You are here

Macron underlines new Syria reality

Jun 29,2017 - Last updated at Jun 29,2017

Cracks in the anti-Assad coalition, if there was ever one, have been showing for years, and those supporting the beleaguered Syrian president, namely Russia and Iran, have been waiting patiently for these cracks to widen.

Last week, Assad and his backers received a precious gift from the head of a country that for years was a major foe.

French President Emmanuel Macron stunned the Syrian opposition when he declared that he saw no legitimate successor to the Syrian president and that France no longer considered his departure a precondition to resolving the conflict in Syria.

In Macron’s view, France’s priority was fighting terrorist groups and ensuring that Syria did not become a failed state.

His comments signalled a major departure from the position of the previous administration.

They also underlined the growing rift between Europe and the US over the strategy, or lack of, on Syria, especially since Donald Trump came to the White House.

But in reality, US’ flip flop on Syria was a feature of the Obama foreign policy.

Washington’s lack of resolve and incoherent stand became evident when the defiant Damascus regime crossed Obama’s red line on the use of chemical weapons against civilians and survived.

Now, with Macron’s latest statement, a key pillar in the Syrian opposition’s long-standing, non-negotiable condition appears to have crumbled.

After six bloody years of horrific carnage and mass destruction, Assad’s role in any future settlement is now less contentious.

By the same token, it is the legitimacy of the opposition, riddled with infighting and divisions that is now being questioned.

Paris has pivoted to the Russian and Iranian stand over Assad marking a more pragmatic approach to the Syrian crisis.

Macron’s shift underlines a sober reading of the geopolitical undercurrents that have boosted Assad’s strategic standing.

Trump and his aides had echoed a similar position before the regime’s alleged chemical attack on Idlib last April.

In the wake of that incident, the US president issued a vehement attack on Assad, followed by the American missile strike on a Syrian air base, and adopted the regime change mantra.

But that was more of a ploy by Trump to deflect attention from his domestic woes.

The US strategy, still in the works, focused on arming the Syrian Democratic Forces that were closing on Raqqa and establishing a foothold in southeastern Syria, close to the borders with Iraq and Jordan.

Trump’s own red lines in and around Tanf base were ignored by the Syrian regime and its allies as they pushed their way to reach the border with Iraq and cut off Daesh’s escape routes south of Raqqa.

The change in Assad’s fortunes began late last year when his forces and Iran-backed militias captured the rebellious parts of Aleppo, at a high civilian price, while the West watched and did nothing.

Since then, Assad’s forces were able to rout the rebels in Homs and Damascus suburbs.

Earlier this month, they moved towards the east, beyond Palmyra and into Bu Kamal and Der Ezzor, and to the south, hoping to capture Daraa city and reach the border with Jordan. While the US and Russia negotiated ways to implement a plan to create four “de-escalation zones” in Syria, Moscow facilitated the Syrian army’s expansion.

Russia’s position was clear: the Syrian army was liberating areas from the rebels and reclaiming Syrian sovereignty over national territory.

The anti-Assad coalition has been dissolving for years.

The US did nothing when Russia intervened militarily in Syria in 2015 to save the regime from what looked like an imminent defeat.

Since then, we have seen rows break out between Turkey and the US, and conflicting agendas erupting between Gulf countries opposing Assad, exacerbated by the latest crisis with Qatar.

Washington’s support for Free Syrian Army rebels waned while the Syrian opposition broke into three main factions, with Moscow and Cairo each adopting opposing groups.

Meanwhile, the Geneva rounds produced nothing, while Turkey, Iran and Russia gave momentum to the Astana technical talks, which aimed at delineating areas of influence on the ground.

The new set-up would satisfy the immediate interests of regional players and could provide an interim arrangement in the wake of the defeat of Daesh in both Iraq and Syria.

The proposed Daraa safe zone could provide a prototype of what Syria will look like in the coming months.

With Russian, US, Turkish, regime and Iran backed militias, in addition the main rebel area in Idlib and the Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria, each entrenched in key locations, these pockets of influence will redraw the map of Syria.

In the absence of a viable political process, Assad will remain in control of Syria’s heartland and main urban centres.

The question now is how will these players agree on the means to observe the peace in these areas of influence and ensure deconfliction?

Is it de facto partition?

No one will say so outright, but with Israel targeting Syrian forces in the Golan recently, it appears that even Tel Aviv wants to draw the lines of its own area of influence.

In the ominous words of former US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, Assad won, or he thinks so.

Maybe in 10 years, he will retake the entire country.

 

 

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

up
33 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF