US support for diplomatic initiatives in Syria underscores the shifting views of how to end the civil war there and the West’s quiet retreat from its demand the country’s president, Bashar Assad, step down immediately.

The Obama administration maintains a lasting political solution requires Assad’s exit. But facing military stalemate, well-armed jihadists and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, the US is going along with international diplomatic efforts that could lead to more gradual change in Syria.

That shift comes along with other American actions that Assad’s supporters and opponents take as proof Washington now believes that if Assad is ousted, there will be nothing to check the spreading chaos and extremism. US warplanes now bomb the Islamic State group’s militants inside Syria, sharing skies with Syrian jets. US officials assure Assad, through Iraqi intermediaries, that Syria’s military is not their target. The US still trains and equips Syrian insurgents, but now mainly to fight IS, not the government.

The US and other western countries have publicly welcomed initiatives – one from the United Nations and one from Russia – that postpone any revival of the US-backed Geneva framework, which called for a wholesale transfer of power to a “transitional governing body”. The last Geneva talks failed a year ago amid vehement disagreement over whether that body could include Assad.

One of the new concepts is a UN proposal to “freeze” the fighting on the ground, first in the strategic crossroads city of Aleppo. The other is an initiative from Russia, Assad’s most powerful supporter, to try to spur talks between the warring sides in Moscow in late January. Diplomats and others briefed say one Russian vision is of powersharing between Assad’s government and some opposition figures, and perhaps parliamentary elections before any change in the presidency.

Islamic State

And perhaps most of all, the IS controls half of Syria’s territory and has managed to strengthen its grip even as the US and its allies try to oust it from Iraq.

Still, secretary of state John Kerry declared last week the US welcomed both initiatives. He made no call for Assad’s resignation. Instead, he spoke of Assad as a leader who needed to change his policies: “It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad,” Kerry said.

On Thursday in Geneva, Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy for the crisis in Syria, signalled a tactical shift, saying “new factors” such as the IS must be taken into account. He said there was no point trying to organise a third round of Geneva talks before building support from the Syrian government and its opponents for some kind of “Syrian political process”.

Western diplomats who had long called for Assad’s immediate resignation say that while he must not indefinitely control crucial institutions like the military, a more gradual transition may be worth considering.

One western diplomat at the UN said that while a “post-Assad phase” must come, “the exact timing of that, we can discuss”.

Pillars of

state

Such statements have further alienated Washington from ordinary anti-Assad Syrians and insurgents, reinforcing the idea the West has decided to tolerate Assad.

The view the US supports Assad is spreading even among the groups receiving US financing, groups deemed moderate enough to work with a US-run operations centre in Turkey. A fighter with Harakat Hazm said America was “looking for loopholes to reach a political solution and keep al-Assad”.

Tarek Fares, a secular Syrian army defector who fought with the loose-knit nationalist groups known as the Free Syrian Army, joked bitterly about US policy in Antakya, Turkey. “This is how the Americans talk,” he said. “They say, ‘We have a red line, we will support you, we will arm you’. They do nothing, and then after four years they tell you Assad is the best option.” Critics argue Washington is trying to offload the Syria problem to Assad’s allies, Russia and Iran, even at the cost of empowering them. – (New York Times)