The decision by Russia to conduct airstrikes in Syria complicates an already very difficult situation. Combatting Islamic State is one thing, and indeed, the more countries doing so the better, but attacking any group opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad (including US-backed rebels), as the Russians seem to be doing, is deeply flawed.
Unlike the US and its allies, the Russians have a clear (although risky) strategy in Syria, for now. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants President Assad to remain in power at all costs and he wants to ensure that Moscow keeps its naval facility in Tartus, the only Russian base in the Mediterranean. It is important to keep in mind that the Russians and Syrians have long been close allies, going back to the days of the Soviet Union and President Hafez al-Assad (Bashar’s father), who ruled Syria from 1971 to 2000.
The West views Moscow’s policy as a bid to postpone the exit of a man who is responsible to a great extent for the dire situation Syria is in. Let us not forget that the killing in Syria began four years ago when Assad brutally crushed peaceful pro-democracy protesters. This was long before al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and Islamic State appeared on the scene.
Assad had the opportunity to negotiate with the Opposition and to plan a gradual peaceful transition to a democracy but he chose instead to kill or imprison anyone who opposed him.
Of course, those opposed to Assad also committed their fair share of mistakes. US President Barack Obama was perhaps too rash in calling for Assad to step down so soon after the protests began; it would have been better had he been offered some sort of acceptable long-term exit strategy.
Obama was later also too hesitant when deciding whether to support the moderate Syrian rebels, and the US President failed to follow through on his own ‘red line’ over the use of chemical weapons by Assad – although the US-Russian brokered agreement over the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons was an important achievement. The support by the Gulf States, on the other hand, of certain Islamist groups in the conflict that are somehow linked to al-Nusra is also certainly questionable.
The situation in Syria now is well known. Since the protests first began, 250,000 people have died in the conflict, millions of Syrians have become refugees in and outside their country, thousands of others have fled to Europe, and a large part of the country is now controlled by Islamic State jihadists, who have conducted acts of genocide, ethnic cleaning and crimes against humanity on a massive scale against thousands of people, including minorities, women and children.
The Americans were only informed one hour before the bombing started
Despite the terrible atrocities committed by the Assad regime, the fact is that today the number one danger in Syria is Islamic State, and a new approach to the terrible crisis is badly needed.
What are the likely consequences of Russia’s military incursion into Syria and how can the US and its allies turn this into an opportunity?
First of all there are a number of risks involved in the Russian strategy, including the possibility that US planes, which are also involved in strikes against IS, will collide with Russian planes. Hopefully there will be enough co-ordination between the two sides to avoid this, although on the first day of the Russian airstrikes the Americans were only informed one hour before the bombing started.
Another problem is that it seems Western-backed Syrian rebels have also been targeted by the Russians, which will only strengthen the ranks of Islamic State. Perhaps this is what Assad and Putin want to achieve: the war ending up as a straightforward conflict between the regime in Damascus and IS. In such a scenario, most people will consider Assad as being the only person capable of defeating IS. Such an approach is extremely risky and could result in a rallying cry for jihadists from all over the world. The Russians, after all, are the same people who fought the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and were defeated.
There is also the risk that as a result of Russia’s increased support for Assad, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will in turn increase their support for some of the Islamist groups fighting in Syria, making the prospect of a peaceful settlement even more remote.
In reality, what we have in Syria are two different coalitions fighting IS: the US-led coalition and the Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hizbollah coalition (Iraq last week agreed to share intelligence with this latter group). There is virtually no co-ordination between the two sides, which must be rectified.
However, Obama must make it clear to the Russians that such co-operation will only come about if Moscow stops targeting the non-IS rebels in Syria. At the same time Washington should stop insisting that Assad should step down, even if it believes that he should exit the scene in the long term.
Hopefully there will co-ordination between the US and Russia over their anti-IS airstrikes, and this should be followed by intense diplomatic negotiations involving Washington, Moscow, Teheran and Riyadh, without which there can never be peace in Syria.