News:

"Now, at the end of 2013, Syria stands as a tale of mismatched commitments, and an example of America's inability to steer events from a distance"--The Wall Street Journal.

Comment:

In the early days of the Syrian rebellion, US intelligence agencies made a prediction: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's days were numbered, an assessment repeated publicly by President Barack Obama and top U.S. intelligence officials. However, at the end of 2013, America openly embraced Assad as part of Syria's future. So why the abrupt change of assessment?

What started out as mass protests against Assad's brutal autocratic rule quickly transformed into a bloody conflict- pitting Assad and his international backers against the Syrian people. Since then tough questions have been repeatedly asked as to why America has not intervened in the bloody conflict. The Obama administration even set irrevocable red lines to assuage international criticism regarding US inaction in Syria. And when the rubicund was crossed, Assad escaped punishment for using chemical weapons against his own people. Yet despite Assad's horrific war crimes record, America remains unashamedly supportive of him.

In the past, America attacked countries like Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and others based on the flimsiest of arguments such as humanitarian intervention and weapons of mass destruction.  Even today, Washington is employing the pretext of humanitarian intervention in South Sudan to deploy its troops to ensure the free flow of oil.  But in Syria, neither the logic of humanitarian intervention applies, or the use of chemical weapons is an invitation for US military action.

So why is America reluctant to intervene? According to America's former ambassador to Syria, Ryan Cocker, Syria is different. He said, "I think we made a mistake right at the beginning in somehow thinking that Syria was like Egypt, like Tunisia, like Libya." This narrative that Syria is somehow different is completely laughable. The numerous air attacks conducted by the Jewish state in Syria, undermines the central pillar of this narrative that Syria's sophisticated air defenses are a major obstacle for US intervention.

The reason Assad is still in power is that the alternative is not acceptable to the West. Cocker explained: "And do we really want the alternative-a major country at the heart of the Arab world in the hands of Al Qaeda? So we need to come to terms with a future that includes Assad." Russia like America is also petrified at the prospect of the Caliphate's return. Speaking on Russia Today, Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov said, "... the threat of jihadists coming to power, the threat of creating a caliphate with extremist rules... understanding that changing the regime is not the way to solve this problem." The threat of the Caliphate is what binds America and Russia together in their support for Assad.

America is now openly embracing Assad and is looking towards Geneva 2 to forge a political solution that retains Assad in power, and isolates the jihadists from rest of the opposition. Oddly enough, General Idris of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has dropped his demand of Assad stepping down from power. A signal that Idris may be contemplating aligning the American backed FSA with the axis of evil - Assad, Iran and Hizb-e-Iran.

Whether, the Caliphate returns to Syria or not, one thing is certain, America's influence is diminished, as it has to increasingly rely on its erstwhile opponent Russia and regional outcast Iran to stabilize America's precarious control in Syria and the Levant.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by

Abed Mustafa