Syria: Western backers at an important crossroads

After almost seven years of gruesome warfare and hundreds of thousands of casualties it would seem like the Syrian conflict is entering a new phase. The Assad-regime has succeeded in re-establishing control in large swathes of the country thanks to the support of its allies. The rhetoric and the calculated political moves the regime continues to make are worrying since it shows that there will be almost no room for a lasting political solution that involves the other factions. 

The rebels are too fractured

The Syrian population initially took to the streets against the Assad-regime with the hope that it would implement a number of reforms. The Syrian people had enough of the authoritarian government that mainly looked after a privileged elite while using a large security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. When the protests turned violent, civilians began to organize themselves in militias to protect their homes, neighbourhoods and villages against raiding parties of Assadists who came to intimidate protesters. They mostly  consisted of paramilitary loyalists who sensed an opportunity to loot people’s homes without repercussions. As the resistance against the Assad-regime began to consolidate these groups became more organized thanks to a lot of soldiers that defected in large numbers.

The fragile cooperation and the ideological divide between the different rebel groups became apparent when the numerous groups began to pursue their own agendas to draw more support from their foreign backers and begin to bicker among themselves to carve up territory that they would begin to govern as they seemed fit. Matters were made worse with the emergence of several jihadist groups that saw an opportunity to gain support and influence in the region by fighting an enemy everyone wanted gone. The momentum these groups had on the battlefield at one point was lost because of this lack of cohesion.

The lack of coordination, gains and the enormous amount of money that was poured into these groups for tactical training and weapons through their foreign backers led to the decision that these programs would be either scaled down or shut down completely. The U.S. was one of these backers, and now numerous moderate rebels are at risk of being dissolved or absorbed by radical groups. The de-escalation zones that were implemented across Syria emphasize the critical situation in which the rebels find themselves, as the lack of cohesion between the groups leads to infighting and a waste of resources that could be used against their common enemy.

When the Assad-regime will focus its resources on these fronts it is unlikely that these groups will be able to mount a coordinated and an effective defence against the now military superior Assad forces. There will be also little to no political intervention on their behalf by the international community because of their radical beliefs.

The Assad-coalition has the upper-hand

The Assad coalition has succeeded in gaining the upper-hand both militarily and politically in the Syrian conflict, in no small part thanks to the contributions of its allies, of which Iran and Russia both played a crucial role. This allows them to focus their resources on a specific front, targeting certain groups in particular and gain another strategic or political advantage over the other factions. It gives them more leverage during the negotiations that aim to end the fighting and find a political solution.

At the start of the conflict the regime found itself in increasingly more trouble as it began to lose more and more control of the country. It only seemed a matter of time before the regime would fall as the loyalists were unable to mount successful offensives with the limited resources they had across the country. The regime was forced to concentrate its resources in a few elite units that would rush to the most critical fronts while a defensive posture was implemented across other fronts. Assad loyalists began to dig in and fortify their military bases and neighbourhoods while the air force began to systematically destroy rebel-held territory with a variety of ordnance. Barrel bombs, thermobaric ordnance and even chemical weapons were used on a large scale, mostly against its civilian population. This in turn resulted in a regional and international refugee crisis as millions were forced to flee the country. During all this the Assad-regime continued to claim that it was in control of most of the country.

The support the regime received was at first not enough to turn the tide in their favour as the rebels received increasingly more (in)direct support from their foreign backers. Turkey, the United States, Israel  and several gulf states in particular realised that the removal of the Assad regime could be a very good thing. The increasing amount of Iranian troops and Russian hardware however allowed the Assad-regime to mount its first series of offensives in the western part of Syria, taking control of the Khanassar-route and reaching its beleaguered forces in Syria’s largest city of Aleppo. The Assad-regime also began to push back against the rebel forces around the capital of Damascus and Daraa, more to the south. Large scale counteroffensives mounted by rebel forces were blocked and ultimately defeated.

The regime also succeeds in conquering more territory as it negotiates the surrender of rebel pockets across Syria, offering them amnesty or the opportunity to relocate with their families to rebel-held territory. These negotiations are undertaken by the reconciliation centre under the supervision of the regime’s Russian allies. This allows the regime to divert more troops to other fronts, avoid casualties while consolidating the rebels in certain parts of the country.

