U.S., Russia, Jordan reach ceasefire deal for southwest Syria

[rooster59]

U.S., Russia, Jordan reach ceasefire deal for southwest Syria

By Jeff Mason and Denis Dyomkin

 

FILE PHOTO: A rebel fighter walks past damaged buildings in a rebel-held part of the southern city of Deraa, Syria June 22, 2017. REUTERS/Alaa Al-Faqir/File Photo

 

HAMBURG (Reuters) - The United States, Russia and Jordan have reached a ceasefire and "de-escalation agreement" in southwestern Syria, one of the combat zones in a six-year-old civil war, Washington and Moscow said on Friday.

 

The ceasefire will go into effect at noon Damascus time (0900 GMT) on Sunday, U.S. and Russian officials said.

 

The deal was announced after a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit of major economies in the German city of Hamburg.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the area covered by the ceasefire affects Jordan’s security and is a “very complicated part of the Syrian battlefield.”

 

Russia and Iran are the main international backers of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Washington supports some of the rebel groups fighting for his ouster.

 

“I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria, and as a result of that we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the areas," Tillerson said.

 

The conflict has killed nearly half a million people, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, destroyed cities and forced millions to flee Syria.

 

Backed by Russian air power, Assad has regained ground in the last year or so lost to the mostly Sunni Muslim rebels.

 

The Syria deal appeared to be the main point of agreement at the first meeting between Trump and Putin, who also discussed Moscow's alleged interference in the U.S. 2016 presidential election and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

 

GOALS IN SYRIA

 

Lavrov said the accord includes "securing humanitarian access and setting up contacts between the opposition in the region and a monitoring centre that is being established in Jordan's capital."

 

Tillerson said that by and large the objectives of the United States and Russia in Syria "are exactly the same."

 

But Washington and Moscow have long been at odds over Syria.

 

The United States has often called for the removal of Assad, who it blames for shootings of protesters at the start of the conflict and, more recently, chemical weapons attacks on civilians.

 

Russia and Iran strongly back the Syrian leader, who gives both countries a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean Sea.

 

Despite the ceasefire deal, Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. And we have made this clear to everyone. We certainly made it clear in our discussions with Russia."

 

Robert Ford, who resigned in 2014 as U.S. ambassador to Syria over policy disagreements, said the Trump administration, like that of former President Barack Obama, has "no national objective for the future of Syria nor any strategy for how to secure an objective were one identified."

By contrast, Russia's overall aim is clearer, said Ford, now a fellow at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington.

 

"The Russian objective is to insulate Damascus and the Syrian national government from outside pressure trying to pressure it into major concessions," he said.

 

It was not immediately clear exactly which areas of southwestern Syria would be covered by the upcoming ceasefire but earlier talks between the United States and Russia about a “de-escalation zone” covered Deraa province, on the border with Jordan, and Quneitra, which borders the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

 

British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon welcomed any ceasefire in Syria but wanted to see results on the ground.

 

"The recent history of the Syrian civil war is littered with ceasefires and it would be nice ... one day to have a ceasefire," Fallon said at an event in Washington.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-08

 

[Rancid]

"Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime." Despite being elected by the Syrians? Plenty of unsavory regimes out there, but is scorched earth the solution?

 

Why is it this regime change meme generally ends up with hundreds of thousands of dead men, women & children and then a refugee crisis to boot? No one has an issue with all these corpses nor the animals that are unleashed on these countries to add to the body count?

 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Which one of these countries is the slightest bit better off since it was decided someone didn't like their government and thought violently removing them would be a nice humanitarian gesture.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Rancid said:

"Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime." Despite being elected by the Syrians? Plenty of unsavory regimes out there, but is scorched earth the solution?

 

Why is it this regime change meme generally ends up with hundreds of thousands of dead men, women & children and then a refugee crisis to boot? No one has an issue with all these corpses nor the animals that are unleashed on these countries to add to the body count?

 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Which one of these countries is the slightest bit better off since it was decided someone didn't like their government and thought violently removing them would be a nice humanitarian gesture.

 

 

So you're taking a minor point raised and making it into the centerpiece, just for a good old bash.

OP is not about regime change, but about setting up demilitarized zones.

The US may not be in favor of Assad staying in power, but de facto, the OP more about coming to terms with it.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Rancid said:

"Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime." Despite being elected by the Syrians? <snip>

Assad was not elected in a democratic process, the Syrian process of selecting candidates guarantees the Assad party will be elected. As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime. 

