Whether it is Libya, Yemen, Iraq or Syria; nationalism has not been a binding force for these states. The Arab nations all suffer from the malaise of being fragmented into clans, tribes, the local rich and the warlords. Once the state structures are destroyed, it does not bring these forces together on one platform. The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in 2011 was not one for democracy but for change of regime no matter how much the White House convinced itself otherwise. The outcome of six years of an embattled Syria is growth of the Islamic State Group, a fragmented opposition and a disaster of humanitarian nature that has spiralled into a major refugee crisis.
Reportedly, USA has supported the Syrian rebel groups logistically and with weapons. Jabhat al-Nusra, emerged as a powerful opposition force willing to go to anything to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government. In mid-2016, al-Nusra officially spaced away from al-Qaeda and renamed itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. It then merged with Tahrir al-Sham, the so-called moderate Syrian rebels “The group was formed in a merger of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham with other influential Salafi jihadist militias in Syria, including Nour al-Din al-Zinki, which had previously been CIA-vetted and armed with TOW anti-tank missiles by the U.S.” (Ben Norton AlterNet, March 22, 2017)
So what is President Trump’s policy for Syria?
“My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are,” Trump said, referring to the IS by its other acronym, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. “We end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria, if the US attacks Assad,” he told WSJ. (DW November 16, 2016)
Initially having a firm stance of “America First” policy, touched and deeply moved at the pictures of Syrian children who lost their lives in gas attack in early 2017, 59 missiles were fired in Syria by US. However, Trump was careful to choose the “narrowest targeted strike” out of all options available. This was deemed as a strong warning to Bashar al-Assad to not to use chemical weapons again.
Entering the White House seems to have modified Trump bringing a radical change in his views about war in Syria. During his presidential campaign speeches he had repeatedly reiterated his desire to fix the American economy rather than policing the globe. This is certainly not the first time Assad used chemical weapons. Reported examples of his handling and the result have been available. “Unlike chemical weapons, barrel bombs — typically oil drums filled with explosives — are used with vicious regularity in the Syrian civil war. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, the government dropped 495 barrel bombs in March alone, and 12,958 in 2016.” (Boston Globe Aril 11, 2017)
On the face of it, America does not have to have a war policy in Syria. The consequences of American adventurism has been huge, there seems to be no cut-off time to handling the crisis. The step taken by Trump is more reactive in nature to an incident taking place than a well-thought out cogent strategy to deal with the Syrian situation. There seems to be no “thinking out” of the steps to take Syria out of the abyss it is in.
An excerpt from the joint statement between Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, “The two sides emphasised the importance that the Syrian regime adhere to the 2013 agreement to eliminate its entire stockpile of chemical weapons.” (Release by White House May 23, 2017)
If any solution to Syria has to be reached at, Iran forms a part of the solution. Will Trump be willing to talk to Iran? A lot of aversion will need to be swallowed there. In his first trip outside his home shores, Trump used a lot of vitriol against Iran, much to the delight of Saudi Arab and Israel. Iran has recruited and sent thousands of forces to Syria to fight by Bashar al-Assad. The presence of these forces ensures Iran’s presence in any equation to resolve the situation. “Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m elected president, I know how to deal with trouble.” (March 21 speech in Washington, D.C) The rebels in Syria, with support by America and the Sunnis from Saudi Arab may want to see the end of Bashar al-Assad’s rule but this is nothing but a pipedream. An option of taking on Iran head-on in any arena will make any solution in Syria a mirage.
The solution may lie midway between both the forces. For any solution to be reached, the regional allies of both sides of the divide will have to be involved in reaching any peace based solution. Different players exercise influence in different areas of Syria and must work towards a cease fire in their respective areas. Trump will have to broker a deal with Russia. Any counter-terrorism effort by American must be supported by Russia. America under Obama did try to initiate working out an equation with Russia but it did not work out. That was then. Now is now. The effort is worth a try.
The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: [email protected] and tweets at @yasmeen_9
