No breakthrough

As the Syrian crisis entered its fifth year with no end in sight, US Secretary of State John Kerry told an American news network Sunday that “the United States will have to negotiate with Syrian President Bashar Assad to remove him from power and bring the Syrian civil war to a close”.

He added that “we are working very hard with other interested parties to see if we can reignite a diplomatic outcome”. 

So was this a sign of a major shift in US policy over Syria? 

Since the outbreak of the Syrian uprising, the US position has been largely in line with that of its European and most Arab allies.

Basically, Washington believed that Assad had lost legitimacy and had no place in the future of Syria, and must, therefore, remove himself from power.

But the US never considered the use of force against the Damascus regime, and only when accusations that Assad forces bombed rebel held areas with chemical weapons surfaced did President Barack Obama order its navy to move close to Syria’s shores.

A last-minute deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical arsenal, mediated by Moscow, succeeded in averting military intervention. But differences between Washington and its allies, such as France and Turkey in addition to Saudi Arabia, remained.

Eventually the US declared that there was no military solution to the Syrian crisis and that all parties must push for a political breakthrough.

Three UN emissaries to Syria failed to dislodge Assad and force him to accept the components of the so-called Geneva I conference, where the US and Russia agreed on a political roadmap to resolve the crisis.

The main issue was, and will continue to be, Assad’s future. 

On this point, both Tehran and Moscow, Assad’s two staunchest allies, are refusing to budge. 

On the other hand, the coalition of Syrian opposition groups rejects any dialogue that does not include the removal of the Syrian president.

So after four years and more than 200,000 dead, in addition to over 7 million displaced Syrians, what prompted Kerry to alter his position?

The rise of Daesh has changed the geopolitical reality in the region.

The moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) has lost territory to Islamist militants who are now in control of over 40 per cent of Syria.

The regime has been unable to force a military solution, despite persistent brutal bombing of largely civilian areas, and now controls no more than 35 per cent of Syrian territory, including Damascus and the coastal region.

The US has taken time to train and arm so-called moderate rebels. With their numbers dwindling, the training and arming of no more than 3,000 insurgents will not stem the militant’s expansion, nor pose a real challenge to Assad’s forces.

A major player, Turkey, is not even engaged in the fight against the militants along its borders, and insists that all means should be used to depose of Assad.

Although Kerry said that the US was coordinating with its allies on the possibility of bringing Assad to the negotiating table, the fact is that this latest position will irk Washington’s allies in Europe and the region.

Britain was the first to respond, insisting that Assad had no role in Syria’s future and that it will “continue applying sanctions to pressure to the regime until it reassesses its position, ends the violence and engages in meaningful negotiations with the moderate opposition”.

It is likely that Saudi Arabia and Turkey will also find Kerry’s call to negotiate with Assad perplexing. 

The Syrian president will be boosted by Kerry’s statements. He had repeatedly presented himself as a partner in the fight against terrorism, calling on the West and Arab countries to stop aiding his enemies.

His position on his future as president will not change anytime soon.

Even if he accepts to come to the negotiation table, it will be on his terms and the outcome is not likely to be different from that of Geneva II and the recent Moscow talks.

Kerry’s latest statements came only two days after CIA head John Brennan said the US does not want to see a chaotic collapse of the Syrian regime as it could open the way to Islamist extremists taking power.

Fear of who might replace Assad is a legitimate concern, he said.

This new Washington position on Syria will also draw criticism from a Republican-controlled US Congress. Already US lawmakers are weary of a bad deal to be reached soon by the international community and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. 

Kerry’s statements will divide Washington’s allies further.

In reality, time has already run out for a political deal to end Syria’s civil war.

Despite the weakening of the moderate opposition and the expansion of Islamist militants, the Damascus regime is not showing any willingness to compromise. The most likely scenario is that it will continue to fight to the bitter end. 

With the 2016 US presidential elections approaching, time is also running out for the Obama administration to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough.

The de facto partition of Syria will continue for now.

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