Why resort to ground intervention in Syria?

For months now, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubair has been repeating his government’s position on the Syrian crisis: there is no future for Bashar Al-Assad as president. Riyadh favours any diplomatic solution that guarantees his departure, and if he does not depart through dialogue, the military option is ready to force him out.

The words used by Saudi Arabia and the US have something in common, which may not necessarily express a common strategy. Washington distances itself from any direct US military intervention in Syria, despite Russia’s direct involvement. The government in Riyadh, however, considers the Syrian conflict inseparable from that in Yemen, which is being fought in response to Iran’s expansion across the region and to protect the strategic security of the kingdom; this explains Saudi activity in all axes of the Syrian conflict and its following up on developments.

The US policy seems to be working to serve the Russian experiment in Syria. Washington backed away from Geneva in favour of Vienna, which produced UN resolution 2254, a resolution that suits Moscow’s views. US pressures pushed the opposition toward negotiations while the US Secretary of State, working for the benefit of Moscow, warned the opposition and threatened it of tough months to come if they went against the path of negotiations in Geneva. Riyadh did not oppose the complicity of the two “super powers”, but rather went along with it tactically and patiently, realising that negotiations will not succeed and that there is no point in postponing something that is hopeless to revive.

In his latest interview, the Syrian president spoke proudly of the achievements made by his regime on the ground under Russian air cover. Experts in Syrian affairs know, though, that such achievements are temporary and cannot be built upon. They depend on the air superiority which comes as a result of international and regional countries turning a blind eye and allowing it to be superior. It is generally agreed that regional states have, so far, abided by US rules which prevent them from supplying Syrian opposition groups with anti-aircraft missiles, but those rules can be broken at any moment, stripping Russia’s air cover of its local superiority.

The announcement by Saudi Arabia and Turkey of plans for ground intervention is, it seems, an attempt to change the stale line-up of active powers in Syria, and a sign that the US rules are about to be broken. The message from Ankara and Riyadh is that they are about to ignore any US-Russia understanding, and ready to establish regional understandings that will be very difficult to bypass when Syria’s future is planned. The two regional players are showing a high level of professionalism that cannot be misinterpreted and is not subject to amateur emotions. Their rhetoric is in harmony with publicly declared international efforts to fight against Daesh; preparations for ground intervention are ongoing and supported by the “Thunder of the North” military exercises headed by the Saudis. However, these preparations can only move beyond the planning stage in accordance with the plans of the international coalition, headed by the US. Moving from theory to practicalities, Saudi and other Gulf State aircraft are being moved to Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase, while heavy Turkish fire is pouring onto Kurdish locations in the north of Syria. Ankara is sending a serious warning about moving on the ground to prevent anyone from tampering with its southern borders.

According to an article in the Guardian, Russia’s Vladimir Putin poses a major threat to the European Union, with the flood of refugees caused by the Russian campaign in Syria intended to swamp European countries in such a way that they will break up, making their survival during the most serious crisis since World War II very difficult. Prior to this article being published, John Kerry expressed America’s concern that the refugee issue represents a near-existential threat to Europe, reflecting US wariness about the Kremlin’s policies and their repercussions on the Western world. In that environment, Cold War symptoms have reappeared, meaning that Turkey, at the heart of NATO, cannot be ignored.

Talk about ground intervention comes within that perspective; not only as a regional rebellion against the Russian presence in the area, but also because it offers new negotiating cards held by Washington and Europe in their approach to Moscow. US President Barack Obama supports Riyadh’s willingness to commit to ground intervention and has called upon other countries to do the same.

Remarkably, Moscow believes that any further interventions in Syria without the countries involved coordinating with itself could lead to a Third World War. Saudi’s preparations for ground intervention, however, do not display any hostility towards Russia; diplomatic contacts between the two countries continue and the Kremlin has announced a visit by King Salman to Moscow next month. Bahrain’s King Hamad Bin Isa’s visit to Moscow, and statements he made there, also demonstrated some consensus in the Russian and Gulf States’ visions, or the possibility of reaching understandings regarding Syria. It may be possible to look at the “Damascus” sword given as a gift by the Bahraini monarch to the head of the Kremlin as an indication of such possibilities.

What’s interesting is that the issue of ground intervention announced by Riyadh has become a reality for Iran. While Tehran’s threats disclose the possibility that the ground intervention will actually take place, the call by the Iranian foreign minister in Munich to cooperate with the “brothers” in Saudi Arabia to solve the Syrian problem reveals tendencies to go along with it. It remains to say that the ground intervention has already started and has become a currency of exchange in the political and diplomatic market.

Translated from Alhayat, 19 February, 2016.

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