Assad: Total Defiance

With respect to desperately needed humanitarian aid, the customary pattern continues to hold: the regime blocks many deliveries and strips surgical equipment from those it permits; senior UN officials wring their hands and decry the situation; and the West efficiently recycles used talking points about mass casualty events to condemn “in the strongest possible terms” the regime’s heartless besieging of noncombatants and defiance of the Security Council. That which passes for Western leadership uses indignant rhetoric promiscuously, seemingly unaware of the self-indictment it is composing for posterity.

No one will accuse Secretary of State John Kerry of not doing his best with little or no leverage to rectify a situation for which the word appalling hardly suffices. He is trying to persuade Moscow to deliver Assad to a process that could produce a consensus, mutually agreed transitional governing body capable of uniting Syrians against the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), the elimination of which remains the Obama administration’s top priority in Syria.

Kerry knows—as do the Russians—that consensus and unity are impossible with a remorseless killer clinging to power. Is it possible, from Moscow’s point of view, to sideline Assad without being seen as yielding to what it claims to be an American regime change campaign? And if Moscow can indeed reconcile itself to the straightforward unfolding of negotiations fully consistent with the mandate of the Final Communiqué, can it oblige Assad (a) to authorize good-faith peace talks, and (b) step aside when mutual consent works its will?

Ideally the United States and its partners have, by now, a solid understanding not only of Russian capabilities, but intentions. Does Assad’s defiance of the international community include Russia? Or is Russia fundamentally at peace with war crimes and crimes against humanity performed by its client? And if Moscow is not at ease with Assad’s behavior, what will it do about it? It is surely able to consult with senior Syrian security officials. It surely has the means to withhold support if regime actions offend. It has, in short, the wherewithal to signal to Syrian elites that Assad’s continued tenure is becoming an unsupportable burden to bear.

Assad, of course, believes he resides at the hub of the universe: that the Russians—like the Iranians—need him far more than he needs them; that they are supporting him for their own interests and essentially have no choice in doing so. If Western policy and intelligence officials think that Assad’s assessment reflects the actual state of affairs, does Western strategy boil down to a knowingly useless pursuit of Russia? Will Western leaders permit Assad to pound civilians with impunity? Will these same leaders not accelerate the fight against ISIS in eastern Syria? Will they continue to resist adopting a Syria strategy focusing on civilian protection in the west while killing ISIS in the east?

For the Syrian opposition options are few and unattractive. It feels bound to devote time and to behave professionally in Geneva, even as the regime soils the process. It fears that a walkout would inspire Assad—with the full support of Tehran and Moscow—to do his absolute worst in terms of targeting and terrorizing civilians. It hopes—albeit without a scintilla of faith—that the West will put its proclaimed values into action and help Syrians defend themselves against mass murder. They expect nothing good of Assad and his external backers. Sadly, they expect nothing at all of the West.

Assad may be doing what he does with the full consent of Moscow. Or he may be acting in defiance of Russian desires. Whether it is the former or the latter, a new Western strategy focused on civilian protection in western Syria and the accelerated destruction of ISIS in the east is required. Whether Assad acts in coordination with Moscow or in defiance of it, one would think the only thing that would block a new strategy would be an American objective for which Syrians and friends of the United States would pay a ruinous price: running out the clock rhetorically until noon, January 20, 2017.


Atlantic Council

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *