Who is the major player at the Geneva talks?
The meetings in Geneva, expected to start soon, are the second attempt by the UN to bring a resolution to the Syrian civil war and alleviate the impact of the governments bombing and blockades that are starving Syrian civilians. The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) has given a certain impetus to outside parties such as the United States and Russia to engage their allies to attend the talks. The EU has also been involved in pushing for a resolution as the migration crisis worsens. As of this writing only representatives of the Assad regime are in Geneva. Recent indicators are that is all that will truly be needed.
The western mind set is that there will be an agreement, any agreement, that meets certain criteria. The main criteria appear to be to have an agreement regardless of how it actually impacts the situation. The recently enacted nuclear agreement with Iran is a case in point that has given Iran a blank page to do what they want and 150 billion dollars to do it with. The US accepted faint promises and unrealistic timelines and gave up all leverage. Iran is a part of the fighting in Syria, on the side of the government and in conjunction with Russia. The United States, which has been on the side of the Syrian rebel forces, has, since the signing of the nuclear deal, done everything it can to appease Iran.
The Syrian opposition has made some conditions for attending the talks and that is the bombing stop and food and medical relief be allowed to come into the civilian areas. These seem reasonable and yet just today Russian aircraft for the first time attacked opposition positions near the Israeli border. Secretary of State Kerry also informed the opposition that they risked losing funding if they did not attend. The opposition and others also continue to insist that in the end Assad must be gone.
There is serious concern however in the US ability to leverage its advantage or to be a major player. The Syrian opposition is tentatively under the control of Saudi Arabia which has been at odds with the US over the Iran deal. The world having watched the US, negotiating from a position of strength, collapse and gave into almost every demand of Iran. As it stands now the US cannot even deliver the opposition to the talks.
Russia has indicated that Assad must stay in the interim and is backed up by Iran. Both of these countries have given arms and soldiers to Syria for the fight. ISIS continues to have a strong hand in Syria and the Kurds have established themselves as an autonomous region without push back from Damascus.
With so many groups involved it must be a concern that only the Syrian government is in Geneva. Will the UN accede to the demands of Assad and Russia? Will the US and the EU back away from the opposition in order to have a worthless agreement in hand? It is doubtful that anything will come of these talks except to give the west an excuse to stop supporting the Syrian opposition and let the Syrian-Russian-Iranian coalition take back control of the country. The only part that is likely to remain status quo is the Kurdish region will retain its autonomy.
This last part will be interesting to watch in light of the tension between Turkey and Russia. If Russia is capable of ultimately securing a victory for Assad it is likely they will become the defenders of the Kurdish region, not out of love for the Kurds but out of hatred of Turkey.
Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence and former Soviet analyst. He is a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently he is the President of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.
The western mind set is that there will be an agreement, any agreement, that meets certain criteria. The main criteria appear to be to have an agreement regardless of how it actually impacts the situation. The recently enacted nuclear agreement with Iran is a case in point that has given Iran a blank page to do what they want and 150 billion dollars to do it with. The US accepted faint promises and unrealistic timelines and gave up all leverage. Iran is a part of the fighting in Syria, on the side of the government and in conjunction with Russia. The United States, which has been on the side of the Syrian rebel forces, has, since the signing of the nuclear deal, done everything it can to appease Iran.
The Syrian opposition has made some conditions for attending the talks and that is the bombing stop and food and medical relief be allowed to come into the civilian areas. These seem reasonable and yet just today Russian aircraft for the first time attacked opposition positions near the Israeli border. Secretary of State Kerry also informed the opposition that they risked losing funding if they did not attend. The opposition and others also continue to insist that in the end Assad must be gone.
There is serious concern however in the US ability to leverage its advantage or to be a major player. The Syrian opposition is tentatively under the control of Saudi Arabia which has been at odds with the US over the Iran deal. The world having watched the US, negotiating from a position of strength, collapse and gave into almost every demand of Iran. As it stands now the US cannot even deliver the opposition to the talks.
Russia has indicated that Assad must stay in the interim and is backed up by Iran. Both of these countries have given arms and soldiers to Syria for the fight. ISIS continues to have a strong hand in Syria and the Kurds have established themselves as an autonomous region without push back from Damascus.
With so many groups involved it must be a concern that only the Syrian government is in Geneva. Will the UN accede to the demands of Assad and Russia? Will the US and the EU back away from the opposition in order to have a worthless agreement in hand? It is doubtful that anything will come of these talks except to give the west an excuse to stop supporting the Syrian opposition and let the Syrian-Russian-Iranian coalition take back control of the country. The only part that is likely to remain status quo is the Kurdish region will retain its autonomy.
This last part will be interesting to watch in light of the tension between Turkey and Russia. If Russia is capable of ultimately securing a victory for Assad it is likely they will become the defenders of the Kurdish region, not out of love for the Kurds but out of hatred of Turkey.
Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence and former Soviet analyst. He is a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently he is the President of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.