Answer to a Question
Question:
The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, stated: "Russia's patience regarding what is happening in Syria has run out, not the patience of the United States" (Al-Jazeera, 21/06/2016), referring to Kerry's statement that America's patience had run out when he said: "Russia must understand that Washington's patience is 'very limited' regarding the commitment to the ceasefire." (Al-Jazeera Net, 15/6/2016). Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov responded during his participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Thursday, June 16, saying: "I read a clarification issued by the US State Department regarding Kerry's statements. They must be more patient." (Russia Today, 16/6/2016). On another note, and before this, at Iran's request, the defense ministers of Russia, Syria, and Iran met in Tehran on Thursday, 09/06/2016, to coordinate military actions in Syria... The question is: Does this mean there is an American-Russian-Iranian dilemma regarding previous American projects for a solution (negotiations, Geneva, the Riyadh delegation)? If so, has ground military intervention become a possibility and is it imminent? May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
It is true that there is an American-Russian-Iranian dilemma in Syria, and it is also true that it is primarily an American dilemma because Russia and Iran are auxiliary factors to American policy in Syria. As for whether this means that ground intervention is imminent, this is a matter that depends on the direction events take. To understand the reality of what is happening, the following points must be noted:
1- The last round of negotiations in Geneva stopped on 22/04/2016 with the withdrawal of the opposition due to its lack of seriousness, according to the opposition. Then, the "chief negotiator" Mohammed Alloush resigned on 30/05/2016 (Al-Arabiya Net). De Mistura backed down from announcing the start of a new round of negotiations. After Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy to Syria, said that the date for the start of a new round of Syrian talks would be announced later today, Thursday, May 26, 2016, after consulting with the UN Security Council, despite the ongoing field violence (Al-Wasat website, 26/5/2016), he returned on 09/06/2016 and said: "The United Nations will not hold a new round of Syrian peace talks in Geneva until officials from all sides agree on the parameters for a political transition agreement, the deadline for reaching which ends on August 1st." De Mistura told reporters, "The time has not yet come for a formal third round of Syrian talks." (Baladi-news, 09/06/2016).
2- Unusually, America announced the start of bombing inside Syria from the Mediterranean Sea. This is the first time America has carried out such bombing in the region from the Mediterranean since the occupation of Iraq in 2003. Russia Today reported on 09/06/2016, quoting an American newspaper: "The Wall Street Journal mentioned that the American aircraft carrier Harry Truman carried out its surprise maneuver last week, sailing from the Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. According to the newspaper, the purpose of this maneuver is a show of military force against Russia..."
3- Fifty-one diplomats and officials in the US State Department signed a document, submitted to President Obama, calling for military action in Syria. The Wall Street Journal reported in its edition issued Thursday, June 16, "that 51 employees of the US State Department signed a letter in which they called on Obama to conduct a military operation in Syria..." (Russia Today, 17/06/2016).
4- Finally, the visit of the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his meeting with President Obama on 17/06/2016 at the White House—a rare procedure for non-heads of state—as well as the visit of Saudi Foreign Minister Al-Jubeir to America to discuss the Syrian crisis specifically with American officials...
5- A close look at the sum of these visits, meetings, and statements reveals the following:
a- America feels a great failure in Syria. Negotiations have lost their momentum, some of their leaders have fallen away, and America has not found a replacement for Assad. The revolution in Syria has not lost its vitality and is pressing against the negotiators. By reviewing the progress America has achieved on the Syrian stage, it becomes clear that the most important part was the involvement of armed groups in the political process (the Riyadh delegation and Geneva). The declaration of the cessation of hostilities on 27/02/2016 was the great American hope to push the Syrian revolution into the furnace and corridors of the political process to create a replacement for Assad, without field pressure from the revolution. However, with the rise of notable voices within the armed movements that participated in the Riyadh delegation—voices against the political process—these factors pressured these armed movements and other factions, in addition to the people's resentment of some movements' path in the political process, which created a pressing public opinion. All of this created intense armed activity against the regime, whether sincere or temporary to regain people's trust. This resulted in the recapture of strategic areas south of Aleppo in several stages (the battles of Al-Eis, then Khan Tuman, and beyond). All of this has broken the back of the American-Russian declaration to stop hostilities. There is no longer any point in continuing the Geneva negotiations in light of the explosion of field conditions, which formed a bullet that is almost fatal to the political process. Thus, America is in a dilemma.
