In possibly another major reshuffle of the geopolitical landscape since Russia's intervention in Syria a month ago, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri (Osama bin Laden's physician, still wanted for his role as co-mastermind of 9/11) has urged all radical Sunni militant groups to put aside their differences and unite against Russia, the US, and the Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah.
Such a statement has bearing on the situation in northwestern Syria, where a number of Al Qaeda affiliates, led by the Syrian Jabhat al-Nusra in a coalition dubbed the "Army of Conquest", form the main muscle against Assad's embattled Baath regime. It could herald a decisive break between jihadist and secular Syrian rebels that have to date cooperated, often reluctantly, against their common foe in Damascus.
The recent Vienna peace talks have opened the door, if only initially, to a political settlement in Syria that prioritizes the preservation of the Syrian state from total disintegration. A BBC article makes plain that concessions must be made by all sides for peace to have a chance: just as Assad can't be asked to leave before meaningful deliberations on the political transition even begin, neither can moderate opposition, like the Free Syrian Army (FSA), be asked to sacrifice all their hopes of a less dictatorial regime in their country's near future.
Another article in The Atlantic takes a decidedly anti-Assad stance, but even it acknowledges that Assad's removal must leave his security state fundamentally intact lest extremists like ISIS and Al-Nusra fill a power vaccuum.
However, the hard fact that Zawahri's recording reminds us of is that even if Syrian moderates reach an accord with Assad, they will have to be joined by at least some of their fellow Islamist fighters for the proposed ceasefires to stick. The trouble that can develop is easy to foresee: if more extreme elements of the opposition like Al-Nusra don't go along, they can effectively scuttle everything for everybody. They just need to cause enough instability where they can to wipe out whatever leverage the moderates have with Assad, by giving Assad justification for continued bloody repression; this will disillusion the moderates and may even turn some of them to extremism, thus continuing the vicious cycle that has "jihadized" most of the effective armed opposition to Damascus since the very start of the uprising in 2011.
And unfortunately, Al-Nusra and its fellow radical jihadists probably have every reason by now to torpedo the peace process. For one, they will feel a deep sense of betrayal that, after doing the brunt of the fighting (and dying) against Assad's murderous war machine, they're being put out to dry by secular apostates whose bargaining power with Damascus was bought largely by their own jihadist martyrs. Even worse, this is probably how Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states - whose support for the Al-Nusra-led "Army of Conquest" became all but open early this year - will feel, too.
Will the new Saudi King Salman go against human (especially Bedouin tribal) nature and lay aside the sense of vendetta against the hated Alawite heretic-thugs? Peace in the Middle East and security from terrorism in the entire world may hinge on it.
I'm not particularly optimistic...but whatever happens, it must happen because it can't be forestalled indefinitely anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment