Whither Syria?

Does it look like Libya? Lebanon? Or something better?

---

Syria is a post-colonial concoction carved out from the Ottoman Empire after WWI by its winners (UK and France), thereupon falling into France’s orbit until gaining independence in 1946. It is thus a rather incoherent nation not unlike Lebanon. Like Libya, it was ruled for half a century by a dictator and then his son, the just deposed Bashar al-Assad, leaving it now a basket case facing years of reconciliation and healing.

The nation is about three-quarters Sunni Muslim, 13% Shia, 10% Christian, and 3% Druze (bit of a Muslim/Christian/Jewish mix). As such, one could say that it makes the most sense for the region’s Sunni powers to work out its future path.

Turkey is an obvious player (and HTS’s key backer to-date), obsessed with the Kurds located there and wary of taking on more refugees. It also views Syria as a place of competition with Russia and Iran — now both in retreat.

The other great alternative are the Gulf monarchies, who’ve proven some ability for this in Iraq and so this would be an expansion of their efforts.

Thus, a joint strategy here between the Turks and Gulf powers makes sense, with Europe and the US logically playing quiet back-up roles.

Then there’s India, which has longstanding relations and influence there, but not the resources per se, and China, which is the opposite (little history but plenty resources to direct there). Both are now becoming the primary global importers of Gulf energy flows, and so their interests are clear and sound — if only by extension.

Put it all together and the answer would seem to be Europe + America in background supporting roles (representing the past), India and China likewise background but with more support and presence (representing the future), and Turkey and the Gulf monarchies in the lead, logically with some UN blessing/superstructure.

Turkey and the Gulf monarchies … their relations ebb and flow, but this is a good opportunity for shared interests (countering Iran, etc.) to prevail.

For the West, this is something merely NOT to screw up, and yes, that means being okay with rising Indian and Chinese influence, since we have little-to-no interest in owning this problem-set going forward.

All in all, that constellation of powers strikes me as a reasonable way forward, given that Russia and Iran are in clear abandonment mode — for now.

If I’m Iran, I see plenty of incentives (Syria being just one more) right now to make friendly-like with KSA, lest others (Israel, Turkey) start pushing me around unduly (as they are so clearly taking advantage).

And if I’m Riyadh, I want Iran on its heels alright, but — again — not unduly so. You want a housebroken Iran, not a desperate one.

So, when observers say Assad’s fall is a real chance to stabilize the region (and yes, I do consider Israel and Turkey taking advantage of things there to be an overall good, given the alternatives), I see it as well.

America will be tempted to get involved via its longstanding support to the Syrian Kurds, but I don’t see that happening with Trump (and that being a good thing). If the price of our indifference is Turkey getting its way, then that’s a reasonable price to pay.

This is not an argument that says the US should stay hands-off — not at all. It’s just one that says we should remain in the background.

The opportunity is real, per WAPO’s Josh Rogin:

Since Assad’s fall, many in Washington have downplayed the chances for the emergence of a free, stable and democratic nation, often by lumping Syria with failed post-dictatorship states like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. This ignores a crucial distinction: Unlike the situations in those countries, Syria’s uprising was a homegrown movement. Syrians rose up to fight for their own rights and, after more than a decade of struggle, toppled Assad.

As Ahmad al-Dalati, a senior leader in the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led joint military operations administration and deputy commander in chief of the Ahrar al-Sham faction, told me, Syrians have suffered too much to waste this moment by repeating the mistakes made in those other countries.

“Our message to United States is to look at what’s happened as a genuine opportunity to end lots of the problems that were created by the Assad regime, that we deserve to receive the support to restore stability and restore the important geopolitical role of Syria, for which we have paid a very high price with the blood of our free people.”

This is truly a gift horse, largely courtesy of Turkey, so I say, don’t be picky or vindictive or demanding. Take the win, because this is one.

Yes, we will have to put up with some stuff by Israel, like doubling its population in the occupied/quasi-annexed Golan Heights along the Israel-Syria border. But since both the US and Turkish militaries are similarly taking advantage of this moment to deconstruct/capture Syria’s residual military capabilities, we’re going to have to live with that grabbiness by Israel.

Yes, the West will get mad about all of this taking advantage of a prostrate Syria, but the key remains the permanent diminishment of Iranian and Russian influence, so — again — a reasonable trade.

Israel is on a roll right now with both Hezbollah and Hamas, so I see no reason to restrain Jerusalem’s ambitions. It all feels like inevitabilities unfolding, so why fight it?

Again, the alternative is almost always having us get more involved, and, quite frankly, we suck when it comes to restraining ourselves in such situations, always instinctively trying to run the entire show and to demand that everyone seeking entry into the proceedings must park their own ambitions at the door (something we never do).

Frankly, this situation with Syria right now is a good chance to use the lessons we learned so painfully with Iraq: namely, live with Israel being aggressive in its demands; same with Turkey. Encourage the Gulf monarchies to lead the way, and show no opposition to rising Indian and Chinese influence — especially if it unfolds with diminished Russian and Iranian influence.