[Acharn]

This is an odd story. As far as I know the United States, Russia, and Jordan are not shooting at each other in Syria. Anywhere. So how can they be signing a cease fire with each other? It must mean the Syrian government forces, supported by Russia and Iran and Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi'a Militia, have signed a cease fire with ISIS and Al Qaeda forces and, perhaps, some of the many, many other "opposition" mercenary groups paid and supported by America and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and Turkey (sometimes). Presumably, what the story means is that America, Russia, and Jordan have agreed to act as guarantors. Have I got that right?

[Acharn]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

Assad was not elected in a democratic process, the Syrian process of selecting candidates guarantees the Assad party will be elected. As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime. 

Doesn't matter if you like the process or not. By Syrian law he is the legitimate head of government. American forces should stop trying to remove him by a coup, but I'm pretty sure Tillerson doesn't have any authority to influence that decision. That comes under the CIA or the Pentagon, and it's not at all clear which one is supposed to have the authority. They are following different paths (I hesitate to call them strategies -- whatever their goals are, they are kept secret).

[Trouble]

I would simply note that when the clashes started in Syria in early 2011, it seems that although the government forces probably used a heavy hand, the opposition was also being encouraged by Islamists to confront the government.  Like it or not, the Assads (father and son)  have been the protectors of a civil government versus a religious one. The Christians, Kurds, and other minorities, while they may have some complaints have not been persecuted based on religion by a central government. While no doubt there has been considerable corruption which was the supposed reason for much of the protests in 2011, that would not change with a religious government pushed for by the Islamists.  On top of everything else there are other minorities, i.e. Kurds, who all want independent control for their various groups.  The Obama Administration made a very grave mistake in getting involved in this conflict. After viewing the results of Bush's folly in Iraq and the Arab Spring and the disastrous outcome there, one would have assumed the correct approach would have been to stay on the sidelines on the escalating Syrian conflict.  Giving support and weapons to various "rebel" factions only added to the suffering and destruction, the massive refugee crisis, and opened the door for ISIS.  In almost every place a strong leader has been displaced, there has been chaos.  Certainly that is evident in Iraq and Libya and it seems we simply do not learn.  In my view, IF Assad falls, there will be total chaos in Syria with every one of the 11 or so groups vying for control which will eventually result in the carving up of Syria.  It seems to me that Tillerson and the Trump Administration might just see that letting Russia and Iran support Assad to maintain control and thus insure a civil and not a religious government might just be more beneficial to the US than ousting Assad and seeing the complete breakup of the country or it becoming a country run by religious zealots.  Our focus should be on defeating ISIS.  We need to extricate ourselves from any kind of involvement in a civil war there. Let the Russian's handle this one because this is a no win situation for the US.  

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Acharn said:

Doesn't matter if you like the process or not. By Syrian law he is the legitimate head of government. American forces should stop trying to remove him by a coup, but I'm pretty sure Tillerson doesn't have any authority to influence that decision. That comes under the CIA or the Pentagon, and it's not at all clear which one is supposed to have the authority. They are following different paths (I hesitate to call them strategies -- whatever their goals are, they are kept secret).

Just pointing out Assad he is a Dictator. who manipulates the election processes, which a number of posters on this forum do not seem to understand.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Trouble said:

I would simply note that when the clashes started in Syria in early 2011, it seems that although the government forces probably used a heavy hand, the opposition was also being encouraged by Islamists to confront the government.  <snip>

On a point of detail might be a good idea to research why Assad released Islamists from his jails at the beginning of the Syrian Arab Spring. As a starter have a read of the following....

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/syria-civil-war-five-years/474006/

 

As Assad had a known record for torturing and killing opposition, including children, prior to the Syrian Arab Spring, you use of the word "probably" is an understatement. Additionally, Assad regime had assisted Islamists to enter Iraq to attack coalition forces, no wonder the US doesn't trust him.

Edited July 8, 2017 by simple1

[jaggiss]

More bullshit

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Acharn said:

This is an odd story. As far as I know the United States, Russia, and Jordan are not shooting at each other in Syria. Anywhere. So how can they be signing a cease fire with each other? It must mean the Syrian government forces, supported by Russia and Iran and Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi'a Militia, have signed a cease fire with ISIS and Al Qaeda forces and, perhaps, some of the many, many other "opposition" mercenary groups paid and supported by America and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and Turkey (sometimes). Presumably, what the story means is that America, Russia, and Jordan have agreed to act as guarantors. Have I got that right?

