US in Syria: nothing has changed but the enemy

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/us-syria-enemy-bashar-al-assad

Version 0 of 1.

When it comes to President Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s reviled strongman, Barack Obama says nothing has changed. Like David Cameron and other western leaders, Obama insists Assad must step down as part of a democratic transition to end Syria’s civil war. Assad remains accused of committing war crimes after last year’s chemical weapons attacks on civilians and other alleged atrocities.

But a growing number of Syrian and Arab observers across the Middle East see matters differently following Obama’s decision this week to attack Assad’s most dangerous enemies, Islamic State (Isis), in their bases in northern Syria. The perception is that the US has switched sides, and that Assad, his position strengthened by this change of focus, is no longer the prime target of American-backed regime change.

Pro-government media in Damascus has been quick to exploit this apparent shift, using it as a weapon in the fierce propaganda battle running in parallel to the war itself. “The US military leadership is now fighting in the same trenches with the Syrian generals, in a war on terrorism inside Syria,” a Damascus newspaper quoted a Syrian diplomat as saying.

Such claims, amounting to a wilful distortion of US policy, must make the Americans wince. Washington continues to back the “moderate” Syrian opposition, including the Free Syrian Army. It has no official diplomatic or other contacts with the Damascus regime, which it regards as lacking legitimacy. And Obama has requested that Congress release $500m in assistance to help train and equip anti-Assad ground troops in Saudi Arabia.

All the same, such distortions are to be expected, given the convoluted and confusing twists in American decision-making over the past year. Obama was ready to attack Assad in spring 2013, albeit reluctantly, and was only prevented from doing so by a vote against war in the British parliament, which caused the US Congress to get cold feet. Now, not much more than a year later, he has come full circle and taken the fight to Assad’s enemies.

Nor are the claims of the Syrian propagandists entirely lacking in truth. The US has opened up indirect lines of communication with Damascus in recent weeks. It did not seek permission for this week’s air strikes, but it did inform Assad’s ambassador at the UN in advance of the attacks.

Iraq’s new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, revealed that he had delivered a private message to Assad from the Americans, in which Washington reassured the Syrian leadership that they were not the target of US missiles and bombs. That must have been a comfort for Assad.

Washington’s principal ally, Britain, is also struggling to explain its evolving policy. “Last year, the prime minister [David Cameron] was determined to intervene on the side of the Syrian opposition – which was already dominated by the murderous band of fanatics now known as Isil [Isis] – with the long-term ambition of bringing down President Assad,” wrote the Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne.

“Since then, a great deal of water has passed under the bridge. Mr Cameron, whose grasp of Middle Eastern politics is negligible, has changed sides. Attacking President Assad is no longer his priority. He now wants to intervene on the side of the Syrian government, against that same murderous band of fanatics.”

Further evidence that Obama and Assad are now on the same team is evinced from this week’s simultaneous US air strike on the Khorasan group, part of the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra Front and Assad’s sworn foe. “Supporters of the Syrian government say hitting the Nusra Front is proof that the US has switched sides,” the New York Times reported. “‘Of course coordination exists,’ said a pro-government Syrian journalist speaking on the condition of anonymity. ‘How else do you explain the strikes on Nusra?’”

Obama’s Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, are alarmed that the decision by Washington to dive into the middle of Syria’s civil war could let Assad off the hook. These countries have long demanded a bigger role for the US in ending the Syrian mayhem, but now they have got it, they worry that the Americans are prioritising counter-terrorism ahead of the removal of the Assad regime.

Their hope in adding their military weight to the coalition is that the battle against Isis will morph into a bigger, broader push to end the Syrian civil war, pacify the country as a whole, and create a new, inclusive government in Damascus. Thus for the Gulf states, unlike Britain, France and the US, mission creep is both essential and desirable.

Assad must be laughing at this disarray. But he is also taking advantage of it. News reports from Damascus say the Syrian army moved this week to take full control of a formerly insurgent-held area north-east of the capital. Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV said the area, Adra al-Omalia, was about 19 miles from central Damascus.

The advance could be the ominous first instalment of a new push against the pro-western rebels Obama has vowed to support but whose cause is now taking second place to the fight against Isis. The price of victory over Isis may be an Assad victory in Syria.