Changing position on Assad

As the Syrian crisis entered its fifth year with no end in sight, US Secretary of State John Kerry told an American news network Sunday that “the United States will have to negotiate with Syrian President Bashar Assad to remove him from power and bring the Syrian civil war to a close.”
He added: “We are working very hard with other interested parties to see if we can reignite a diplomatic outcome.” So was this a sign of a major shift in US policy over Syria?
Since the outbreak of the Syrian uprising, the US position has been largely in line with that of its European and most Arab allies. Basically Washington believed that Assad had lost legitimacy and had no place in the future of Syria and must therefore remove himself from power. But the US never considered the use of force against Assad’s regime, and only when accusations that Assad’s forces had bombed rebel-held areas with chemical weapons surfaced did President Obama order its navy to move close to Syria’s shores. A last minute deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical arsenal, mediated by Moscow, succeeded in averting military intervention. But differences between Washington and its allies remained.
Eventually the US declared that there was no military solution to the Syrian crisis and that all parties must push for a political breakthrough. Three UN emissaries to Syria had failed to dislodge Assad and force him to accept the components of the so-called Geneva I conference; when the US and Russia agreed on a political road map to resolve the crisis. The main issue was and will continue to be the future of Assad. On this point both Tehran and Moscow, the two staunchest allies of Assad, are refusing to budge. On the other hand, the coalition of Syrian opposition groups rejects any dialogue that does not include the removal of the Syrian president.
So after four years and more than 200,000 dead in addition to over seven million displaced Syrians what prompted Kerry to alter his position? The rise of the so-called Islamic State (IS) has changed the geopolitical reality in the region. The moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) has lost territory to IS militants who are now in control of over 40 percent of Syria. The regime has been unable to force a military solution, despite persistent brutal bombing of largely civilian areas, and now controls no more than 35 percent of Syrian territory, including Damascus and the coastal region.
The US has taken its time to train and arm moderate rebels. With their numbers dwindling, the training and arming of no more than 3,000 insurgents will not stem the militant’s expansion or pose a real challenge to Assad’s forces. A major player, Turkey, is not even engaged in the fight against the militants along its borders and insists that all means should be used to depose Assad.
Although Kerry said that the US was coordinating with its allies on the possibility of bringing Assad to the negotiating table, the fact is that this latest position will irk Washington’s allies in Europe and the region. Britain was the first to respond by insisting that Assad had no role in Syria’s future and that it will “continue applying sanctions pressure to the regime until it reassesses its position, ends the violence and engages in meaningful negotiations with the moderate opposition.” It is likely that Saudi Arabia and Turkey will also find Kerry’s call to negotiate with Assad perplexing.
On his part, Assad will be boosted by Kerry’s statements. He had repeatedly presented himself as a partner in the fight against terrorism, calling on the West and Arab countries to stop aiding his enemies. His position on his future as president will not change anytime soon. Even if he accepts to come to the negotiation table it will be at his own terms and the outcome will unlikely be different from the Geneva II and the recent Moscow talks.
Kerry’s latest statements came only two days after chief of the CIA John Brennan said the US does not want to see a chaotic collapse of the Syrian regime, as it could open the way to extremists taking power. Fear of who might replace Assad is a legitimate concern, he said.
This new realignment in Washington’s position on Syria will also draw criticism from a Republican controlled US Congress. Already US lawmakers are weary of a bad deal soon to be reached between the international community and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.
Kerry’s statements will divide Washington’s allies further. In reality, time has already run out for a political deal to end Syria’s civil war. Despite the weakening of the moderate opposition and the expansion of militants, the Damascus regime is not showing any willingness to compromise. The most likely scenario is that it will continue to fight to the bitter end. With the 2016 US presidential elections approaching, time is also running out for the Obama administration to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough. The de facto partition of Syria will continue for now.