 

It's an "odd story" only if one insists on sticking with labels. Like it or not, Assad's regime is still in place, and like it or not, it is not a fully independent regime able to make it's own decisions or stand by agreements. For most intents and purposes, Assad is Russian/Iranian puppet. And in most things, he'll do as he's told advised.

 

There are currently talks about creating such zones in North Syria, on Syria's border with Iraq and as details in the OP, along Syria's Southern borders. Relative to the first two, the Southern zones are somewhat less complicated when it comes to vested interests of various parties involved.

 

Saving Assad's face and illusion of control is not a primary goal with regard to these zones. The main aims are (1) blocking certain elements/parties from making permanent/semi-permanent territorial gains or increasing spheres of influence, and (2) putting a halt to spillage of fighting as to prevent further escalation of the conflict to include Syria's neighbors.

 

The former is directed at curbing both main Sunni Islamic organizations and affiliates on the one hand, and Iranian (or Iranian supported outfits) on the other. The latter part refers to Israel and Jordan - no one wants to see either dragged into this or getting more directly involved.

 

As far as I understand, these Southern zones would be, for the most part, monitored by Russian forces. Not what everyone had in mind when this was first tabled, but it is what it is. In terms of impinging on supposed Syrian sovereignty - that particular cat's been out of the bag for several years now. What will exactly constitute Syria when the dust settles is still an open question. But as far as carving up bits of Syria, the stickier issues are up North and in the East. There, Iran, Turkey and the Kurds all have some conflicting aspirations, which may run counter to preserving Syria's territorial integrity or current demographics.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Trouble said:

I would simply note that when the clashes started in Syria in early 2011, it seems that although the government forces probably used a heavy hand, the opposition was also being encouraged by Islamists to confront the government.  Like it or not, the Assads (father and son)  have been the protectors of a civil government versus a religious one. The Christians, Kurds, and other minorities, while they may have some complaints have not been persecuted based on religion by a central government. While no doubt there has been considerable corruption which was the supposed reason for much of the protests in 2011, that would not change with a religious government pushed for by the Islamists.  On top of everything else there are other minorities, i.e. Kurds, who all want independent control for their various groups.  The Obama Administration made a very grave mistake in getting involved in this conflict. After viewing the results of Bush's folly in Iraq and the Arab Spring and the disastrous outcome there, one would have assumed the correct approach would have been to stay on the sidelines on the escalating Syrian conflict.  Giving support and weapons to various "rebel" factions only added to the suffering and destruction, the massive refugee crisis, and opened the door for ISIS.  In almost every place a strong leader has been displaced, there has been chaos.  Certainly that is evident in Iraq and Libya and it seems we simply do not learn.  In my view, IF Assad falls, there will be total chaos in Syria with every one of the 11 or so groups vying for control which will eventually result in the carving up of Syria.  It seems to me that Tillerson and the Trump Administration might just see that letting Russia and Iran support Assad to maintain control and thus insure a civil and not a religious government might just be more beneficial to the US than ousting Assad and seeing the complete breakup of the country or it becoming a country run by religious zealots.  Our focus should be on defeating ISIS.  We need to extricate ourselves from any kind of involvement in a civil war there. Let the Russian's handle this one because this is a no win situation for the US.  

 

Without getting into an argument over the analysis regarding the Syrian uprising/civil war ( @simple1 already commented some on that), I'd agree that it wouldn't do the US any good getting into yet another quagmire. Same goes for the practice of putting faith in one faction or the other. Been there done that. Almost always ends in tears.

 

That said, I do think that had the US acted more decisively at the out set of this crisis (or at various key points as it evolved), things may have been different. Granted, there were other issues at stake, and existing US ME policy is not best designed to tackle such issues.

 

It could be better let the Russians deal with it. If things go south, and the Russians get involved in a new Afghanistan-like campaign, that might not be a bad thing for US interests. But just worth noting the price paid by leaving the field - in terms of regional influence, international prestige and all that. 

 

Trouble (no pun intended) is that the Trump's administration is flip flopping all over the place when it comes to its views on Syria and Assad's role. Seems like the current position is a matter of which month and who's asked. Same goes for many other foreign policy issues - NATO, NK, Russia, Gulf - to mention a few.

