One of the main reasons for this is the lack of agreement between the great powers that are members of the UN Security Council as to way out of the dead-end situation that has developed in Syria. The United States and its Western allies consider the ruling regime of Bashar Assad to be to blame for the Syrian tragedy and therefore deny its legitimacy and are openly supporting the armed opposition. Moreover, Washington is in every way possible encouraging interference in the internal Syrian conflict on the side of the opposition by its regional allies: Turkey, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Attempts are also underway to drag other adjoining states—Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon—into the conflict and get them involved and initiate limited sanctions against Damascus within the framework of the UN. Simultaneously, the legislative bodies of the United States and EU are removing limitations on supply of weapons to the Syrian opposition.
In their turn, Russia and China recognize the existing government of Syria as legitimate, are blocking sanctions against Syria in the UN Security Council, and are requesting that the warring sides immediately cease military action, declare a truce, take a seat at the negotiating table, and discuss ways to peacefully resolve the conflict in the interest of all Syrians. The enduring contradictions between the great powers on the Syrian question do not allow the global community under the aegis of the UN to take any kind of decisive measures for normalization of the situation in that country.
Recently, the Syrian authorities, relying on military units that have remained loyal to them, the police, the security services, and help from the Lebanese organization Hezbollah and the friendly Iranian regime, have been able not only to repulse the attacks of the organized opposing Free Syrian Army and various Islamist groups, but also to counterattack in a series of strategically important areas. Some political commentators and representatives of the mass media connect the start of operations of government military forces with the preparation of negotiations between supporters of B. Assad and the opposition under the patronage of Russia and the United States, in which Damascus would like to appear more confident and stable. However, it appears that peaceful dialogue is again being deferred indefinitely due to the fundamental disagreements between the opposing sides. One of the stumbling blocks in the organization of the Geneva international conference on Syria is the opposition’s demand that Bashar Assad leave the presidency. At the same time, it is necessary also to take into account the lack of a united political and military leadership among the Syrian opposition, which is represented by an extremely wide spectrum of military commanders and émigré centers. Repeated attempts have been made in Doha, Riyadh, Istanbul, Washington, Paris, Brussels, and other capitals of Western and Arab countries to unite all the antigovernment forces in Syria, but still without success.
In addition, volunteers and mercenaries from radical Islamist groups are fighting against the government forces in Syria, including jihadists recruited from the countries of the Near and Middle East, Asia, Europe, the CIS, and even Russia. No peace talks are possible with representatives of such groups as Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Soldiers of Allah, and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Even the head of Israel’s military intelligence, General Aviv Kochavi, has stated that the concentration of foreign fighters in Syria poses a danger. Allegedly, a “center of global jihad” is establishing itself in Syria, which will have an effect on the situation in the whole region. In the words of the Israeli general, “thousands of radical mujahedeen are flocking to Syria from the region and the whole world, and they are becoming entrenched in the country with the purpose not only of overthrowing Bashar Assad, but also of promoting the idea of creating religious Islamic states.” Tel-Aviv’s concerns do not appear groundless. After all, there have been practically no serious events or provocations on the Israeli-Syrian border in the entire time that Bashar Assad has been in power in Syria. The situation there markedly deteriorated as soon as Syrian opposition fighters began to take particular parts of the border under their control, with sporadic gunfire and even mortar and artillery bombardment of the adjoining territory beginning.
Washington has also been forced to temporary reconcile itself to the continuing existence of B. Assad’s regime and adjust its position on Syria. Despite the calls of individual hawkish American senators and congressmen for the United States to ratchet up its policy with respect to the Syrian regime, up to establishing a “no-fly zone” over Syria, conducting aerial and naval bombardment, and carrying out a ground-based operation, Washington is still refraining from such radical plans and actions. It is clear that B. Obama and his close circle are all taking into consideration the negative results of such operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and prefer to conduct a more careful policy, giving freedom of action here to their regional partners (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others).
It is no accident that General Martin Dempsey, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Services, recently stated that “intervention in the civil war in Syria will cost the United States billions of dollars and may rather quickly transform into an extremely risky undertaking.”
The Pentagon has openly announced for the first time that it fears “undesirable consequences” from any direct US military intervention in Syria.
This by no means indicates that the US administration has given up on its final strategic goal in the region – strengthening the isolation of Iran by means of changing the regime in Syria. It is to be expected that Washington will continue a “war of attrition” against the Syrian regime, supplying military and military-technical assistance to the opposition, involving all of its regional allies in the struggle against Damascus, and prompting new financial and material supplies to the leaders of the opposition from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Persian Gulf monarchies. The Americans believe that time is on their side and, in the end, they will be able to remove the regime of Bashar Assad without direct military intervention, as the financial and economic capabilities of Syria, even with the support of Iran, are incomparable with the financial capabilities of the Persian Gulf monarchies and reinforcing the ranks of the armed opposition through recruitment of new “jihadists” should not be terribly difficult. At the same time, in Washington they are again “stepping on the rake” that turned against them in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and other “hot spots.” Having gotten his start in the bosom of the CIA, Osama bin Laden, when deprived of an enemy after the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, redirected the terrorist activity of the well organized and clandestine organization Al Qaeda against his former masters and made the United States shudder on September 11, 2001. The fighters who carried out the outrage against the ambassador and US embassy employees in Libya had just brutally killed the head of the state, Muammar Gaddafi, and not without the help of NATO warriors. The televised image of Hillary Clinton, who witnessed the murder of Gaddafi with such delight, has gone around the world. It is clear that, in its attempts to further sow chaos and “democracy American-style” throughout the whole world, Washington will obstinately “for love or money” try to overthrow regimes, knock together military-political alliances and blocs that are advantageous only to it, and interfere in the internal affairs of independent states. It will in no way be understood in Washington that the world will never become unipolar and pro-American, but will remain multifaceted and variegated. Even the smallest country or ethnic group has the right to its uniqueness and individuality.
In Syria today, there is a struggle not only among Syrians – supporters and opponents of Bashar Assad’s regime, Alawites and Sunnis. Today, Damascus is opposing the full power of the United States and its Western allies, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf monarchies and, at the same time, the forces of international terrorism in the form of radical Islamist groups. No matter how paradoxical it may seem, the West and international terrorists have again found themselves on the same side of the barricade.
Stanislav Ivanov, chief researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for New Eastern Outlook.
