US Fires Blanks in Threats of Syrian Breakup

Not long ago, U.S. Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan expressed a less than optimistic view of Syria’s future, saying that he does not “know whether or not Syria can be put back together again.”

A breakup of Syrian territory such as he hinted at is, in part, a reflection of mounting U.S. concerns over floundering efforts to put an end to the conflict.

Since 2012, Syrian government forces along with the opposition and elements of al-Qaida have divided control over the vital strategic city of Aleppo in northern Syria. With the unsuccessful conclusion of the Geneva II peace talks, Syrian government troops at the beginning of last month (with the full-bodied backing of Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah) completed their encirclement of city districts under rebel control, bottling up both the opposition and al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front.

In a bid to relieve the opposition, soon after NATO’s Warsaw Summit U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made tracks for Moscow, where he held extended talks with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Due to the interspersed disposition of garrisons held by the opposition and Nusra Front, identifying one from the other has been a challenge. Citing a need for clearer distinctions, the U.S. delegation suggested that the United States and Russia adopt new measures to share intelligence and jointly strike the Nusra Front, hoping that this would spare the opposition further airstrikes that would weaken its foothold within the city.

As to what exactly those new measures would be, both Kerry and Lavrov were less than forthcoming to the press. While Kerry claimed that some amount of “homework” still needed to be done before a public announcement could be made, the intervening two weeks have brought scarcely a whisper of the new initiative. There are two likely reasons behind this: one being the opposition of hard-liners within the United States, and the other being whether Russia’s preconditions have been set too high, precluding an agreement from being reached.

The fact is that Russia should be fully cognizant of U.S. efforts to stall for the opposition, and is merely content to entertain talks with Kerry while at the same time launching airstrikes against opposition and Nusra Front forces much as before. Last week, Syria and Russia announced the opening of humanitarian corridors for Aleppo that would facilitate the transport of humanitarian aid, as well as the evacuation of civilians and the surrender of armed personnel. In addition to this, Bashar Assad went on the offensive in the psychological battle by issuing a general amnesty for opposition and Nusra Front fighters.

Still, fighting within Aleppo remains fierce, with Syrian government troops locked in a bitter struggle with the opposition. Analysts report that as Syria’s largest city, Aleppo is of vital importance both with respect to the Syrian economy and as a strategic location, and as such must inevitably be contested by the belligerents. In being Syria’s greatest hub for economic activity and trade, it is capable of radiating resources out to the rest of the country and neighboring regions. Moreover, Aleppo’s close proximity to the Syrian-Turkish border provides its masters with a significant advantage in the area, and control over Aleppo effectively would allow control over the opposition and the Islamic State’s links to outside regions, as well as logistics and supply channels. In a word, occupying Aleppo magnifies one’s chances of winning the war in the rest of the country immensely.

U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura has already extended an invitation to the Assad regime for the Geneva III peace talks scheduled for late August, and Assad has already issued his acceptance. To a certain degree, this points to the Syrian president’s buoyed confidence from recent developments.

The coming weeks will be of vital importance not only in deciding the fate of Aleppo, but also in determining the future of all of Syria. Brennan’s veiled threat in invoking the idea of a Balkanization of Syria at such a crucial point in time is both an act of exasperation and a bluff made in desperation. He must be well aware that the Syria of today is not the Serbia of the 1990s, nor is it the Sudan of 15 years ago. In the future, Syria will have many choices such as republicanism, federalism, or the establishment of autonomous regions, but division will not be among them.

If, as Brennan submitted, Syria splits into several states, the situation would not only be unacceptable to the Syrian government and opposition, but it would also be equally disagreeable for Syria’s neighbors in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. The divided territories would not see a day of peace, with the overflow effect for the Kurdish independence movement that such a scenario would engender throwing neighboring countries into chaos and further destabilizing the Middle East.

In effect, U.S. threats regarding a breakup of Syria are no more than fired blanks, because such a situation will never come to pass.

The author is a special commentator for the Global Times and a former Chinese ambassador.