Winners and Losers

The U.S. strike on Syria which had seemed inevitable has become less likely in the wake of Russia’s proposal, to which Syria immediately agreed, to place the stockpile of chemical weapons under international supervision, a step which paves the way for their disposal at a later date. However, the question is whether the U.S. administration was taken aback by the proposal.

The accelerated development of events clearly indicates that Kerry’s offer was in this regard not merely a “rhetorical argument” as was claimed; in a televised interview, President Obama revealed that he had discussed a “diplomatic solution” with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 conference held in Russia several days ago.

However, we can be certain that the U.S. was not expecting that Syria would so rapidly agree to the proposal. Numerous analysts in Washington and the region posit that the Russian proposal is like a gift from the heavens to Obama and his government, a way out of a terrible predicament which will prevent a complete disaster in the U.S. Congress, the majority of which holds an unfavorable stance toward the military strike.

Obama’s campaign to convince Congress and the public of the necessity of the strike even now has not succeeded in garnering majority support; a Pew Center poll from yesterday showed that 63 percent of Americans oppose military intervention. The administration’s hesitancy and flip-flopping were not helpful in gathering the necessary support for the military strike.

Notwithstanding his doubts over Syria’s intentions, Obama had the look of a drowning man clinging to a piece of driftwood the day before yesterday, when he announced his readiness to abandon military plans if Syria were to commit to carrying out the Russian proposal.

Holding off on military action in return for destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile can be counted as an appropriate way out for the U.S. It can be spun as successfully achieving the goal of the airstrikes without their actual occurrence. It also serves U.S. national security objectives, most importantly Israel’s interests above all others concerning the dangers of chemical weapons.

Israel and the U.S. are not the only winners; the Assad regime, which had been fearing a military strike and any aftershocks, has found in its ally’s proposal a lifeline that will grant it the opportunity for further political maneuvering, as well as the ability to continue its military campaign against Syrian rebels with conventional weaponry.

The loser in this race, by which I mean the Syrian opposition, will be the biggest loser should Washington back off on its plans to launch strikes on the Assad regime. Anyone following statements of the opposition leaders yesterday would have noted their overpowering reaction to and disbelief of news of the possible acceptance of the Russian proposal. The opposition had been counting on the military strike to weaken the regime’s military abilities, allowing them to make civilian, political and popular gains.

Neighboring nations to Syria appear divided: Turkey has supported the military strike from the beginning and will not be pleased with an alternative option which would give the Assad regime a chance to evade punishment. Jordan is perhaps relieved by the proposal, as it will allow it to sidestep mounting pressure to publicly announce its support of military action.

Of course, let’s not forget Russia; acceptance of this proposal would grant it a regional and global leadership role, rising above Washington’s traditional role in the Middle East.

However, this is not the end of the crisis in Syria, but the beginning of a new phase in the conflict. This reminds one of Iraq’s case, which began with the story of chemical weapons and ended with military intervention and an occupation lasting 10 years.