01 March 2016By Amir Taheri
Those who have closely followed President Obama's foreign policy over the past
seven and a half years know that he has always been concerned about two
things. The first is how things look rather than how they are; in other words,
the triumph of form over substance. The second is an almost obsessive
determination to appease adversaries by offering them even more than they ask
for.
One instance that brings Obama's two concerns together is the Syrian tragedy
which has already claimed some 300,000 lives and turned half the population of
that nation into refugees inside and outside the country.
It is against that background that the so-called ceasefire, initiated by
Russia and quickly endorsed by Washington should be examined. I suspect that
Obama is intelligent enough to know that there is not going to be a ceasefire
for at least two reasons. First, a ceasefire is installed only when all
parties to a war agree to it which is certainly not the case in Syria today.
In Fact, the joint sponsors of the ''ceasefire'', that is to say Moscow and
Washington, have expressly excluded the Al-Nusra Front, and the Islamic State
or Daesh. Implicitly exempt are ethnic Kurds who now hold almost as much
territory as President Bashar Al-Assad's government, albeit with a smaller
population.
The position of others involved in this imbroglio, notably the Lebanese and
Iraqi Hezbollah units under Iranian command and the Afghan and other central
Asian ''volunteer'' units controlled by Tehran, remains unclear. The closest
hint to it has come from Muhammad-Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic's foreign
minister, who says there will be no stop to ''action against terrorist groups.''
Since Tehran regards all those opposed to Assad as ''terrorists'', that could
mean anyone and everyone.
At the other end of the spectrum, the cluster of anti-Assad forces that are
not labelled ''terrorist'' by Washington and Moscow have made their acceptance
of an eventual ceasefire conditional to a cessation of attacks on their
positions and the lifting of sieges that are starving large civilian
populations.
In other words, Obama and his new-found partner, Vladimir Putin, have invented
a new form of ceasefire; one could call it a la carte for good measure. The
second reason why there isn't going to be a ceasefire is the diverse nature of
fires that are burning Syria. There are in fact three sorts of fire in Syria.
The first is fire from air which remains a monopoly of Assad's air force, and
recently, that of his Russian allies. People forget that more than 90 per cent
of those killed in the past five years were victims of air attacks by Syrian
and Russian air forces, especially barrel bombings and the use of chemical
weapons. If Putin really wanted, that fire could cease immediately.
The second fire is the one exchanged in engagements on the ground between
Assad's forces and allies, including the Iranian bloc, which has claimed far
fewer victims than Assad's air attacks and Putin's carpet bombing campaign. In
fact, since the autumn of 2014 when the so-called civil war reached its peak,
the two sides have fought a total of only 17 battles of significant size and
scope.
Neither Assad nor his opponents have the manpower needed for large-scale
ground operations in the context of positional warfare. Even if they make
temporary territorial gains they do not have the human resources to hold on
their conquests.
The Syrian civil war has produced a draw and a de facto partition that no one
is strong enough to alter. Some analysts believe that Assad's refusal to
resist advances made by ISIS is a sign of collusion between the two criminal
outfits. We don't know whether or not that is the case. However, we know that
Assad ceded chunks of territory to ISIS without much of a fight while ISIS,
breathing down his neck close to Damascus, has not chosen to enter the
capital. In other words a de facto ceasefire between Assad and ISIS has been
in place for almost a year.
The third kind of fire that is burning Syria comes from terrorist attacks in
urban areas, notably car bombs and suicide operations. The Putin-Obama deal is
not going to cease that kind of fire anytime soon, especially when the groups
behind them are not given any incentive to change tactics.
The Putin-Obama deal will not stop the Syrian tragedy or even alter its course
for the better. But it will give Obama a narrative with which to pay until the
next US presidential election in nine months' time. He would have a ''peace
process'' in place as he has had one between Israel and the Palestinians since
2009. He would sell his Syrian ''peace process'' the same way he sold his
non-existent ''nuclear deal'' with Iran with the claim that appeasing the
mullahs would help ''moderates'' like former President Hashemi Rafsanjani win
power in Iranian elections (Held today!)
The Putin-Obama deal will also suit the master of the Kremlin. There are signs
that Putin is beginning to understand that his Syrian adventure wouldn't be a
cakewalk. With the Russian economy heading for a meltdown, partly because of
low energy prices, Putin is finding it harder to sell his empire-building
project to the oligarchs who provide the backbone of his regime. He has also
understood that, without boots on the ground in substantial numbers, he could
not impose his desired order on Syria. But where would those boots come from?
Having already suffered incredible losses, the mullahs of Tehran dare not send
large numbers of their own troops especially when they need them to quell the
insurrections they fear inside Iran itself. As for the Lebanese branch of
Hezbollah, it has already seen its forces decimated and any bigger deployment
to Syria could deprive Hassan Nasrallah of the critical mass he needs to
terrorize his political enemies inside Lebanon.
As for Assad, he has no choice but to live on a day to day basis, indulging in
all manner of illusions including the ''parliamentary elections'' he has just
announced as his April Fools' Day contribution.
The tragedy is that, all the while, in Syria people die, every day.
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran, London
and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
(1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In
1984-92, he served as member of the Executive Board of the International Press
Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, the
New York Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French magazine
Politique Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he
was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11
books, some of which have been translated into 20 languages. He has been a
columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian
Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments