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.
- Qatar Ties Reflect India’s Middle East Balancing Act
- The Realist Prism: U.S. Outreach to Iran, Cuba Still Lacks Broader Strategic Framework
- Strategic Horizons: Iran Deal Opponents Have Forgotten the Logic of Arms Control
- Nuclear Deal Could Reshuffle Political Deck in Iran and Beyond
- Diplomatic Fallout: Iran Nuclear Deal Reveals Cold War Roots of Obama’s Statesmanship