In Syria, the fight's between Assad alliance and the divided anti-Assad group

The political turmoil in the Arab world, once known as the Arab Spring, felled President Ben Ali of Tunisia, in power since 1987, in January 2011; President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in office since 1981, in February 2011; Muammar Gaddafi, the Supreme Leader of Libya, in office since 1969, in October, 2011 mainly owing to NATO military intervention; and Ali Saleh, President of Yemen, in power since 1978, in February, 2012. The turmoil in Libya and Yemen started in February/March 2011. A similar demand for President Assad’s exit from power started in Syria at the same time. What explains Assad’s survival?

We need to go back in time in Syria’s history to understand what is happening to Syria and why it is happening. It has been said that in the WANA (West Asia and North Africa) region there cannot be a war without Egypt and peace without Syria. Syria is in a geopolitically strategic location with its borders with Israel (with Israel occupying the Golan Heights since 1967), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey. Russia as well as its pre-incarnation USSR had a close relationship with Syria and has maintained a base at Tartus on the Mediterranean for decades. President Assad’s father Hafez took power through a coup in 1970. Before that coup and afterwards, Syria has not known any type of democracy. The Assads belong to the minority Alawites, a variety of the Shia sect. Though the majority Sunnis had a feeling of discrimination against them, all told Syria was a secular society doing well but for the absence of freedoms.

When the Arab Spring dawned in the beginning of 2011 and there was a demand for the fall of his regime, Assad had the option to introduce reforms to soften his tight police raj and to engage in a serious dialogue with the opposition. He chose not to do that. He unleashed the violence of the state on the protestors. Contrary to his calculation, the harsh response only strengthened the opposition and soon his foes, though not united among themselves, challenged his authority in different parts of the country. 

We do not know how the situation would have evolved without any external intervention. But, obviously given Syria’s geopolitical importance, external intervention was inevitable. The external interveners fall into two groups, for and against Assad. But, there is an important distinction to be made: The pro-Assad interveners, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah (of Lebanon) are more or less united in their goals and they work in coordination as opposed to Assad’s foes. The US, and the West support the ‘moderates’; Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported various shades of Islamists belonging to the Sunni sect; Turkey wants Assad out and also has ambition to capture territory; there are numerous armed groups, but the most important are, apart from the Kurds, the Al Nusra and the IS (Islamic State). The IS does not get support from any state and has provinces outside Iraq/Syria, in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.

Except for the pro-Assad powers, nobody else is keen to send troops to Syria though advisors and Special Forces are active. A number of conferences have taken place in Geneva, Vienna and elsewhere under UN auspices and otherwise, but no real progress has been made towards starting a political process to end the crisis.

One of the principal bones of contention is the future of Assad. His foes want him out. But, by now they know that he is not going anywhere. However, the fact is that he is presiding over only about 1/3rd of Syria, though he has more than 1/3rd of the population. The even more important fact, often lost sight of by the international media, is that Assad is on a life-support system. Without support from Russia and Iran, he would have gone long time ago.

It will be useful to look at the policies of the major powers. The US under Obama has been confused. Obama is right in resisting the temptation to repeat the folly of Iraq. But, he has been inconsistent. In August 2011 he said that Assad should step down. When a US President makes such a statement the world expects him to act on it. Obama did give some weapons, but no effective weapons such as the portable stinger missile that would have brought down Assad’s  planes. CIA’s plan to recruit and train 5,000 ‘moderates’ came a cropper. Obama threatened to bomb when there was a report of use of chemical weapons; he had second thoughts; he went back; and Saudi Arabia lost faith in him. The US diplomatic clout in shaping a settlement on Syria has been on a steady decline.

Russia has acted smartly and with consistency, and its impact on the situation in Syria has been hugely important.  At a time when it looked as though Assad was on a losing track, Russia started an air campaign against Assad’s foes on September 30, 2015. Russia gave the impression that its primary target was the IS. The real targets were all the foes of Assad.  In short, Russia under Putin has come back to the region as a major power able and willing to intervene militarily.

Saudi Arabia wanted Assad out primarily because he is an ally of Iran, and Riyadh has a tendency to see developments in the region through the prism of Shia-Sunni rivalry.
Turkey has been playing games. For a while it assisted the IS by letting foreign fighters go to IS through Turkey. IS also got supplies, including weapons, through Turkey which bought oil from IS. At present, the two are hostile towards each other.

The IS has been losing territory, but it is too soon to write its obituary.

Half of Syria’s population of 23 million is displaced, with more than 5 million outside the country. The death toll has crossed 470,000. Syria reflects the disorder of times. Alas, there is more sorrow in store for the lovely land of Syria and its cultured people.

The author is a former Indian diplomat.