How long will the West keep falling for dead-on-arrival Syrian “peace initiatives” that ignore the facts on the ground?
The latest came last weekend, when Moaz al-Khatib, the titular head of Syria’s most widely recognized opposition group, offered to launch negotiations with the Bashar al-Assad regime. He detailed his plan in Munich during separate meetings with Vice President Joe Biden and the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers.
Biden “commended” the initiative, his office said. So did the Russians and the Iranians.
But there’s no peace around the corner for this civil war, which has so far exacted 60,000-plus deaths.
Khatib later admitted that he hadn’t consulted in advance with others in the Syrian National Council. And while a few SNC members later said, hey. why not, others have been pointedly silent.
The SNC formed in the summer of 2011 as a coalition of anti-Assad rebels. It’s gaining a lot of support around the world, and plans to soon open offices in New York and Washington. (Khatib reportedly also intends to visit America at month’s end, and perhaps even meet with President Obama).
But very little unites its members beyond their opposition to Assad. Khatib, a former preacher in a Damascus Sunni mosque, is said to lack the political skills to turn the group into a cohesive political entity.
And as divided as it is, the SNC represents only a fraction of the anti-Assad forces. The “rebels” now include a ragtag of groups with conflicting goals — from establishing a true Syrian democracy to creating a new al Qaeda base.
Meanwhile, Assad’s aides are already ignoring Khatib’s conditions for the talks, such as the release of hundreds of political prisoners — because the regime is feeling better about its chances of hanging on. Why?
“The mood has shifted,” the UN-Arab League envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, told the Security Council last week: Where a few months ago many in Damascus told him they believed Assad would flee the country “in a matter of days,” now Brahimi’s mostly hearing chatter that Assad “will be there for the foreseeable future, if not forever.”
And outsiders are reaching similar conclusions.
Yes, Assad no longer controls much of Syria’s territory. But, as former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told me this week, he still mostly has the loyalty of the non-Sunni minorities and wealthy merchant class. And he’s regained control of most of Damascus (the capital) and Allepo (Syria’s second largest city).
Worst case, Yadlin added, Assad can retreat to an enclave along Syria’s coastline where his fellow Alawites are the majority.
Anti-Assad hawks in Washington and Europe point to one key reason the Syrian tyrant isn’t set to fall, as did other regional dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya: He’s getting all the outside support he needs.
Russia and Iran supply arms and even fighters, while Moscow and Beijing shield him from outside pressure at the United Nations and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the never-vast weapon deliveries to the opposition (from Qatar and other Gulf states) are dwindling. And the West won’t deliver much beyond humanitarian aid, which doesn’t always reach its destination anyway.
So yes, it may be worthwhile for Washington to start helping the opposition group become a true political entity. And diplomacy may be the only way out of the Syrian impasse — eventually.
But for now, the premise of Khatib’s initiative is wrong. It’s based on the old cliché that “there’s no military solution.”
The reality is quite the opposite: For Syria to reach end-game, either one side must win, or they must reach a clear stalemate, with the country split in two (or, more likely, three or more) parts.
Until then, no diplomatic solution is possible.
Seeking one before the war is resolved isn’t a sign of America’s renewed leadership — but just an exercise in avoiding the real tough choices.
Twitter: @bennyavni