructure plans are made accross the Asian landmass, the Asia is being extended to Balkans, where ambitious projects of canal buidling, railroad and road connections to Central Europe — are linked to Greek ports, as well as rail accross Turkey and Middle East on one end, and Turkey, Iran and Pakistan on the other.
Investments are flowing, making manhy a money losing enterprise a profitable one. That is kind of sucess that US and Western allies are really not good at. This is the reason EU is losing its former appeal. Any union that turns into a fortress to keep others out, is dooming its members to the master-colony status inside the closed market. EU has been objecting to Chiese investments in its poorer members and candidates, and it rings hollow when Chinese investments are wellcome in Britain or Germany.
It is therefore to expect that Afgjhanistan will depend on the economic cooperation with its region, not remain the exclusive possession of NATO countries after peace has resumed. As these are territories far from US mainland, it is understandable that US is envisioning India to be the sub-contractor chosen to "manage" Afghanistan. Doubt very much lthat India want this role. It currently is dealing with its own nationalist urges to escalate conflict with China in territorial dispute. But this is I believe a game of shaddows. India and China have a higher lever understanding, and simply need to play out the internal politics — not sweeping unsolved baggage under the rug. This reminds one of the Russians-Chinese border dispute, and eventual settlement.
In the end, US only real interest is in insuring that Afghanistan will not be used for miltiary purposes by any other powers, threatening US interests. Beyond that, without economy to attach Afghansitan to Europe or US — there is very little US can do.
should not india,pakistan,china,russia,and iran bring a similar agreement for afghanistan,would that not be a huge economic and peace building boost for the entire asian region instead of allowing foriegn imperialism
It seems like the Yankees are going home after all, specificly, when Daesh has been defeated, unless off coarse, new facts like a Kurdistan in Syria appear, then this statement could mean, that the US will stay there?:
"The U.S. does not plan on extending their stay in Syria after the Islamic State (ISIL) is defeated, the Spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, Heather Nauert stated this week.
“That is not our plan, our intent is to defeat ISIS,” Nauert said when asked if the United States plans to stay in Syria after defeating ISIS, as quoted by Ara News Agency.
“Syria must be governed by its own people and not by the United States or other forces,” Nauert added."" (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-will-not-remain-syria-isils-defeated-state-dept/)