b- The battles of south Aleppo, from a field perspective, represented a major defeat for the Iranian crowds and their affiliates. Consequently, Iran was demanded to provide more ground forces in Syria. With losses and few victories, added to some obstacles in easing the economic embargo on it after the signing of the Geneva nuclear deal, which leads to a decrease in financial allocations for Iranian military action in Syria, it seems that Iran may have actually been drained in its military aid to Assad. Therefore, Iran, at America's behest, requested help from Russia, which led to the meeting of defense ministers in Tehran. That is, Iran is also in a dilemma.
c- As for Russia, several factors have emerged that have made it unable or lacking the will to respond to American demands in its foul manner. America wants more military action from Russia to stop the rebels at their current borders of control, i.e., to cut off hope for field progress. This is what Russia has been doing since its intervention in Syria on 30/09/2015 until not long ago. US Secretary of State Kerry boasted on 11/02/2016 at the donors' summit for Syria in London "that Russia will uproot the armed groups in Syria within three months." This goal is what America aspired to achieve through Russian intervention. As for the factors that have emerged and made the Russian intervention indecisive, they are as follows:
In addition to its intense hostility toward Islam and its great fear of the Islamic nature of the Syrian revolution, Russia saw its intervention in Syria as an opportunity to display the Russian greatness lost since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was keen to showcase its air and space forces, Kalibr missiles, and its ability to bomb in Syria from the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean. It expected that these brutal attacks would achieve the American purpose and force the people of Syria to negotiate with the regime on American terms, but it failed.
Russia also wanted to break the international isolation and sanctions imposed on it after its annexation of Crimea and its igniting of eastern Ukraine. This has not happened at all; rather, the resentment of countries toward it has increased, and the gap has widened dangerously between it and the European Union, which has not stopped leveling accusations and even hinting at the International Criminal Court. Britain was the most resentful European country toward Russia, then Germany, which began to list Russia as an "adversary," i.e., an enemy in its White Paper. The German Chancellor, during the G7 summit in Japan on 26/05/2016, refused even to discuss easing sanctions on Russia.
Russia is an economically weak country and cannot continue spending on a war far from its borders, especially while it is reeling under Western sanctions and exhausted by low oil prices. The hemorrhage of its expenses in Syria cannot be sustained for long. Following the Russian spending are subsequent financial obligations to the Russian fighters in Syria, who number 25,000 according to the Russian Ministry of Defense: "25,000 Russian military and civilian personnel have participated since September 2015 in the ongoing war in Syria, according to a law approved by Russian deputies on Tuesday regarding granting 'war veteran' status for this war." (Sky News Arabia, 21/06/2016).
Russia strongly fears the future of its agreement with America in Syria when the American administration changes after the November 2016 presidential elections. Therefore, Russia hopes to end its military mission in Syria before the departure of the Obama administration, or that its intervention be by a public agreement with America. Thus, Russia continuously demands that its coordination with America in Syria be made public, something America turns its face away from. It requested joint American-Russian raids against groups that violate the "cessation of hostilities," but America refused.
Strange to the Russian misunderstanding is that it considers itself a partner to America, at least in the Syrian issue. It wants to translate the Lavrov-Kerry meetings—i.e., decisions in the Syrian crisis—into a public military alliance in Syria. Russia does not understand that the Lavrov-Kerry duo was created by America to prevent European countries from intervening in the Syrian crisis, and it does not understand that it is merely a chess piece, even if a large one, on the American table. To defend American influence in Syria and confront the emergence of Islam in the Syrian revolution, America uses Iran and its affiliates at times and uses Russia at other times. But Russia, driven by an obsession with greatness, thinks it is a partner to America in Syria. This explains Kerry's statements that America's patience is very limited regarding Russia in Syria—meaning he demands it to rush and move quickly to save Assad's collapsing forces, especially south of Aleppo. This also explains Lavrov's astonishment at Kerry's statements and his call for America to be patient. America sees Russia as a chess piece in its hand, while Russia sees its intervention in Syria as a model for international partnership with America! For all these factors, Russia is also in a dilemma.