 

Tillerson Ready to Let Russia Decide Assad’s Fate

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/03/tillerson-ready-to-let-russia-decide-assads-fate/

[Thorgal]

Assad was not elected in a democratic process, the Syrian process of selecting candidates guarantees the Assad party will be elected. As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime. 

Tillerson was actually an ex-Exxon Mobil CEO. It's known that Syria became a strategic region to re-route Middle Eastern natural gas pipelines towards Europe just before the uprisings.

I won't even discuss the latest new oil and gas developments in Syria with hugue reserves.

Tillerson is too biased to speak about Assads regime change. His 'willingness' to invest in 'rebuild' Syria is based on local future oil and gas exploration and exploitation as reimbursement for the US 'peace-keeping' intervention.

We saw it happen in Iraq and Lybia...with exactly the same arguments for regime change for so called 'undemocratic' elections and dictators...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Tillerson was actually an ex-Exxon Mobil CEO. It's known that Syria became a strategic region to re-route Middle Eastern natural gas pipelines towards Europe just before the uprisings.

I won't even discuss the latest new oil and gas developments in Syria with hugue reserves.

Tillerson is too biased to speak about Assads regime change. His 'willingness' to invest in 'rebuild' Syria is based on local future oil and gas exploration and exploitation as reimbursement for the US 'peace-keeping' intervention.

We saw it happen in Iraq and Lybia...with exactly the same arguments for regime change for so called 'undemocratic' elections and dictators...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I don't know that Tillerson expressed "willingness" to invest in rebuilding Syria. Further, as point out above, considering the various shifts in US position over Syria, hard to treat any single comment as definitive. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a whole lot of US peace keeping intervention going on in Syria, not in comparison to Russia, at least.

 

 

 

[simple1]

22 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Tillerson was actually an ex-Exxon Mobil CEO. It's known that Syria became a strategic region to re-route Middle Eastern natural gas pipelines towards Europe just before the uprisings.

I won't even discuss the latest new oil and gas developments in Syria with hugue reserves.

Tillerson is too biased to speak about Assads regime change. His 'willingness' to invest in 'rebuild' Syria is based on local future oil and gas exploration and exploitation as reimbursement for the US 'peace-keeping' intervention.

We saw it happen in Iraq and Lybia...with exactly the same arguments for regime change for so called 'undemocratic' elections and dictators...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

So far as I know the US has not expressed any interest to invest and rebuild Syria at the cessation of hostilities. 

 

In 2012 Assad had agreed with Iran to route their gas via his territory to Europe, I would assume Russia had no problem with that proposition so casts doubts on other theories concerning the West and M.E. gas supplies to counter Russian control of gas supply to EU.

Edited July 9, 2017 by simple1

[Thorgal]

So far as I know the US has not expressed any interest to invest and rebuild Syria at the cessation of hostilities. 
 
In 2012 Assad had agreed with Iran to route their gas via his territory to Europe, I would assume Russia had no problem with that proposition so casts doubts on other theories concerning the West and M.E. gas supplies to counter Russian control of gas supply to EU.

Your quote # 1 : "As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime."

Your quote # 2 : "So far as I know the US has not expressed any interest to invest and rebuild Syria at the cessation of hostilities."

Sounds rather contradictory, except if you consider that the US is not part of the 'International Community' ?

Cheers !





Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Thorgal said:

 

 

Your quote # 1 : "As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime."

Your quote # 2 : "So far as I know the US has not expressed any interest to invest and rebuild Syria at the cessation of hostilities."

Sounds rather contradictory, except if you consider that the US is not part of the 'International Community' ?

Cheers !





Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

I doubt that there are many not aware of the current US administration's habit of issuing contradicting statements. Point?

[Thorgal]

 
I doubt that there are many not aware of the current US administration's habit of issuing contradicting statements. Point?

There's actually a country missing in the ceasefire debate from OP. The southwestern part of Syria has borders with Jordan and illegally annexed Golan Heights by Israel.

Must be hard to communicate clearly without contradicting statements between the drums of Washington and let's say Tel Aviv...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

 

 

Your quote # 1 : "As Tillerson mentioned in his statement the future removal of Assad and his family is likely essential for the international community willingness to invest in and rebuild Syria - no trust in the Assad regime."