Both Iran and Russia have a lot to gain if the Assad-regime were to be victorious. Iran can expand its political influence in the country and put more pressure on its regional adversaries, Israel in particular. Russia on the other hand now has a permanent military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean thanks to the bases under its control in Latakia province. It is also very likely that Syria will become Russia’s most profitable foreign market in the foreseeable future. The possibility of a trial and conviction of the regime and its leader is also very unlikely as Russia continues to protect both with its right of veto. This led to the resignation of the head of the committee that was looking into war crimes committed in Syria as Carla del Ponte was convinced that there was more than enough evidence to convict the regime but it would just not be possible because of Russian interference. The regime might survive this conflict but it would seem that it has sold its soul to its allies as the main reasons that led to the outbreak of the protests and the revolt are still not addressed.

It is very likely that the regime will return to doing the same things that it has always done, which is using the security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. There is also the possibility that the security forces in due time will use the footage that was created by rebel forces and shared through social media to identify would-be rebels, apprehend and imprison them. 

The caliphate collapses

The Islamic State is desperately clinging onto the territory that remains under their control in al-Sham. After the fall of Mosul and Tal-Afar in Iraq the terror group only hold territory around Hawija and the deserts near the Syrian border.

In Syria the caliphate is buckling under increasing pressure from all fronts as the capital of Raqqa is under attack by Syrian Democratic Forces and its front lines in central Syria were overrun by the Assad-coalition’s forces. This offensive was aimed at lifting the siege of Deir Ez-Zour where a loyalist garrison held of the jihadists for three years. Now that the core territory of the caliphate is overrun many of its fighters begin to lose heart and look for ways to escape capture and prosecution.

Despite all this, the terror group is far from defeated as their caliph, al-Baghdadi, has eluded capture so far despite numerous attempts to kill and/or capture him, along with several prominent members. In the future the group will return to the shadow organisation it was before, using terror attacks to undermine the regional governments and inflame sectarian tensions while rebuilding its strength, support and forging new alliances with other terror groups, among which possibly Al-Qaeda.

It is very likely that the group in due time will resurface in another part of the world, at the moment the caliphate has a foothold in the Philippines, Afghanistan and West-Africa. It is also plausible that the group will try to gain a foothold in regions where it can ignite new violence and draw on new supporters, for example in Central Asia, or even reignite tensions in post-war regions such as the Balkans, where there are still numerous conservative Muslim communities with radical influences and where the authorities hesitate to go, creating effective no-go zones.

Are the Syrian Democratic Forces our best bet for change?

One of the moderate groups in the Syrian conflict that managed to achieve solid results are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that aim for a decentralised political system that guarantees the political and cultural rights of the country’s numerous ethnic and religious minorities. The movement consists of Syrian Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Yezidis, Syriacs (to name only a few) but is at the moment dominated by the Syrian Kurds.

The group received the (in)direct support of several western countries in their struggle against the Islamic State, the U.S., the U.K., Germany and France all made contributions varying from logistical support, fire support, arms, training and even Special Operation Forces.

The Obama-administration tried to fight the Islamic State through its proxies as much as possible, trying to avoid a situation where the U.S. would be sent into another costly long-term conflict in the Middle East. As the fight against the Islamic State became more intense, there was a need for more support which resulted into an increase of American troops and hardware in the region.

The Trump administration was partially elected thanks to the rhetoric of then candidate Trump where he claimed on numerous occasions that he would bring the fight against the Islamic State into a higher gear by ‘bombing the shit out of them’.

It didn’t take long after president Trump was elected that there was a significant increase in American troops noticeable in Syria, partially to help support the long-awaited offensive on Raqqa. This higher gear sadly also lead to a noticeable increase in civilian casualties as the battles for Mosul and Raqqa intensified despite implementing procedures that were aimed at avoiding these kind of casualties in the first place.

More war or Cold war?

The question is what the United States’ strategic objectives will be once Raqqa falls and Deir Ez-Zour is within reach. The main focus will be on clearing out the last pockets that will be under the control of the Islamic State and tracking down as many of the leadership as possible before they have the chance to flee the region. It is also vital that the Syrian Democratic Forces consolidate their hold on the northern bank of the Euphrates river to avoid that the Assad-coalition gains a foothold there. Both the Assad-coalition and the SDF will become the two prominent factions in the Syrian conflict which means that they’ll have to come together and start negotiating at some point. The question is whether both parties are interested at this point to begin negotiations because their agendas are as far apart from one another as possible.

Bashar al-Assad has declared on numerous occasions that he intends to regain control of every inch of Syrian territory. Thanks to the support of Iran and Russia is very likely that he will succeed in this if the West does not make it clear to him that this is no longer a realistic scenario in a post-ISIS Syria. At the moment the SDF are in control of a significant part of Syria and thanks to recent successful offensives around the Euphrates, are now also in control of strategic civilian infrastructure like oil fields and dams. This could give them some political leverage during future negotiations. The problem is that the Assad-regime does not recognize the SDF as a political actor in the conflict, which could possible lead to a military confrontation.

It is also unclear where the Trump-administration stands as there have been some very contradicting statements in the past. Initially it looked like the U.S. were planning to continue to support the SDF in Syria while maintaining a presence in the region for several years. This was reported as incorrect as an official announcement stated that the U.S. would end its support to the SDF after the Islamic State was defeated. The Western military presence in Syria is also unofficial and not legal according to international laws. The Assad regime has never given the U.S. or any other western country the permission to build up a military presence within its borders. This is the case with both Iran and Russia, who were officially asked to intervene on behalf of the regime.

The U.S. has also lost a lot of partners in the region over the past years and is trying to keep some sort of influence in the region and its changing dynamics. The relationship with Turkey has hit a low point because the U.S. is providing broad support to an organization which Turkey regards as a terror organization and has opted out of working with Turkey and its proxies in the past. There is also the matter in which Turkey has been cracking down on its people after the failed coup attempt and has become increasingly more authoritarian, which led to criticism from several prominent leaders in the West, among which German chancellor Angela Merkel. Turkey is also displeased with the U.S. because it refuses to hand over the presumed leader of the failed coup who lives in exile in the States, even after ‘a considerable amount of evidence’ was provided to them.

There is also an increasing amount of Russian and Iranian influence noticeable in the region. The Iraqi government announced that it was looking into ways to cooperate more closely with Teheran in the future, while it also began to court several Gulf states which led to a diplomatic crisis and the blockade of Qatar. It is also speculated that Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni conflict who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition and have on several occasions embarrassed the Saudi forces with numerous victories.

Russia was awarded an important military contract in both Iraq and Egypt and has also sold it newest air-defence system, the S-400, to Turkey. Russia has also begun with re-establishing ties with Libya, which is still in turmoil after the fall of Gadhaffi.

The U.S. will try to counter these new spheres of influence by securing one of their own with the help of new regional partners. The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds could therefor prove vital for the American strategic objectives in the Middle East. In both regions the U.S. has announced several projects to help these groups with the rebuilding effort and possibly paving the way for an American military presence. The problem with this is that the U.S. will be creating new regional actors and will have to sustain them for a certain period of time. This is very much the case for the northern Syrian democratic federation that is literally surrounded on all sides by hostile governments.

It is very likely that the Assad-coalition is going to test whether the Trump administration is really willing to risk a direct confrontation by standing with the SDF when a battle-hardened force with serious hardware comes knocking. As I mentioned earlier the United States’ presence in the country is unlawful which could lead to an international diplomatic embarrassment when the Assad-coalition calls on the international community to make the U.S. withdraw from Syrian sovereign territory. There are also not enough western troops in Syria to be stationed along the frontlines to discourage the regime’s forces from trying anything and the West doesn’t have enough political capital to enforce a political solution. It also seems unlikely that the Trump administration will be willing to invest enormous amounts of money in the region to help the SDF in fighting the Assad-coalition. Trump famously criticized the previous administration for jumping into another regional conflict that would cost enormous amounts of money to achieve unrealistic objectives that were a waste of time.

===
If you have any constructive feedback on my writing skills or the content that is published here, feel free to leave me a comment so that I can improve my skills.

USA - Middle East: Donald Trump severely compromised U.S foreign policy in the Middle East

During the presidential election campaign of 2016 Donald Trump quickly made headlines with his bold statements on domestic and foreign issues. He would repeal and replace Obamacare, build a great southern wall “to keep the bad guys out,” rebuild the aging American infrastructure and turn the fight with the Islamic State into high gear by “bombing the shit out of them.”

Trump’s controversial travel ban, aimed at monitoring and decreasing the arrival of Muslims from a number of Middle Eastern countries for so-called security reasons, caused a major uproar as thousands of people took to the streets across the States to voice their concerns over the direction this new administration was taking their country. Although the first draft was dismissed,  the administration made it clear that it would put it forward again as the threat was real and it was only a matter of time before an attack took place without the necessary precautions. The American Supreme Court recently decided to allow certain parts of the ban to be implemented although there are still ambiguous terms in there that will cause problems in the near future.

President Trump’s unique insights on how to revitalize the American economy would lead to the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord as there was no convincing argument regarding global warming. The (non-binding) agreement was extremely hard on the United States’ coal mining industry while other global powers such as India and China could even increase their emission output. The Dakota Pipeline project that was put on hold because of environmental concerns was restarted despite protests and concerns from several politicians. As the whole world continues to put its hope in renewable energies, the Trump administration sticks to coal and oil and now even has plans to expand its fracking operations, something that was deemed too expensive before and could potentially be dangerous to the countries’ water supplies although these concerns are dismissed because at the moment there haven’t been any conclusive studies.

After taking office, Trump was quick to resurrect and push through an arms deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, worth over one billion dollars, which was tabled under the Obama administration because it was considered immoral as the ordnance might be used in the Syrian conflict as well as Yemen. The Trump administration had no such qualms as it was “a great deal” that would result in a major boost of the American economy and a much-needed win for the president. Trump was also quick to pick the Saudis’ side in their beef with Qatar as the Wahhabi kingdom moves to send a clear message through the Arabian peninsula that working with its regional nemesis Iran would be very unwise. Interestingly the rest of the administration was more hesitant to declare a side as Qatar hosts an important American base that provides the U.S. with a foothold in the region.

Trump also took the gloves off in the fight against the Islamic State as the air campaign against the terror group was intensified and additional forces were sent to provide training and indirect fire support in the campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa. This escalation resulted in a noticeable increase in civilian casualties, something the previous administration tried to avoid. Although it has to be said that this number could only increase as the fighting would intensify in urban areas, dropping heavy ordnance on civilian infrastructure when it is known that civilians are used as human shields sends the wrong message to the people you’re trying to liberate and get on your side, period.

The Trump administration’s attitude towards the Assad regime has changed a number of times as they initially wanted him gone, then wanted him to stay to provide some stability in the transition period (when it still looked like the status quo was still somewhat in effect). However after the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province the administration called Assad unfit for office and even fired Tomahawk missiles toward a Syrian airbase “to send a clear message,” only to declare a few months later (by Rex Tillerson) that Assad’s future should be determined by Russia, effectively declaring that Russia was in the driving seat from then on. This constant shifting does not inspire confidence in the US’ long-time allies and the proxies it is backing on the ground.

Trump’s newest attempt to show his diplomatic prowess may very well be the final nail in the coffin for the American influence in the Syrian conflict and the region. By ending the CIA-funded arming program in support for these groups it can only spell certain doom for them as the American-supplied Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) are an essential part of the rebels’ strategy in holding the Assad forces at bay. Even worse is that it was done to mend the relationship with Russia, a backer of Assad, which could be perceived by the rebel groups as a form of betrayal. What few moderate groups remain in Syria are now at risk of disbanding completely or being absorbed by more radical groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. This group is one of the dominant factions in the opposition and currently moves to secure its hold over the other rebel groups in Idlib province.

It is very possible that this initial dismay could turn into an anti-American (or anti-western) attitude which could lead to an effective recruiting ground for terror groups that aim to carry out attacks against western installations or assets in the region or even on their home turf. This could lead to a difficult relationship with its regional partners, for example the kingdom of Jordan, as they could get caught in the crossfire. Other partners who are have been looking for opportunities to increase their influence and role in the region, Turkey and Israel, might even distance themselves further from the Trump as they begin to set their own course that serves their own interests best, rather than looking towards the U.S. for approval.

It looks like Trump’s policy of ‘America First’ is becoming reality, but not the way he intended…By charting a course for the U.S. that serves its own agenda this administration will continue to alienate the country from its allies and erode the foundations of several important institutions it was one a prominent member of… ‘America First’ could very well become ‘America Alone’ while other countries move in to fill the vacuum.

= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.