Western powers accept Assad as the lesser of two evils

This March will be the fourth anniversary of the civil war in Syria, which has seen more than 200,000 people killed and 9 million displaced. World leaders called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down back in August 2011. Today, he remains at the helm, and is as intransigent as ever. This week, Assad gave an interview to the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen, in which he denied that his army had used chemical weapons, and claimed that there were no civilians in besieged areas of Syria. British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond dismissed Assad’s testimony, saying that he was either “deluded or lying”.

There are good reasons for Assad to feel confident in sticking to his position. In addition to battlefield victories, the international pressure on him has significantly reduced. The ascent of the militant group Islamic State, or ISIS, which has seized control of large swathes of Syria and Iraq, has meant a major shift in international priorities. Assad is now seen as the lesser of two evils: western powers are less inclined to push for his removal from power when there is the chance that this would benefit ISIS. The spectre of a US-led invasion of Syria aimed at regime change has all but disappeared – there is indeed shelling of Syria, but it is against ISIS targets, not government ones. While America has not officially dropped its demand that Assad step down, it appears that the US is tacitly working with the Syrian regime.

In the interview, Assad told Bowen that his government is receiving messages from the US-led coalition about its strikes in ISIS-held areas of northern Syria. He said that there has been no “direct co-operation” since airstrikes began in September, but that third parties, including Iraq, were “conveying information” that had stopped Syrian and American warplanes from colliding or firing on each other while attacking targets in the same airspace. This communication is done via nations that maintain diplomatic relations with both countries to avoid embarrassment on either side. “Sometimes, they convey a message, a general message,” he said. “There is no dialogue. There’s, let’s say, information, but not dialogue.” The US National Security Council denied coordinating with the Syrian government, with a spokesman telling the BBC that there has been no “advance notification to the Syrians at a military level”.

For some time, analysts have suggested that there is a level of communication between the US-led alliance and Syria. The Syrian army is carrying out raids in the aftermath of US airstrikes, so it follows that there is a level of coordination, even if tactical information is not being shared. Yet there clearly remains significant bad feeling between the two countries; Assad told Bowen that although he would consider cooperating with other countries over ISIS, he would never talk to American officials “because they don’t talk to anyone, unless he’s a puppet”. He added: “They easily trample over international law, which is about our sovereignty now, so they don’t talk to us, we don’t talk to them.”

While the rise of ISIS has undoubtedly softened international attitudes to Syria, Assad showed little interest in the idea that this common enemy could unite Syria and the west. He told Bowen that ISIS would not have existed if the west and Saudi Arabia hadn’t supported the rebel movement. Asked whether Syria would ever want to work with the west, he said: “Definitely we cannot and we don’t have the will and we don’t want, for one simple reason – because we cannot be in an alliance with countries which support terrorism.” It is an ironic statement, given that his own government has been accused of encouraging Islamist militant groups with the aim of forcing moderate rebels to fight on two fronts. It is also thought that Assad may have calculated that the threat of coming under brutal Islamist rule may force some of the Syrian population back into supporting the regime. It appears that the strategy has been successful on both counts; moderate rebels have been weakened after having to fight both Islamists and government forces, while many Syrians are terrified at the prospect of ISIS coming to power. Of course, Assad’s words should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway, given that he and other members of his regime routinely use the word “terrorist” to refer not just to Islamist militants but to all Syrian rebels.

The Syrian civil war has seen a dizzying number of new elements and shifting alliances over the course of the last four years, both internally and internationally. It is unsurprising that moderate rebels are increasingly anxious about the west – which had previously offered support against Assad – softening attitudes towards the regime. In the BBC interview, Assad flatly denied the use of barrel bombs, despite significant evidence to the contrary, and claimed that the number of casualties was not excessive, even as the death toll mounts. If nothing else, the supreme confidence shown by Assad demonstrates that he is no longer feeling the pressure from the international community that he was two years ago.

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