Apart from the deaths, misery and displacement of millions the five-year long civil war has caused, the current phase is redefining the geopolitics of the region. The United States had thrown away its leverage by refusing to intervene militarily except in the air, leaving it to Russia to accomplish its goal.
That goal is to let President Bashar al-Assad win the initial round to enable Moscow in determining the region’s future. Russia has just vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council by refusing to stop bombing Apollo.
There have certainly been harsh words by US and British spokesmen calling Russia names, but morality has been absent on all sides in the conduct of actors in the drama and to apportion greater blame on one actor alone does not make sense.
Russia has made it amply clear that it will exploit the Syrian war to accomplish a high seat at the table and determine Syria’s future guarding its opening to the Mediterranean; President Assad will be dispensable after he has served his purpose. America has not been particularly generous in arming the anti-Assad coalition leaving it to the Gulf monarchies to arm them.
What we are witnessing therefore is the first act of American withdrawal from the Middle East leaving its policeman Israel to look after its remaining interests through a whopping dollar grant going into the future. But that, as everyone knows, has its problems, given Jerusalem’s refusal to let Palestinians have their state.
This is, of course, a difficult time in American politics: a period of transition. Approaching the end of his presidency, Barack Obama cannot undertake any dramatic decisions, which would in any case be against his beliefs and convictions. His adversaries, on the other hand, are sharpening their knives to remould Syria and the region.
The immediate objective of Russia, Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah movement is to take over the whole of Aleppo through their familiar route of asking rebels to surrender or die from bombs. It is a grim scenario, which represents the victory of realpolitik over more palatable diplomatic moves.
What Russia cannot guarantee is that Syria will remain one state. After all, Mr Assad belongs to a minority Shia sect in a Sunni-majority country. Shia strongholds are the Alawite population centres hugging the eastern coastline, with the rest of the country up for grabs. The Russian rationale in supporting Mr Assad is that but for him, the jihadi elements would step in.
One other significant result of the new phase in the Syrian crisis has been the new scale of US-Russian animosity reminiscent of the Cold War. Russia is still under Western sanctions after its annexation of Crimea and role in eastern Ukraine. But Moscow has undertaken steps of its own in ending nuclear cooperation and President Vladimir Putin presents a more determined stance.
The Syrian crisis will continue until the end of the Obama presidency. Only after a new President takes charge will the outlines of a new policy emerge. It is highly unlikely that the next President will want to re-enter the Middle East militarily after the bitter lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. But there could be different approaches to abandoning the Middle East.
The world meanwhile has been evolving. China is claiming its new superpower status although its exposure to the Middle East thus far has been limited. Germany, because of its economic weight in Europe is another important actor. Although India has had a symbiotic relationship with the region in view of the jobs it provides to Indian labour, it does not have a major say in determining the region’s future.
Egypt, the traditional leader of the Arab world, has been weighed down by its domestic problems, many of them economic in nature. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi says he would like to take an initiative on the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, but is unlikely to break Jerusalem’s resolve to keep all they have, and get more over time. More importantly, Cairo has yet to get the better of the Muslim Brotherhood in the longer term.
Perhaps General Pervez Musharraf’s recent statement suggesting that Pakistan was not suited for democracy is true of the Arab world ruled by dictators for the better part, whatever the trappings of democracy. But the Arab world had its Arab Spring as an expression of peoples’ frustrations. Regrettably, the spring turned to winter remarkably soon as liberals were divided and inexperienced, and old power structures quickly took charge. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt fumbled during its one-year rule giving the Army a free ride back to power on the shoulders of popular resentment.
Returning to Syria, the probable outcome will be the total capture of Aleppo by the Assad forces, thanks to Russian air power. While Mr Assad will assume control of the Alawite-majority strongholds, the rest of the country will be under contestation by a variety of opposition groups for a long time. Only after the departure of Mr Assad, whenever it occurs, will the future map of Syria be clear.
A larger lesson of the Syrian crisis and the new strains in US-Russian relations is that the world has not found its new bearings. Russia, although a greatly reduced power from its days as the Soviet Union, wants to retain its influence as a major world power. The democratic urges of the people are suppressed but will ultimately spill out, with Tunisia, the originator of the Arab Spring, is still the only citadel of hope.
Tunisia’s case has indeed been revolutionary. Its leading Ennahdha Party not only abandoned power for a time for the sake of the coalition’s survival, but drew a new framework separating religion from politics. The party leader, Rached Ghannouchi, was for many years an exile in Britain and was perhaps indirectly influenced by the virtues of a democracy. For an overwhelming majority of Muslim states, such a separation would be blasphemy, but there is one Muslim-oriented party that has shown that it can be done.
