Last July, Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad seemed to be losing his battle against rebel
forces. Speaking to supporters in Damascus, he acknowledged his army's
heavy losses. Western officials said the Syrian leader’s days were numbered and predicted he would soon be forced to the negotiating table. It
did not turn out that way. Secret preparations were already underway
for a major deployment of Russian and Iranian forces in support of
Assad. The military intervention,
taking many in the West by surprise, would roll back rebel gains. It
would also accelerate two shifts in U.S. diplomacy: Washington would
welcome Iran to the negotiating table over Syria, and it would no longer
insist that Assad step down immediately. "That
involved swallowing some pride, to be honest, in acknowledging that
this process would go nowhere unless you got Russia and Iran at the
table," a U.S. official said. At
the heart of the diplomacy shift – which essentially brought Washington
closer to Moscow's position – was a slow-footed realization of the
Russian military build-up in Syria and, ultimately, a refusal to
intervene militarily. Russia, Iran
and Syria struck their agreement to deploy military forces in June,
several weeks before Assad's July 26 speech, according to a senior
official in the Middle East who was familiar with the details. And
Russian sources say large amounts of equipment, and hundreds of troops,
were being dispatched over a series of weeks, making it hard to hide
the pending operation. Yet a senior
U.S. administration official said it took until mid-September for
Western powers to fully recognize Russia's intentions. One of the final
pieces of the puzzle was when Moscow deployed aircraft flown only by the
Russian military, eliminating the possibility they were intended for
Assad, the official said. An
earlier understanding of Russia’s military plans is unlikely to have
changed U.S. military policy. President Barack Obama had made clear
early on that he did not want Washington embroiled in a proxy war with
Russia. And when the West did wake up to Russian President Vladimir
Putin's intentions, it was short of ideas about how to respond. As in Ukraine in 2014, the West seemed helpless. French
President Francois Hollande summed up the mood among America's European
allies: "I would prefer the United States to be more active. But since
the United States has stepped back, who should take over, who should
act?" SIGNPOSTS
In July last year, one of Iran's top generals, Qassem Soleimani, went
to Moscow on a visit that was widely reported. The senior Middle Eastern
official told Reuters that Soleimani had also met Putin twice several
weeks before that. "They defined zero hour for the Russian planes and equipment, and the Russian and Iranian crews," he said. Russia began
sending supply ships through the Bosphorus in August, Reuters reported
at the time. There was no attempt to hide the voyages and on Sept. 9
Reuters reported that Moscow had begun participating in military
operations in Syria. A Russian
Air Force colonel, who took part in preparations and provided fresh
details of the build-up, said hundreds of Russian pilots and ground
staff were selected for the Syria mission in mid-August.
Warplanes sent to Syria included the Sukhoi-25 and Sukhoi-24 offensive
aircraft, U.S. officials said. In all, according to U.S. officials,
Russia by Sept. 21 had 28 fixed-wing aircraft, 16 helicopters, advanced
T-90 tanks and other armored vehicles, artillery, anti-aircraft
batteries and hundreds of marines at its base near Latakia. Despite this public build-up, the West either played down the risks or failed to recognize them. U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sept. 22 that Russian aircraft
were in Syria to defend the Russians' base - "force protection" in the
view of U.S. military experts. At the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 28, the French announced their own first air strikes in Syria. "The
international community is hitting Daesh (Islamic State). France is
hitting Daesh. The Russians, for now, are not doing anything," Foreign
Minister Laurent Fabius Fabius said at the time. The next day Russia announced its strikes in Syria. WARNINGS One
former U.S. official, who was in government at the time, told Reuters
that some U.S. officials had begun voicing concern that Russia would
intervene militarily in Syria two weeks before the bombing began. Their
concerns, however, were disregarded by officials in the White House and
those dealing with the Middle East because of a lack of hard
intelligence, the former U.S. official said. "There was this tendency to say, 'We don't know. Let's see,'" recounted the former U.S. official. Yet between October and December, American perceptions shifted, as reported by Reuters at the time. By
December, U.S. officials had concluded that Russia had achieved its
main goal of stabilizing Assad’s government and could maintain its
operations in Syria for years. "I
think it’s indisputable that the Assad regime, with Russian military
support, is probably in a safer position than it was," a senior
administration official said. DIPLOMATIC U-TURN At
that point, the U.S. pivoted to the negotiating table with Russia and
Iran. Officials say they had few other options with Obama unwilling to
commit American ground troops to Syria, aside from small deployments of
Special Operations forces, or provide U.S.-backed opposition fighters
with anti-aircraft missiles. In
Munich on Feb 12, Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
announced an agreement for humanitarian access and a "cessation of
hostilities" in Syria, far short of a ceasefire. "Putin
has taken the measure of the West... He has basically concluded, I can
push and push and push and push and I am never going to hit steel
anywhere," said Fred Hof, a former State Department and Pentagon Syria
expert now at the Atlantic Council think tank. Today,
U.S. officials sound a far different note than in the early days of the
uprising against Assad when they said his exit must be immediate. Now,
with the war entering its sixth year, they say they must push the
diplomatic possibilities as far as possible and insist Kerry is fully
aware of what Russia is doing to change facts on the ground. In
congressional testimony on Wednesday, Kerry acknowledged there was no
guarantee the "cessation of hostilities" would work, adding: "But I know
this: If it doesn’t work, the potential is there that Syria will be
utterly destroyed. The fact is that we need to make certain that we are
exploring and exhausting every option of diplomatic resolution." For the rebels, the reality is bleak.
Government forces have closed in on the city of Aleppo, a major symbol
of the uprising. Their supply routes from Turkey cut, rebels in the
Aleppo area now say it may only be a matter of time before they are
crushed altogether. "We are heading toward being liquidated I think," said a former official in a rebel group from the city. Other
fighters remain determinedly upbeat, saying Assad is only gaining
ground because of Russian air power and he will not be able to sustain
the advances. For Syrians living
under government rule in Damascus, Moscow's intervention has inspired a
degree of confidence. They credit one of the calmest periods since the
start of the war to the death of rebel leader Zahran Alloush, killed in a
Russian air strike on Christmas Day.
There are few foreign visitors these days. Bashar al-Seyala, who owns a
souvenir shop in the Old City, said most of his foreign customers are
Russians. His shop had just sold out of mugs printed with Putin's face.
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.