Cav's Place

Saw a BBC analysis today claiming that the recent use of chemical weapons, which is now accepted as fact even by the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies, lifted the crisis to such a high level that all sides, and the USA and Russia in particular, should be far more likely to put their differences aside and find that they have more in common than meets the eye while struggling to find a political solution that will restore peace and stability. Admittedly, the author appears to realize at the end that such a view is overly optimistic to say the least, yet publishing such an analysis of an ongoing and extremely important situation only to genuinely dismiss it at the end would serve no purpose and definitely fail to meet the standards such a reputable news source is justifiably expected to meet, so I can’t believe that this final part is meant to imply that the entire piece is otherwise little more than wishful thinking. Unfortunately, however, it seems to me to be precisely that.

About the attack itself, I have to say that it’s certainly strange. On the one hand, the fact that it took place shortly after UN inspectors were finally allowed inside Syria does for once make the regime’s version, namely that the rebels or “terrorists” are to blame, seem rather plausible. On the other, pulling off such a move precisely when everybody is certain to think you couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to do so may be seen as a stroke of genius. And then there’s a third option as well, namely that what happened was at least in part an accident, though that’d obviously still require one or both sides to have been preparing to launch such an attack, be it at another time, another target or, and perhaps most likely, on a smaller scale.
It may be that the regime launched it trying to blame the rebels, that the rebels launched it themselves trying to blame the regime, or that the fundamentalists launched it against the moderates while at the same time trying to blame the regime and therefore strike at both enemies at once. It may be that it was an act of sabotage, either somehow tricking the regime into using the chemical weapons we know it has or causing a discharge from some the rebels had either captured or were trying to create. It may be that the rebels had captured or were trying to create chemical weapons in that area and the regime’s heavy bombardment, intentionally or not, caused a massive discharge. Or, of course, it may be some sort of combination of these.

It’s this level of uncertainty that seems to me to serve only to make any sort of action even less likely. A line has definitely been crossed, but unless how and why it happened and, most importantly, who was behind it can be determined and undeniably proven very quickly, any desire for actual involvement will be dampened even further by the fear of an even worse backlash, and the West was never keen on involvement in the first place. The only outcome which both the West and Russia, and possibly also China, may be looking forward to is finding a way to claim that it was an attack staged by the fundamentalists against the moderates, but even the USA and Russia allying against those and defeating them is unlikely to result in peace, and will definitely not result in anything good for the people of Syria, seeing as removing those when the moderates have been nearly wiped out will hand over victory to the regime and therefore mean that all these years of war, the deaths and the suffering of so many Syrians, have been for nothing.
The problem, or one of the most important problems, is that the world stood by far too long and the regime is no longer under any threat of being defeated by anything short of a full assault by foreign troops. It may be unable to win the war, but it’s been several months since it could lose it, so even if the West would somehow get past empty threats and do at least as much for the rebels as Russia has done all along for the regime, it still won’t be enough. The only way to end that war is, and has perhaps always been, direct foreign intervention, yet if nobody had the guts to do anything so far, the uncertainty surrounding this attack seems to make such a course of action even more unlikely, despite the most recent wave of threats.

The regime refused to negotiate even while it appeared to be losing, so it certainly won’t now that it’s no longer under any real threat. The fundamentalists will neither negotiate nor surrender because they never do. The moderates, while the only ones who may deserve support, have nobody to negotiate with and, either way, have become largely irrelevant due to having always been targeted by both the regime and the fundamentalists and never managing to stop bickering long enough to form a cohesive and believable force. Russia and Iran want to make sure they won’t lose their ally in the region and, seeing as the regime’s defeat is no longer a real possibility, have no reason to negotiate either, which is almost certainly true for China as well. As for the USA and EU countries, which also have nobody to negotiate with, I highly doubt that a major event shrouded in uncertainty and likely to aggravate the negative reaction to any sort of intervention will make them decide to actually get involved for a change, not after having proven unwilling to do anything more than utter empty threats for over two years, during which time over one hundred thousand people died, millions were displaced and their only potential partners on the ground have been almost completely wiped out.
So no, I don’t see how this may even bring an end to the current war, much less actual peace. It changes nothing on the ground, makes the regime’s allies no more, and perhaps even less, likely to accept any course of action that may do so, and probably makes direct Western intervention even more unlikely despite all the threats. It makes a peaceful solution no more likely than it ever was and, while it certainly might have been, it wasn’t immediately used as an excuse for anything which might have had positive results, and by now it’s probably too late to do so and still maintain any credibility.