Will US strikes against ISIL benefit Bashar Al-Assad?

Anti-ISIL coalition strikes get underway in Syria, but analysts question who will ultimately benefit: moderate opposition forces the US says it aims to support, or the regime of Bashar Al-Assad?

A US-led coalition launched its first strikes on militant jihadists in Syria on Tuesday, notably the Islamic State group who vowed revenge and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front.
Even though the strikes were expected, the timing and the intensity of the bombing was unforeseen.
US President Barack Obama announced a few hours before the strikes that the targets would include other “terrorist groups” aside from the Islamic State group, vowing more strikes against jihadists.
However, many analysts say that US strategy remains unclear and that the strikes serve the interests of the Bashar Al-Assad regime as the military operation reached its third day.
Where is US strategy going?
John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters that the strikes conducted overnight are just the beginning. He also said that the strikes had been "very successful" and would continue.
However, Daniel Serwer, former counsellor with the US State Department, told Ahram Online that It is not at all clear that the US has a plan following these strikes, other than to continue to strike ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, also known as the Islamic State) to prevent it from gaining ground.
“I know of no real plan for how to govern any territories taken back from ISIL. Nor has there been time yet to plan an on-the-ground military offensive against [ISIL],” Serwer asserts.
In his statement, Obama vowed more strikes against jihadists in Syria after US forces carried out separate air raids targeting Islamic State militants and an Al-Qaeda affiliate that Washington said was plotting attacks on America and Europe, Reuters reported.
Wayne White, ex-deputy director of the Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia in the US State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and a policy expert with Washington's Middle East Policy Council, told Ahram Online that strikes “probably will continue“ in the near future to pursue two priorities: weakening ISIL as well as eliminating its heavy weapons, and fending off ISIL attacks against the Kurdish northeast.
“And, of course, they will react to other perceived terrorist threats posed by elements such as Khorasan (an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with a presence in Syria),” White adds.
"The Khorasan group [are] jihadists comprised of a number of individuals who we've been tracking for a long time," said Ben Rhodes, President Obama's deputy national security adviser. He said it includes former Al-Qaeda operatives from across the Middle East, reported USA Today.
"We believe that that attack plotting was imminent and that they had plans to conduct attacks external to Syria," Rhodes asserted.
Do US strikes serve Al-Assad's interests?
The strikes lauched by the US have not only damaged one enemy, IS and other terrorist groups, but arguably also helped another foe, Bashar Al-Assad's regime.
Damascus reportedly said it was informed beforehand by Washington about the strikes. President Al-Assad said he supports any international effort against terrorism, in what many believe is a manoeuvre to position his government on the side of the US-led coalition.
However, The Washington Post reported that while Syria was informed by the United States in advance of the airstrikes, there was no strategic coordination with the Syrian government, according to a US State Department spokeswoman.
Although the United States said it gave no specifics on the attacks and did not request clearance from Damascus, it marked a rare display of interaction between Washington and envoys for Syrian President Al-Assad.
White believes that informing Damascus probably was merely pro forma. “The Al-Assad regime will not be permitted into this particular anti-ISIL tent,” White asserts.
Serwer added that while Syria may have been informed that strikes would occur at some point, "I doubt Washington told them when and where."
Washington will want the Free Syrian Army to gain from the strikes, but it is not clear it is in a position to do so. As Reuters reported, Syrian rebels affiliated with the main Western-backed opposition said they worried US air strikes on Islamic State militants could benefit Al-Assad.
Who will take over from the jihadists?
If there are air strikes on Islamic State, "the government of Bashar cannot be left to take over," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Monday before the strikes began.
"The choice cannot be terrorists or dictators."
The targets of the air and missile strikes included Raqqa city in northern Syria, the Islamic State's main Syria stronghold.
Part of US President Obama's strategy against Islamic State depends on equipping and training Syria's more moderate rebels to strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to the jihadists.
Meanwhile, striking armed jihadists' groups not linked to IS is considered a boost for Al-Assad's regime and a loss for the opposition.
According to reports, the coalition's airstrikes will continue and will not affect the regime. The US might strike some of the regime's strategic bases, but it will not bring it down.
“The actual strength of the Free Syrian Army is not well known; it's participation, and airstrikes in support of it, will depend on whether it is advancing, in danger of being driven back, or seriously weakened,” White asserted.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/111623.aspx