6- Thus, America is in a dilemma, Russia is in a dilemma, and Iran is in a dilemma. As we said earlier, it is primarily an American dilemma. Therefore, this situation has caused great embarrassment for America in light of the heavy bleeding of the forces of Assad, Iran, and their affiliates. It appears that America saw that Iran has been exhausted in a non-simple way in Syria and that Iran's military intervention, although it prolonged the life of the regime in Damascus, does not contribute to the solution in Syria. In light of Russia's failure to resolve the situation in Syria by forcing the people of Syria to submit to the tyrant's regime despite the brutal bombing and the use of incendiary projectiles, America's options in Syria have become extremely critical, especially since it is in an election period and both the Republican and Democratic parties are exploiting this period to show each other's flaws, in addition to the memorandum of the diplomats who see America intervening itself. Therefore, America is showing that it is interested in discussing intervention... and it sends the aircraft carrier Harry Truman from the Gulf to the Mediterranean... and it bombs from the Mediterranean into Syria... and it summons the Saudi Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman, who meets with President Obama in the Oval Office—a rare thing for non-heads of state—so it appears to the observer that the purpose is purely military!
7- However, the policy of the current American administration, as indicated by the statements of its officials, is for the military intervention to be first at the hands of followers, affiliates, and agents. US State Department spokesperson Kirby announced that America has not changed its policy regarding Syria. Kirby said, commenting on the possibility of changing Washington's policy on Syria: "We still believe that a political settlement in Syria is the best solution." Kirby also stressed that the administration of the current US President, Barack Obama, will remain focused on finding a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis until the end of his term. (Russia Today, 17/06/2016). As for the diplomats' memorandum, it will most likely be handled politically and not militarily. Al-Jazeera Net reported on 18/06/2016, quoting the Washington Times, "that the White House is struggling to contain the repercussions of the diplomats' memorandum, and attributed to White House spokesperson Jennifer Friedman as saying that the Obama administration is open to hearing any different ideas regarding the challenges in Syria, but President Obama does not see a military solution to the Syrian crisis. The newspaper added that this memorandum is the latest across many long years of frustration regarding Obama's policy toward the Syrian crisis among current and former American officials, and many of those who worked within the Obama administration itself."
In Conclusion:
1- It is true that America is in a dilemma. As for American ground military intervention, it is likely postponed for a while. The current American administration is working to have the ground fighting carried out by followers, agents, and affiliates, and this may continue until the end of Obama's term—unless things arise out of context.
2- But the striking thing is that despite the absence of an international conflict in Syria in the way it exists in Libya and Yemen—rather, the only international "wrestler" is America, and it uses Russia, Iran, the regime, and the followers and affiliates with various brutal crimes—despite all this, America and its followers have failed to subject the people of Syria to this day to implement America's projects and share the tyrant's regime in rule. This is even though the party America is fighting is the people of Syria with their material capabilities that cannot be compared at all to the capabilities of those countries. Yet, Ash-Sham remains defiant against the ambitions of those countries, followers, and affiliates! The reason for all this is the Great Islam that moves the people of Ash-Sham in resisting Kufr and its people, and oppression and its helpers. The Great Islam that fills the hearts of the sincere and devoted... even if Islam moves in the hearts of some people emotionally without a parallel intellectual accompaniment... and even if it moves in the hearts of others for an incorrect purpose... but Islamic sentiments are the dominant color in the atmosphere, and Islamic ideas are proclaimed by many. This is what has failed America until today: the ray of Islam in Ash-Sham, even though it has not yet materialized in a state that unites the Ummah. So how would it be if it were? In any case, this matter has what follows it.
وَسَيَعْلَمُ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَيَّ مُنْقَلَبٍ يَنْقَلِبُونَ
"And those who have wronged are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned." (QS Ash-Shu'ara [26]: 227)
22nd of Ramadan 1437 AH 27/06/2016 CE