The Belgian government ordered maximum alert for three days in a row this week fearing a major terrorist attack in Brussels, a week after the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday, 13 November. Throughout the week that followed those attacks, the world seems to have finally grasped the seriousness of the threat of the organisation the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS). One day after the Paris attacks that claimed the lives of 130 victims plus three hundred injured, 17 countries gathered in Vienna — for the second time in two weeks — to chart a new way forward to reaching a political solution in Syria. This meeting, called Vienna 2, recommitted those attending to a political transition process in Syria where the role and the political future of President Bashar Al-Assad would be determined. It is worth noting that in Vienna 1 and Vienna 2 the participants stressed that this transition is Syria-led and Syria-owned. It was a welcome reaffirmation of a basic principle in international relations; namely, non-interference in the domestic affairs of nations. The Charter of the United Nations has enshrined this principle. Needless to say that one of the basic reasons explaining why the United Nations, on the one hand, and the great and regional powers, on the other, have failed so far to halt the slow and dangerous disintegration of Syria has been precisely the future role of the Syrian president. For a week after Vienna 2, it seemed that the world, at long last, had found a middle ground on which it could strive to launch the political transition process in Syria. But it seems that this transition will take some time to materialise. In an interview with an Arabic daily published in London, Stiffan De Mastura, the special United Nations representative in Syria, said that we need to keep up the momentum of Vienna 2, expressing fear that this momentum could be lost and, what's more dangerous, Syria would disappear forever. I could not agree more. Keeping up the momentum necessitates leadership and iron-clad commitment to save Syria from vanishing from the map —a very serious development that would threaten the whole Middle East and the Arab world at large. The existing balance of power, already shaky, in the region would be shattered, leading, no doubt, to devastating wars. I do not know for sure whether such considerations were on the mind of US President Barack Obama who in a press conference in Kuala Lumpur 22 November, attending a United States-ASEAN Summit, brought up once again the future of the Syrian president and made it a dependent factor in winning the war against ISIS. Speaking about Russian strategy in Syria, Obama said that, “their principal goal appeared to be... to fortify the position of the Assad regime. And that does not add to our efforts against ISIS. In some ways it strengthens it, because ISIS is also fighting many of those groups that the Russians were hitting.” The American president went as far as requesting the Russians reconsider their strategic approach in Syria, asking them “to make an adjustment in terms of what they are prioritising”. To be clear about the true intentions of the US administration in terms of the objectives of the political transition agreed upon in both Vienna 1 and Vienna 2, President Obama said that “Russia has not officially committed to a transition of Assad moving out, but they did agree to the political transition process.” The magic word is “officially”, which leaves room to various interpretations. Does it mean that the Russians have agreed unofficially to a transition that would see the Syrian president out? Does it portend more military pressure on the Syrian army by Western-backed groups operating in Syria and fully supported by the Turks, the Saudis and the Qataris? Or does it mean that the Americans are not in a hurry to degrade and defeat ISIS? Regardless of the answer to these questions, it seems to me that the American strategy in Syria has not dramatically changed. Furthermore, it means that Washington, the leader of the international coalition to counter ISIS, still believes that defeating ISIS is not for tomorrow. The American logic in Syria still defies comprehension as to its true strategic objectives. The US State Department announced 21 November that Secretary John Kerry would be travelling to Abu Dhabi, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah 22-24 November. In Abu Dhabi, the Americans and the Emiratis will “discuss a range of bilateral and regional political and security issues, with a focus on Syria.” In Israel and Ramallah, Secretary Kerry will — according to the release of the State Department — “discuss bilateral and regional security issues, including Syria and Daesh (ISIS), and continue discussions on stopping the violence in Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank, and improving conditions on the ground.” I hope soon we will be in a better position to understand who is the effective enemy in Syria, from an American perspective, whether the Syrian president or ISIS. The writer is a former assistant to the foreign minister.
