A deal that was bound to fail

Syria’s truce has unravelled as many observers had predicted. 

Lack of confidence between the US and Russia has marred a last-minute agreement by
the foreign secretaries of the two countries from the start.

It was an agreement that lacked transparency and took many parties by surprise. 

Until now, Washington has refused to make details of that accord public, even to its closest coalition partners. 

Hardly a day had passed after the Eid Al Adha ceasefire went into effect before Moscow started accusing the opposition of violating it in many parts of the war-torn country.

Washington did the same, claiming that the regime was carrying out air strikes and refusing to allow hundreds of stranded UN aid trucks from reaching besieged areas.

So what was the agreement about?

For the first time in recent history, the US and Russia had agreed to work together and carry out joint air strikes against Daesh and Al Qaeda proxy, formerly known as Al Nusra Front.

They agreed on a temporary cessation of fire to be extended in preparation for a resumption of political talks. They agreed to facilitate the passage and delivery of aid convoys. 

It all looked good for a short while. But then came the coalition air strikes against regime positions in Deir Ezzor — one that Washington admits was carried out by mistake — which shattered the agreement and ignited a political crisis between the US and Russia.

Following that strike, the regime resumed its bombing of besieged areas.

But what are the secret details of what appears to be a comprehensive accord between the two main powers?

Why did Russia accuse the US of resisting calls to divulge such details? And why the disagreement between the Pentagon and the US State Department over the Syria deal?

It will take time for such details to emerge. But even when most rebel groups reluctantly accepted the truce, the Syrian opposition continued to wait for a disclosure from the US. It never came.

The deal ignored one major point, which is the future of Syrian President Bashar Assad. It failed to address the points of reference for a resumption of the political process.

It committed the US to providing coordinates of locations of so-called moderate rebel groups, while Russia committed to nothing.

The agreement also failed to note the role of Iran-backed militias, including Hizbollah.

For the Syrian opposition, Washington was once again turning its back to the just cause of the Syrian uprising. 

The deal was the outcome of many meetings in various capitals between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov. 

Until recently, President Barack Obama complained that an understanding between the US and Russia was still far from reality. Then came the announcement in Geneva, earlier last week, and for a while it looked like the two powers had agreed on a plan to end the violence and prepare the ground for serious peace talks.

Today the situation is back to normal: the regime is dropping barrel bombs on besieged areas and the US is focusing its efforts on striking Daesh positions.

Was the strike in Deir Ezzor a mistake? Was there an attempt to derail the truce?

The Syrian opposition has already declared that the truce was over and that it has failed. 

But where to go from here? 

It is unfortunate that Russia is still in the driving seat when it comes to deciding the future of Syria.

The short-lived truce has weakened the US position, especially among its anxious allies both in Syria and beyond.

Turkey is pushing unilaterally on a course to secure its primary interests along the border with Syria.

The US is sending mixed signals about where it stands. Russia is accusing Washington of derailing the truce. 

And the regime is making use of this political void to tighten its grip over beleaguered areas.

The UN Security Council has been sidelined. The world is watching as the carnage in Syria continues.

Time is running out for the Obama administration to recalibrate its position on Syria. Defeating Daesh will not end the Syrian crisis. The resumption of the war will harden the position of most Syrian rebel groups and will leave the political opposition with little or no influence over these groups.

The bloodshed will go on beyond Obama’s remaining days in the White House. He will leave a mess for his successor. 

It is a dismal failure that makes no sense and could have been contained if a clear and proper strategy had been in place.

For the time being, the country is engulfed in a war of attrition through proxy wars and the spectre of partition becomes a daily reality.

The human toll of this crisis is already too high and is affecting regional and world security in many aspects.

The deal, whose details remain secret, has failed. There will be attempts to salvage it. But such efforts are unlikely to succeed.

A sustainable ceasefire is a first step towards containing the Syrian crisis. So far, it has been a failure.

The writer is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.