AMU Europe Homeland Security Intelligence Middle East Opinion

USA: “One Week To Hand Over Weapons;” SYRIA: ‘You Can Have Them’

Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

US diplomacy with Syria is surprisingly accidental and unexpected because decision makers in the government, with regards to foreign policy, are not as understanding of the situation as they ought to be. They may have all the reports in the world and well-credentialed advisers, but what it comes down to is that they lack an appropriate “role” for the US-Syria policy. To their credit, this is an extremely complex scenario, but Russian will likely end up winning points for keeping a cool head and offering some concessions to keep Bashar al Assad in power and the infrastructure and territorial integrity intact.

US Secretary of State John Kerry gave Syrian President Bashar al Assad an ultimatum, but it is Russia who has shown itself as the true power broker in a stall for retribution. This was not an original idea from Syria, who stubbornly felt that they might weather the storm of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles coming their way. The fact that the Assad government agreed to not only give up all chemical weapons, but place them under international control to be destroyed, is perhaps the greatest victory the US could achieve- if genuine.

The US response is still a cautious skepticism. Secretary of State John Kerry and the Administration was initially backtracking, saying the ultimatum to give up the weapons by the end of the week or face a military strike was rhetorical and that Syria’s response was unexpected. Just saying this means that the US was not serious in its official proposal, which actually is an ultimatum that Syria was willing to concede. The fact that the State Department and particularly Secretary Kerry had no contingency plan in motion is another embarrassment to sound and prudent US foreign relations. If this was the DoD and not the DoS, there would have been dozens of anticipated multi-contingent responses.

Secretary Kerry initially stalled, stating off-the cuff, that Assad was not sincere and would not actually hand over the Syrian chemical weapons stores. “Sure, he [Assad] could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry said. “But he isn’t about to.”

The Administration still favored what Kerry had described as an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” Amazingly, this “unbelievably small effort” was so insignificant that it might be okay to bomb Syria even if they give up their weapons. But as public opinion erodes, this becomes the best maneuvering of the US by Syria and partners.

Did the Administration hang itself on Syria? They most likely will never get the green light to strike now. Moreover, international discussions and movements, including a UN Resolution is already underway. If this was a ploy, it worked well- the strike is all but off the table. The longer the Administration lingers, the more likely they are to lose even this opening to take down as much of the chemical weapons program that they can.

Until Today, placing all faith on military action threatened to lose incoming opportunities and its other powerful tools of statecraft. Instead, it must balance them together and achieve maximum results.

It is true that the Washington’s pressure of attacks did play a part into bring Assad to the table, but it was really the Kerry ultimatum that gave them a way out and their Russian sponsor. Even China and Iran are in favor of it. Moreover, it should never have come to this point but for the inconsistency of US foreign policy, realistic capability and well-ordered commitment. The US should be better at speaking to power through words and all of its vast array of resources.

The Syrian Foreign Minister said that Syria “welcomes the Russian initiative” and “we also welcome the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is trying to prevent American aggression against our people.” There is a bit of dependency and desperation in his tone. The Syrian reliance on its allies is crucial to the regime’s success in controlling the Civil War. The combination of the US military posture, diplomacy with an open door, and years of a war torn state that almost saw his early removal, the Assad government appears tired and afraid.

But ‘tired and afraid’ can quickly turn into ‘confident and ruthless’ again. So America’s wobbling diplomatically at the start might have been a crucial set-back. But I believe there is enough time. The problem is that Syria and allies are watching US public opinion even closer than Secretary Kerry.

Is the abandonment of chemical weapons a ruse? How could it be? Initially, I’d say definitely not. But potentially, if dragged out too long, the offer will expire within a few days or weeks.

If Assad or his forces did use sarin gas on August 21, and it appears that he did, the UN, the EU and the US should have enough evidence to prove it. He still claims that he did not gas his people. Regardless, it is a win-win for Syria too. The abandonment and relinquishment of these weapons to international control shuts down a US and Western immediate threat; it allows Assad to consolidate his forces and control; it brings more UN workers in to shield from future international threats as they act as potential hostages.

Syria is not just making an empty gesture, they really do not want to get bombed. They need their roads intact, their supply channels, their weapons caches, power lines, etc. Russia does not want any of this damaged either- it would be bad for business. Even if they sell Syria replacements and gain new construction contracts, they will face a greater unwanted war with the US and the EU that they are really reluctant to take beyond a proxy war status. They know that Syria and Iran will strike back as promised, even if such retaliations against the US and EU are limited. And even if those military reprisals are insufficient, they can still threaten the immediate allies like Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.

Is Syria stalling? Of course they are- the regime wants to survive and eventually regain full control. Are they sincere? Only temporarily and only while the threat of force is still pending and the deal open. If the UN report were to come out in defense of Assad, holding him innocent and saying he did not use chemical weapons, or that one of his military officers did, then his regime may not get the full brunt of war criminal status needed. But that should almost be impossible, unless the US and EU are in fact fabricating the evidence.

One advantage that the US and EU can take advantage is to insert themselves through UN incoming workers needed to secure, transfer and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. An urgent timetable must be made. The UN has reported around 4,500 humanitarian workers aiding the over 4 million refugees within Syria. Part of the deal or the next political move for the West will be to help those millions of internally displaced peoples- mostly women and children. Protecting them should be part of this package or the next phase. Russia should be placed on the spot with Iran as interfering with humanitarian aid if they refuse.

The best part about this plan is that the US and the EU can continue to act in covert operations and use third parties. This gives a favorable concession not only to give up weapons but to enter Syria. Russia is offering the West a political way-out and share of Syrian influence, if ever so small. Syria and Russia should know that the President, even without public support will most likely now launch an attack for credibility even more than before, if these negotiations turn out to be fraudulent or fall through. They should demand a lot but only stick to the chemical weapons and humanitarian crisis. If it works, the Obama Administration looks great; if it does not work, the Administration looks foolish.

The US should have already officially accepted the offer. They need to. Then let Syria and Russia know this is an agreement that has already been made between states in good will and will be enforced and punished severely to the utmost if breached. To avoid any confusion, the President might consider applying more gradual military pressure at this stage if things fall through. He stated Tuesday night that the US does not do pin-point strikes- this is the opposite direction of Kerry’s remark, that reassured the public that the US military action would be small and limited. The President might threaten Syria again using a massive fireworks display, detonating missiles, with allied permission, over all states, simultaneously, at the Syrian border- just before the deadline- as a last chance and a ‘make the ground shake’ tactic. A threat to strike at multiple critical military targets each day might follow until the deal is through and hold them accountable to the Kerry ultimatum and the original Russian initiative to ban and destroy the chemical weapons in Syria. In combination, Russia, China and Iran would be continually blamed for backing out of their publicly recorded and accepted offer.

Comments are closed.