(AhlulBayt News Agency) - While the US' threats to use new options in Syria keep making headings for the media reports and analyses, an analysis of the tangible evidences about the American officials' positions as well as the performance of them over the course of the Syrian crisis' developments can help us make a speculation close to the reality about the upcoming possibilities. Accordingly, this analysis tries to touch upon and examine the key theories concerning the available options, and so achieve a rational conclusion about the US’ likely steps in Syria.
Plan B
The plan B that was clearly branded by the Syrian foreign minister as a “regime change plan” in Syria is a term the US Secretary of State John Kerry raised on February 23, 2016 when he attended a hearing session with the congressmen. Kerry talked about it under “the alternative options once Syria’s cessation of hostilities fails.”
John Kerry said if the cessation of fire fails in Syria, the US will keep going ahead using alternative choices that will be decided on in the upcoming months, and certainly they will include Plan B. He added that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad himself is moving towards realistic decisions to pave the way for a real transitional government process.
John Kerry's remarks at the Congress about Assad's realistic decisions to set in motion a real transitional process have unleashed a big wave of media analyses that suggested the US and Russia agreed to allow a federal system in Syria.
Accordingly, on February 30, John Kirby, the spokesman for the US Department of State, was asked by journalists about the accordance of the US-proposed Plan B and the Russian-proposed Federal system- something like Iraq model. But Kirby said the details of the Plan B were unclear yet and under inter-organizational examinations. He added that it will be irresponsible to comment on any alternative plan for Syria before March 7, 2016, the time set for starting the peace negotiations in Geneva. At that time, the spokesman, just contrary to the general expectations, expressed strong US opposition to any plan for federalization of Syria. He described establishing any federal system in Syria not a plan but a horrible and worrisome idea, continuing that it was a Russian proposal and nobody sought federal system in Syria.
With this, we can note that Plan B is essentially an initiative for regime change in Syria. Once we accept this analysis, there will be some questions: how is the mechanism for implementation of such plan? Will the US this time directly intervene in favor of the Syrian opposition groups to realize regime change? To give realistic answers, we need to dig into some concrete evidences in this regard:
The US will not fight President Assad
Following intensification of the clashes in the contested Aleppo and start of all-out media pressures that expected Washington to step in to help halt the airstrikes on the terrorists, Kerry on September 29 during an address at the Atlantic and Aspen Institute touched on the issue. He reiterated the US President Barack Obama’s stances on political solution as the only way to end the crisis. He also mentioned many people’s opinions that argued the Syrian conflict has no military settlement. Kerry made it clear that the US will not wage a war against the Syrian government.
“I don’t see Congress panting to put people on the ground to go to war in Syria. I don’t see people – it’s easy to be critical of the diplomatic effort because it’s difficult, but what is the alternative? Is the United States of America going to go to war in Syria? I don’t think that’s about to happen. We are at war against ISIL and we are going to win that war; I have no doubt about that. And we are making enormous progress, but that is different and distinct from involving ourselves directly into the civil war, which is the war against Assad,” Kerry continued.
At least for the present time the US Secretary of State has evaded confirming plans by Washington to directly strike Syria government’s positions. But the New York Times on the same day published a 40-minute audio file in a bid to highlight the US passive standings on the Syrian case in a bid to lead a fresh wave of anti-White House strains. According to the file, John Kerry in meeting with the Syrian opposition groups on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and behind the closed doors tried to make it clear for them that US lacked the legal justification to attack the government of President Assad while Russia intervened in Syria at the behest of Damascus government. Kerry added that due to internal considerations the Congress was uninterested to allow use of force against the Syrian government. He maintained that many Americans argue that the US youths should not be sent out to get killed in other countries.
Responding to a demand by a member of the opposition who demanded more Washington support, Kerry passively talked about optimism about transitional government, telling them that they could hold election and ask people who they want to elect.
Amid surprise of the attendees Kerry told them that they should take part in a scheduled election in which Bashar al-Assad is also a candidate.
He told them that the West, the regional powers, and the UN can set up precise standards for the elections. Millions have left the country after 2011. They can register from any part of the world as refugees and so cast ballots.
“Do you imagine that they vote for Assad? That’s what Assad fears from,” Kerry wondered in the conversation.
Everything about no-fly zone
Another theory that is about the form of possible US intervention in Syria and is upheld by the Republican senators, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey is establishment of a no-fly zone as the only factor guaranteeing halting of the Syrian airstrikes. But the sticking point is that the US had repeatedly avoided implementing it on the ground. For example, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford attended a Senate hearing session on September 24 and responded to the Republican Senator Rodger Walker from Mississippi who called for a firm move to establish no-zone over Syria. General Dunford said establishment of no-fly zone was an essential decision and that they had no intention to make it. He added that at the present time monitoring the whole of Syrian skies will take going to fight with Syria and Russia. This part of Dunford's comments was not published by the websites of the US Department of Defense as well as the Senate Committee on the Armed Services. Earlier, General Dunfort had ruled out no-fly zone over Syria for security and legal challenges.
He also repeated this standing in a hearing session hosted by Senate Committee on Armed Services on October 27, 2015. He said that they didn’t recommend the no-fly zone because of it facing big security and legal challenges. He maintained that it diverts anti-ISIS war from its main course.
Certainly, the US government took the same stance as that of Department of Defense. For example, after the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdpgan repeated demands for setting up no-fly zone over Syria on September 5 at the G-20 meeting, Ben Rodz, Obama’s national security advisor, in a press conference in Laos on September 7 ruled out Erdogan's idea and asserted that no-fly zone will not solve the critical problems on the ground, adding that the war will go on in the battlegrounds. He justified himself by expressing the need for the US to transfer data from external command centers to inside Syria to help pursue ISIS and Al-Qaeda, a process that can be disturbed by no-fly zone.
But it appears that the major drive to refuse the secure zone by Washington is to steer clear of challenges ahead. So, we can note that avoiding no-fly zone is an American strategy, something can be used by the Axis of Resistance to serve its own ends.
According to the above-mentioned evidences, the US has no plan and intention to launch direct military offensive at positions of the Syrian government or set up a no-fly zone. It will use options that require no direct military action against Damascus. At the same time, the White House leaders are well aware that President Assad's fall will only worsen the conditions and in other words the crisis will slip out of their control.
The possible options will include intensification of military support to the opposition forces and dragging the battlefields from north to south Syria. Actually, it is unlikely that Obama in closing months of his term in office changes the US policies in Syria.
/298