With or without Assad?

Having Syrian President Bashar Assad a part of a political settlement of the country’s conflict poses a problem for many.

The link between a political settlement and Assad going seems to be the major obstacle to launching the process that could bring about a political resolution.

It was the main reason for the failure of “Geneva II”, but now many new factors appeared, as the prolonged crisis makes a priority of combating terrorism, or at least limiting its serious expansion with catastrophic consequences.

The absence of a real strategy to confront Daesh has many undesirable effects. The most recent is the human tragedy of refugees invading Europe, which, security reports warn, might soon turn out to be a security threat.

As such, changes in some political positions regarding Assad’s role can be expected.

Before anything, however, it is important to answer some questions.

Is there a real wish to find a solution to the Syrian crisis? What does it really mean to approve the outcome of “Geneva I” and the mechanism for applying it?

Is there a real will to fight Daesh on the ground? Is it possible to launch a war against Daesh in Syria and reject coordinating it with the Syrian?

Will Turkish President Reccep Tayip Erdogan be allowed to launch a war against the Kurds who fight Daesh? 

Answers to these questions might give a glimpse into the motives for the change in the positions of some countries vis-à-vis Assad.

Russia and Iran give priority to fighting terrorism before tackling the issue of political transition, as terrorists pose a threat to everybody.

Consequently, insisting on toppling Assad will have harmful consequences, Russia believes.

Despite the different positions Washington and Moscow have, there is a general consensus on the outline of a political solution.

The major question that requires deep consideration is would Assad’s ousting oblige all parties to reach a deal?

[email protected]