The Western world, once unified in its opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad, has gone wobbly in recent weeks on whether or not a post-war Syria should include the controversial ruler.
While still insisting that he must eventually leave, the British government recently suggested that Mr. Assad could, briefly, preside over some form of transitional government in the country. Germany, for its part, has said that future peace talks should involve the Syrian president, and stressed that Western governments must sort between pro- and anti-Assad elements on the ground.
"We must find a common interest between the different positions, between those who would absolutely talk with Bashar al-Assad, and those who say, 'we will not discuss anything until he departs,'" said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last month.
Even France -- which has been the most consistent critic of the Assad regime ever since the early days of the Syrian uprising -- appears to be coming around on a post-war role for Assad, but with a bit of a twist. France 24 reported this week that the French government may be open to a position or title for Assad, but one that is merely symbolic and deprived of any real authority.
"‘If he absolutely has to stay, then they might give him six months, but they want to make sure his role is purely symbolic,' a Western diplomat told France 24 on condition of anonymity."
That the French are reportedly reappraising their previously implacable view on Assad is a bit surprising, especially while Paris pushes for official U.N. condemnation of the Syrian government's use of barrel bombs against rebel strongholds. Paris has repeatedly linked the military tactics of the Assad government to the upheaval now plaguing the country, and, unlike Russia, considers it unlikely that Mr. Assad could ever again unify all Syrians under a single flag.
"[W]e're convinced that as long as Assad has power, it will not be possible to get the necessary unity in Syria because of the crimes he has committed," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters in a recent interview in Morocco.
The Western world would do well to listen to the French on this matter. Paris has a sordid and complicated imperial history with Syria, dating back to the end of World War I. This wouldn't be the first time that the French play kingmaker in the Levant, and they are well aware of just how difficult it is to maintain unity of purpose among the country's various sects, tribes, and regions.
Around the Region
What if Israel had given up Golan? Former Mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller contemplates this counterfactual vis-a-vis the ongoing crisis in Syria:
"What can be said with certainty is that had Israel given up the Golan, the situation today would have been much more complex. In response to the Syrian civil war and the rise of Islamic State, Israel would have faced a hot front confronting Hezbollah, Iran, and a range of Islamist jihadis. Given the Golan's strategic importance, Israel would have had to reoccupy it and would have found itself in the middle of Syria's civil war. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Israel's actions would have been a unifying factor and might have actually bucked up the Assad regime as it tried to rally Syrians against the ‘Zionist enemy.'"
Russia and Iran: "Frenemies"? Yesterday we addressed Iran's reported coordination with Moscow in Syria. The two governments share a common client in the war-torn country, but do they share interests? NOW Lebanon's Alex Rowell takes a deeper look:
"Beneath this pomp and triumphalism ... some observers believe the picture is more complicated. One hypothesis holds that Russia's intervention is in fact partly motivated by a quiet rivalry with Iran for primacy within the pro-Assad camp. While Moscow's alliance with Damascus, which dates back to the Cold War, is older than Tehran's, since the outbreak of the Syrian war Iran's substantial paramilitary and financial support for the Assad regime has seen its influence in Syria skyrocket, to the point that it is viewed by many as the new de facto master of the country. When a ceasefire agreement was brokered between rebels and loyalist militants in the Qalamoun and Idlib regions in August, for example, it was Tehran, not Damascus, that negotiated on the latter's behalf. One Russian diplomat previously based in Damascus told Der Spiegel Tuesday that these developments had made Assad wary of the Islamic Republic, and grateful today to see Moscow reasserting its status."
Turkey is in serious trouble. That's the conclusion reached by Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
"Turkey is theoretically powerful enough, with U.S. backing, to withstand the threats from both ISIS and the PKK. But it's not clear the government has the domestic support it needs to do so. This is the crux of my worries: At another time, most Turks would, however grudgingly, have stood behind the government -- even at the cost of life and liberty -- for the sake of their own security. That no longer seems to be the case in today's political climate."
And Ankara shouldn't expect its Western allies to risk a direct confrontation with Russia over Turkish sovereignty, writes journalist Fehim TaÃ…?tekin:
"Although Ankara wants to make the issue again a NATO crisis, reactions by the alliance are far from meeting Ankara's expectations. In short, Russia tested the limits of Turkey's rules of engagement that also apply to NATO. The Western alliance that found it adequate to apply its Article 4, calling for consultations instead of Article 5 that calls for action when a Turkish jet is downed -- which didn't react to the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and that couldn't take any deterrent position vis-a-vis the events in eastern Ukraine -- will find it hard to do anything more than issuing warnings."
Feedback
Questions, comments, or complaints? Feel free to send us an email, or reach out on Twitter @kevinbsullivan.
To sign up for the Mideast Memo click here.