Now that the United States, France and other Western powers have endorsed the Arab League’s call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down -- even if that formulation is ultimately edited out of the final draft of the resolution pending before the U.N. Security Council -- it is time to start making plans for the various contingencies that may erupt on "the day after."
Most Western policymakers, at least in their public rhetoric, continue to cling to an optimistic scenario in which a broad-based, inclusive opposition takes power in Damascus after an initial transition from Assad’s rule. Reassured of their role in the new Syria, the country’s Alawite and Christian populations, two of the communities that the current regime depends on for bedrock support, would have an incentive to participate peacefully in the post-Assad order. Of course, such a scenario appeals to U.S. and Western publics, weary from a decade of stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is simply not politically feasible for Western leaders to vigorously champion efforts to force Assad to step down if there is an expectation that Western forces be needed to guarantee the transition. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Diplomatic Fallout: Nigeria, Yemen Wars Mark New Era of Ad Hoc Crisis Management
- Nile Deal Signals Regional Reset Among Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia
- The Realist Prism: For Iran Nuclear Deal, All Scenarios Amount to Leap of Faith
- Like It or Not, U.S. Needs Iran to Stabilize the Middle East
- Global Insights: Spoilers Emerge as Iran Nuclear Talks Reach Delicate Endgame