Alwaght- United States’ plan to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad, on one hand, undermines the Arabic-Western or even non-Arabic consensus against the overthrow of the Syrian government. On the other hand, it could be a bargaining chip for the Syrian government and its regional and trans-regional supporters in the diplomatic efforts.
While devastating and crippling conflict in Syria entered its fifth year, the West Asia suffers a "strategic paralysis". The emergence of the ISIS extremism in Syria and Iraq, the Syrian civil war, the Saudi-led aggression against Yemen, the unrest in Libya, political unrest in Egypt, etc. have raised significant challenges for the West Asia, in a way that an unusual form of unity, enmity and competition has been organized in the region.
However, in all stages of the crisis in Syria, the US has pursued a certain goal and strategy, i.e., to "weaken and overthrow the Syrian government". Not only, the US has not benefited from weakening the Syrian government, but also has made way for a kind of international terrorism and extremism. Nevertheless, to let the Syrian government become powerful, does not agree with the strategic objectives of the US and its regional allies, especially Israeli regime.
The Syrian internal complexity is somehow associated with the regional and international complexity of the issue. These strategic necessities together with the importance of the final years of Barack Obama in the office, have forced the US to revise its strategy and stance towards the Syrian crisis and signal readiness to dialogue with the Syrian government. As, John Kerry, the Secretary of State, in an official statement said "The United States will have to negotiate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to remove him from power and bring the Syrian civil war to a close”. Since the beginning of March 2015, the US together with Turkey have begun to train moderate Syrian opposition fighters. Meanwhile, the US-led international coalition against ISIS, since September 2014, have launched a series of air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Western countries declared the goal of these attacks is to strengthen the moderate Syrian opposition against ISIS.
Bashar al-Assad, in response to the dialogue option proposed by the US said, "He is ready to negotiate with the US provided that his country's sovereignty is not called into question, and the negotiations are based on mutual respect." However, Kerry’s speech enraged its European allies, to the extent that the US once again ruled out talks with President Bashar al-Assad. Including Mary Hoff, the acting spokeswoman for the US Department of State said, "John Kerry did not mean that The US is going to talk to Bashar al-Assad, what he was intending to imply was to talk with the representatives of the government to resolve the crisis in Syria, whose presence is important for the negotiations, as the representatives had participated the former Peace talks."
For the first time, in 2014 the US helped the peace talks between Assad and the Syrian opposition in Geneva to take place. However, after two rounds of negotiations, the talks were inconclusive, and the crisis and civil war in Syria continued and intensified. As of 220 thousand killed over four years in Syria, 76 thousand were just killed in the fourth year (2014) of the Syrian crisis.
The change in US stance towards the Syrian crisis, primarily proves the inefficiency of the US strategy. Not overthrown and currently even more sustainable, the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria is the proof of the argument. Formerly, the US was not willing to negotiate with the Syrian President, and insisted the political logic that Assad does not have the legitimacy. Considering the "reverse logic", to propose negotiations with Bashar al-Assad indicates that Obama has altered his previous stance, and has accepted the relative political and legal legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad.
As on March 14, 2015, John Brennan, head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), said "the overthrow of the Assad regime is not on the agenda." Considering the lack of a unique approach and a strategic outlook of the moderate forces among the Syrian opposition, the collapse of the Syrian regime would pave the way for the extremist forces to gain control over levers of power in Syria.
Therefore, the new equations of complex internal and regional developments have shown to all actors involved in the Syrian crisis, especially the US, there is no clear perspective to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. However, with the changes in the US international position on the Syrian crisis and willingness to negotiate with the Syrian government, Bashar al-Assad will be considered a part of the solution to the Syrian crisis. However, countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have put the overthrow of the Syrian government in their security agenda, and have started to develop new alliances. Especially Saudi Arabia fears that the survival of Bashar al-Assad, Iran's nuclear deal and potential close relations between the US and Iran, will make Iran more powerful in Iraq and the region. Saudi-led military coalition and air strikes against Yemen over the last 45 days could be explained accordingly.
Therefore, any political or diplomatic solution to end the crisis in Syria requires achieving an international consensus among all countries involved. The expansion of ethnic-religious split and sectarian conflict in the West Asia are the result of contrasting views, conflict of interests and undermining the international cooperation between the countries in the region.
