Peace-time Syria: what to do with Al Nusra?

ISIL has no place in the nation’s future when and if a negotiated settlement to bloodshed is found, but Al Qaeda affiliate might not be so easily excluded

BEIRUT // There are many uncertainties as to how a post-war Syria would look if a negotiated settlement to end years of bloodshed were ever to be found.

The future of president Bashar Al Assad and other regime officials, the formation of a transitional government and the role of Syria’s powerful Kurdish minority remain up in the air.

But one thing is certain: any settlement between the Syrian government and opposition will leave no role in the country’s future for ISIL or Jabhat Al Nusra.

Excluding ISIL is easy. The group is universally despised, declaring rebels – including those with Salafi-extremist ideology – to be heretics and attacking those who do not surrender.

Jabhat Al Nusra is more difficult. With a Syrian leadership and a much higher percentage of local fighters in its ranks, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria has been heralded as a vital, organic part of the uprising by many rebel groups over the years.

And unlike ISIL, Al Nusra is open to befriending and working alongside other factions. It has also cultivated close relationships with rebel groups and led many key offensives against regime forces.

But these friendships, Al Nusra’s strong military power and the continued dependency of some groups on them would probably spell major problems if negotiated peace moved closer to success.

Apart from facing violent opposition to any deal from Al Nusra, rebels could also be forced to confront their own differences over the group, possibly leading to splits.

Last month, friends and ideological foes of Al Nusra voiced starkly different opinions on the group. Among Al Nusra’s foes, to whom the danger of it and its associated groups is clear, there is a feeling that they are dependent on the group’s military prowess and a hope that it will be forced out after the war.

“We absolutely do not agree with Jabhat Al Nusra,” said Zakaria Malahefji, a political officer with the Fastaqim Kama Umrit coalition of rebel groups in the city of Aleppo. “We do not want Jabhat Al Nusra’s ideology in Syria now or in the future.

“But we need fighters who will fight with us against the regime. The international community did not support us, so we need any groups that will fight with us against the regime.”

Mr Malahefji optimistically believed that a unified national army would be able to disband groups such as Al Nusra.

Col Abdul Jabbar Akaidi, the former head of the Aleppo military revolutionary council, said there would be no place for Al Nusra or like- minded groups after the war was over.

“After Bashar Al Assad is gone, those who still have Salafi- Jihadist thoughts, they must go to Kandahar [Afghanistan]. They cannot stay in Syria,” he said.

“We want to topple Bashar Al Assad, rebuild our country and bring social justice, not stay in a continual fight.”

But Mr Malahefji and Col Akaidi’s feelings were far from universal among rebels.

“Jabhat Al Nusra are our brothers,” said Hajj Bakri, a rebel leader in Hama. “We have no problem with them.”

He said that if Al Nusra and associated factions “continue on the revolutionary path, they are OK. But if they did anything against the revolutionary path, that is a problem”. Abu Zeid, a commander with the hardline Salafi militia Ahrar Al Sham in north-west Syria, said its relationship with Al Nusra was good. As one of the most powerful rebel factions in the war, Ahrar Al Sham is Al Nusra’s single most important ally.

Al Nusra’s continued influence over rebel factions and its ability to act as a spoiler in any negotiations was demonstrated in recent days when the group led a rebel assault on government positions south of Aleppo.

The attack threatened a ceasefire that had mostly been observed for more than a month.

Al Nusra’s “agenda for Syria and beyond is not served by a meaningful political transition”, said Noah Bonsey, a Syria analyst at the International Crisis Group. “They have every reason to seek to thwart it. They are better served by unending war.”