Russia and Iran appear ready to join West in ousting Assad
Ever since Syria’s civil war erupted more than four years ago, the one great imponderable for western politicians has been how to deal with the country’s dictatorial ruler, President Bashar Assad.
Early in the conflict, when leaders were seduced by the false promises of the Arab Spring, the consensus was that the Assad clan’s 40-year tyranny should be brought to an end and replaced with a secular, western-style democratic government. It was in pursuit of that goal — as well as responding to Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own citizens — that British Prime Minister David Cameron embarked on his ill-fated attempt in 2013 to win parliamentary approval for airstrikes against the regime. It was thought that military intervention would result in Assad’s demise, much as a 2011 campaign led to the overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
One of the arguments against Cameron’s plan was, if the West succeeded in overthrowing Assad, who would replace him? The reality was Assad likely would be replaced by the same Islamist fanatics who terrorized other parts of the Middle East.
After Cameron lost the vote, a new consensus arose: that keeping Assad in power was the lesser of two evils.
But now it appears this approach will be reviewed, based on briefings on the fringes of the G7 summit.
One of the ideas, apparently, is that Assad will be sent into exile as part of a deal between Russia and the West to combat the rise of ISIL.
Several factors explain the change in thinking. The obvious one is the growing realization that Assad, after his early success in preventing ISIL fighters from penetrating the regime’s Alawite heartland around Damascus, is now on the defensive, with reports that the regime could collapse at any minute.
Russia and Iran have the most to lose if Assad is driven from power. Moscow remains wedded to its strategic partnership with Damascus, while Iran needs a friendly regime running Syria to maintain its supply lines to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
It is in the interests of Russia and Iran to reach an understanding with the West, whereby Assad’s removal is managed in such a way that prevents the capital being overrun by militants.
Officially, there is no love lost between the U.S. and Russia. But behind the scenes, diplomats paint a different picture, one where there is a growing acceptance by Moscow and Tehran that their interests would be better served by working with the West to reach an agreement that meets their shared objectives: namely, preventing ISIL from capturing Damascus.
As Obama conceded at the summit, the U.S.and its allies still do not have a “complete strategy” for defeating ISIL.
What better way, then, to reverse the West’s dismal record of the past four years than to reach an accommodation with Russia and Iran to remove the Assad regime? With the Syrian dictator out of the way, the task of defeating ISIL would be less problematic.