Al-Saud’s Tied Hands in Syrian Puzzle

It seems that the lengthening of the crisis in Syria has led to a change in strategy for some of the countries of the region including Qatar. But the harsh positions taken by Saudi politicians like Saud al-Faisal are not indicative of such tactical changes on the Riyadh front. Why, in your opinion, does Riyadh insist on taking such positions?

Right now and after the developments which have occurred in Syria, the majority of the countries which helped the opposition are retreating from their positions. This means that Qatar is gradually changing its position and also, the recent statements made by Turkish officials, particularly Abdullah Gul, the President, and Davutoglu, the Foreign Minister, indicate that Turkey is changing its position as well. All these countries have reached the conclusion that overthrowing the Syrian government is impossible. The only country which still continues its old position and has not comprehended the regional and international developments is Saudi Arabia where, according to John Kerry, the Saudi officials are upset with the Americans. The reason is that they expected the US to launch a military attack against Syria with the excuse of the use of chemical weapons and overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. But the US either couldn’t or did not want to attack this country. Another issue which has upset the Saudis is the West’s negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issue. In fact, these two issues have upset the Saudis and, instead of understanding the new regional and international developments and adopting their policies on this basis, the officials of this country still continue their hostile reactions. The al-Saud regime continues its transfer of money, arms and Takfiri forces to Syria and we even see that they enforce this policy not only in Syria but in Iraq and Lebanon as well. The truth is that this policy will not succeed, meaning that the only leverage which Saudi Arabia uses now is the leverage of supporting terrorism and dispatching the Takfiris. No government can be overthrown with this policy but an equation can be changed.

In his meeting with Saudi officials, including Saud al-Faisal, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, was faced with harsh criticisms of Washington’s policies with regard to Damascus and Tehran. What issues were discussed in his meeting with the Saudi officials?

In his visit to Saudi Arabia, John Kerry attempted to explain to them that the US and Saudi Arabia have common strategic objectives but different tactics with regard to the issue of Syria. Regarding Iran, he has given assurances that being close to Tehran would not damage Riyadh’s role and that Washington will consider Riyadh in all of its equations. But the fact is that Saudi Arabia and Israel are the biggest losers of the present game in the region and it seems that Saudi Arabia is moving in line with Tel Aviv on these issues. Naturally, under these conditions, any negotiation between Iran and Saudi Arabia would be impossible and futile. The al-Saud regime’s demand from Iran to remove its forces from Syria is also on this basis. Iran has many times stated that it has no forces in Syria and there are only some advisors in that country. Iran’s position is that the issue of Syria has no military solution and must be resolved through political negotiations and the Geneva conference. But the Saudis, who give the most amount of money and arms to the opposition, do not accept their failures and talk about Iran and Hezbollah’s interference. This is while, according to Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Secretary General’s envoy to solve the Syrian crisis, Saudi Arabia and its policies are the biggest obstacle in resolving this crisis. Therefore, Saudi Arabia’s positions in this regard are aimed at covering its failed policy and their mistakes in Syria.

Abdul-Jabbar al-Akidi, the head of the military council of the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo, has stated in his recent remarks that, “Following the disunity of the opposition groups and their stubbornness, we lost the regions which were under our control and the routes through which aids were dispatched. The last catastrophe is the downfall of the city of al-Safira and that is why I resign from my post as the head of the military council of the opposition.” If the armed forces are further weakened, would the opposition groups be removed from the Geneva-2 conference?

Yes, this is possible. In fact, the opposition forces come from a wide spectrum and cannot be united. US efforts to unite them did not succeed either. The fighting forces were part of those who had separated from the Syrian army, called the Free Syrian Army, but later the Takfiri groups of the al-Nusra front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Daesh) entered the scene and right now most or all of the military operations are executed by these organizations affiliated with al-Qaeda. These forces do not accept the coalition of the Syrian opposition and do not consider them as their representative. The Free Syrian Army has also stated that the coalition of the Syrian opposition outside the country has no relation with the Free Army. Of course, considering the progresses made by the Syrian army and popular forces in different regions, particularly in the suburbs of Damascus and the city of Aleppo, the recent developments have caused the armed opposition forces to lose hope. Two phenomena have happened in the Free Army: one is that many of these people, by using the issue which Bashar Assad has recently discussed, would return to the army and deliver their arms and the second is the conflict would be with the Takfiri forces instead of the government army.

In what state are the opposition forces which are outside the country?

The coalition of the opposition forces outside the country is right now composed of the elements which are affiliated with Saudi Arabia and have stated that they will not participate in the Geneva-2 conference or they have set pre-conditions such as the issue that Iran should not partake in this conference and the conference’s agenda must be the removal of Bashar Assad and delivering power to the interim government. These conditions are not acceptable for anybody and are not practical, thus, the possibility of their presence in the Geneva-2 conference is very weak. On the other hand, we see that there are the present opposition inside Syria and Lakhdar Brahimi has met and negotiated with more than 17 officers and officials of the Syrian opposition inside the country. This approach shows that if Saudi Arabia continues its present policies, the coalition of the Syrian opposition forces outside the country which is actually affiliated to Saudi Arabia will have no possibility to participate and it is not impossible that the internal opposition would participate in the Geneva-2 conference and play a role there. Although there is a big question mark in front of the Geneva-2 conference and it is not clear whether this conference will take place or not because military operations still continue inside the country and the holding of this conference will be the result of the balance of power inside Syria and the armed conflicts within the next weeks.

Therefore, you consider no chance for the presence of the opposition forces outside Syria in the Geneva-2 conference and their pre-conditions based on Iran’s non-presence?

Yes. In the beginning, the Syrian opposition was affiliated with Qatar and it was Qatar which formed the National Opposition Council. But later, when the Americans received the file from Qatar and delivered it to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis established a new formation under the name of the coalition of the opposition forces based on their interests. They expelled the Muslim Brotherhood front and helped their affiliated groups join the coalition and appointed Ahmad Jarba, who has close relations with Saudi Arabia, as its head. They now follow the decisions made by Saudi Arabia and this coalition has no influence inside Syria, meaning that if a cease-fire is supposed to be declared today and this coalition demands the armed forces inside Syria to leave their arms on the ground, nobody inside the country would listen to them. As it was said, the majority of those who launch military attacks are the Takfiri groups or those of al-Qaeda such as the al-Nusra front or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Neither they nor the Free Army takes orders from the outside coalition; hence, when these forces have no influence inside the country, their participation in the Geneva-2 conference would be meaningless. Furthermore, if an understanding is reached between them and the government, which is very difficult, they cannot enforce this understanding inside the country. These signs, particularly the behavior of Lakhdar Brahimi, show that this group of the opposition will not participate in the Geneva conference. Lakhdar Brahimi visited many countries of the region that play a role in the Syrian crisis but he did not visit Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Brahimi, in his visit to Damascus, talked with many internal opposition members while he did not meet with any of the opposition of the coalition. Therefore, it seems impossible that under these conditions and with the present balance of power this group of the opposition would participate in Geneva and that its participation in resolving the Syrian crisis would be effective.