Conflicting agendas in the war on terror

No member of the international alliance in the war on terror can hide their personal agenda within the greater conflict. The polarisation present in our region makes it impossible for any party to be discreet about their own lofty goals, or to hide behind them in an attempt to justify war. Each of the parties involved in this conflict has their own interpretation of what the war on terror means and what its implications and conditions for success will be in the grand scheme of things. Yet, all parties involved in the coalition apparently believe that the clash of agendas will lead to the war’s failure, especially when it come to meeting their own objectives. They all believe that this clash will increase their losses and the duration of the battle.

When it comes to the Syrian side of the latest coalition war, “regional hubs” deviate from their geographical maps and see the Syrian situation as an attempt to bring down the Assad regime, and they ignore completely the fact the struggle for liberation in Syria has many different axes. Turkey and Qatar have expressed their support for bringing down the government in Damascus because they see this as an essential step to winning the war on terror. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and others that have their own secret goals for this war stay on the path that will ensure their victory and refuse to deviate from it.

Those mentioned above overlooked the creation of a new coalition against ISIS. Thus, Ankara went ahead with its plan to establish a buffer zone in northern Syria along the Turkish border 30 to 40 kilometres deep that will be monitored by aerial patrols and protected by ground troops. Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has placed the buffer zone on the list of pre-conditions for his country to join the international coalition against ISIS.

In contrast, Qatar raised some points about its vision for this international war and did so from the highest international platform. The Emir of Qatar, Shaikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, said that it is not acceptable to target ISIS while making an exception for Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian regime. The Qatari ruler said that while many may not consider the Assad regime’s actions as crimes against humanity per se, allowing the regime to stay in power would ensure that new waves of terrorism would emerge in both Syria and the region as a whole.

Although this is not difficult for many to imagine, Saudi Arabia’s statements came soon afterwards via a declaration from Jeddah, which insisted that Assad would have no role to play in Syria’s future. With Riyadh on one side and Damascus on the other, it seems as though the situation has become even more complex, enabling the Saudis to consider more options as relations with Syria deteriorate to the point of no return.

These positions have triggered an alert within yet another axis. Alarm bells are ringing in Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Southern Lebanon because, if pressured, they would participate in the war on terror with full force but they fear that doing so would jeopardise their own agendas. Despite the fact that their governments try to hide their positions behind the cloak of international law and legitimacy, they are all well aware that undermining the Assad regime is a pre-requisite for participating in the global coalition, or at least a pre-requisite for victory.

Certain scenarios being talked about mention the need to reach a compromise in Syria, one that would allow all parties to the conflict to reach or aspire to a common goal. Such scenarios are being drawn-up in the meeting rooms of Washington and various European capitals and it is clear that many have done little more than escalate the Syrian conflict further. Many have not seen the light of day and others have no way of being enforced.

Among them, though, is the possibility of saving the Syrian regime but getting rid of the boss, the so-called Maliki/Abadi solution. It is no secret, at this point, that Iran would have no qualms with such a plan. The masterminds behind it believe that, if implemented, what could happen in Syria would be similar to what Iran did in Iraq when it abandoned its plans for the sake of preserving its national interests and those of its allies. Others from the same school of thought argue that an Iranian victory in Yemen would make it easier for Tehran to abandon its strategy in Syria if the regime remained but the president was ousted.

This scenario has some traction in Europe and America because they no longer want to see the collapse of the Syrian regime, as this would place the country’s people and security institutions at the mercy of ISIS. The Gulf States, which have personified or equated the Syrian conflict with the presence of Bashar Al-Assad, would not mind if such a scenario plays out. As for Turkey, it too would not oppose this plan as long as it is given a window to become a political force in Syria, especially regarding the Kurdish question.

Even though this game plan is old and has been rejected by Tehran and Moscow in the past, those in favour believe that Assad’s allies can be swayed if they are convinced that abandoning the Syrian president would lead to the defeat of ISIS. However, this is not guaranteed and we face the strong probability that the war against ISIS will be a lengthy one. After all, have we won against Al-Qaeda or the Taliban more than 13 years after this alleged war on terror began?

Translated from Addustour newspaper, 29 September, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.