The long-term project to pry Syria from Iran's orbit begins with the first nudge. Maybe the Arab League effort will fail. Perhaps it is even likely to fail. But the best solution for justice and preventing harm in Syria left the station long ago.
Is it a strategic mistake for the Arab League to think it can pry Assad's Syria out of Iran's orbit?
Readmitting Syria to the Arab League is a strategic mistake. On paper, the logic behind such a move appears sound. For the better part of the last decade, most of the Arab world hoped that Syria’s uprising would dislodge Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As the dust has begun to settle on that conflict, it is apparent that those hopes were misplaced. In short, Assad won.
The author says the choices are to isolate Assad forever and condemn Syrians to misery in the hopes something better will happen. Or lure Syria into pushing Iran away:
However, the logic underpinning the second option—drawing Assad back into the Arab orbit—is unsound, founded on the faulty premise that there remains such a thing as an independent Syrian regime and Assad to woo back from Tehran.
The Syrian dictator can now be effectively considered the glorified “Mayor of Damascus,” merely ruling that fiefdom at Iran’s pleasure.
Maybe it is futile. Syria has long been West Iran. Or Iran's "Thirty-Fifth Province", as the article notes. I've read that Assad isn't happy about his reliance on Iran. And with internal threats defeated, Assad wants Iran's influence pushed back. The Arab League is a means to balance Iran and perhaps leverage more aid and more tolerable behavior from both.
But America has little to say on this despite the bloody hands of the Assad regime over the last several generations. America said Assad had to resign early in the civil war. But America wouldn't do anything to make him "step aside" no matter how bad the regime was. Why? Well, you simpleton, to avoid "further militarizing" the conflict. Half a million deaths ago, give or take.
Remember, America legitimized Russia's role in Syria in support of Assad. America ensured the chemical weapons deal was a shield against American intervention. And in bonus territory, America thought supporting rebels just enough to pressure Assad into negotiations--not for victory--was the height of strategic genius.
Ah, finely calibrated nuance!
Russia once shared the goal of prying Syria out of Iran's orbit. But Russia is too reliant on Iranian weapons supplies to help eject Iran.
And after the hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees, how many Syrians have the stomach to take up arms against Assad again? Would they really trust the West to support a rebellion for victory this time?
At this point, however distasteful it is, what's the alternative in the
real world to waiting for Assad to die and hoping for the best to at
least get Iran out? Isn't the damage done in Syria? Isn't preventing future damage by Iran a higher priority than punishing the past damage?
It's a long journey to defeat Iran in Syria. I'd settle for America doing its part by helping Iraqis defeat Iran in Iraq.
NOTE: The image was created by DALL-E.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