Your quote # 2 : "So far as I know the US has not expressed any interest to invest and rebuild Syria at the cessation of hostilities."

Sounds rather contradictory, except if you consider that the US is not part of the 'International Community' ?

Cheers !

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Besides, Morch's comment above, the SecState, as already posted, was talking to parties in the international community likely reluctance to invest in Syria whilst Assad and family remain in place ( I would guess would  include other major enablers, including Christians, in his Cabinet). Tillerson was not referencing the US. - read the relevant text of his interview...

 

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Yes, our position continues to be that we see no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. And we have made this clear to everyone — we've certainly made it clear in our discussions with Russia — that we do not think Syria can achieve international recognition in the future. Even if they work through a successful political process, the international community simply is not going to accept a Syria led by the Assad regime.

 

And so if Syria is to be accepted and have a secure — both a secure and economic future, it really requires that they find new leadership. We think it will be difficult for them to attract both the humanitarian aid, as well as the reconstruction assistance that's going to be required, because there just will be such a low level of confidence in the Assad government. So that continues to be the view.

 

And as we've said, how Assad leaves is yet to be determined, but our view is that somewhere in that political process there will be a transition away from the Assad family.

Edited July 9, 2017 by simple1

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

 

There's actually a country missing in the ceasefire debate from OP. The southwestern part of Syria has borders with Jordan and illegally annexed Golan Heights by Israel.

Must be hard to communicate clearly without contradicting statements between the drums of Washington and let's say Tel Aviv...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

And that would relate to your previous comments...how?

 

Israel is not an official party to these agreements, as this would complicate things further. For example, making it harder for the Syrian regime to cooperate. But as widely reported, Israel's positions and take were communicated via the US, and to a certain degree were coordinated with Jordan's. Israel already got some sort of coordination mechanism in place vs. Russia.

 

Trump's administration contradicting statements have nothing to do with Israel. It's pretty much the new normal with regard to any foreign policy issue.

[Acharn]

On 7/9/2017 at 5:00 AM, simple1 said:

Just pointing out Assad he is a Dictator. who manipulates the election processes, which a number of posters on this forum do not seem to understand.

Ah. I agree with you on that. It shouldn't have mattered, though. The U.S. has always been perfectly happy to work hard to support the most evil, bloody-handed monsters. Usually in the name of "stability."

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Acharn said:

Ah. I agree with you on that. It shouldn't have mattered, though. The U.S. has always been perfectly happy to work hard to support the most evil, bloody-handed monsters. Usually in the name of "stability."

 

Yes, but in this case it is Russia who supports the dictator. Bash away.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, but in this case it is Russia who supports the dictator. Bash away.

But one of the reasons the USA cites for its opposition to Assad is that he's a murderous dictator. So if it is America bashing, it's bashing at one of the reason America cites for its engagement.  And since America is a party to the conflict, it's a valid point to raise.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But one of the reasons the USA cites for its opposition to Assad is that he's a murderous dictator. So if it is America bashing, it's bashing at one of the reason America cites for its engagement.  And since America is a party to the conflict, it's a valid point to raise.

 

The US bashing thing is more to do with ignoring any other factor, consideration or circumstance relates to the issue and focusing instead of the negative aspects of US role in given situation. If you're looking to start yet another one of your tiresome petty arguments, have a ball.

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The US bashing thing is more to do with ignoring any other factor, consideration or circumstance relates to the issue and focusing instead of the negative aspects of US role in given situation. If you're looking to start yet another one of your tiresome petty arguments, have a ball.

 

Yes, clearly, I'm the one interjecting a note of hostility, here.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, clearly, I'm the one interjecting a note of hostility, here.

You're a victim.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

You're a victim.

All I did was polititely point out that in this case it was a valid point. I agree that mostly in these forums the point is entirely irrelevant to the topic. But this time it isn't.

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

All I did was polititely point out that in this case it was a valid point. I agree that mostly in these forums the point is entirely irrelevant to the topic. But this time it isn't.

I beg to differ. You may disagree. Wouldn't be a first.

[ddavidovsky]

"Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. "

 

They have to say that to avoid looking total fools in making the necessary policy U-turn. When this is all over the US will sigh with relief to get back to the pre-war situation with Assad firmly in place. By now the US have surely learned the lesson: segmented countries need a firm hand to keep them together. If Assad is firm, it's to keep a lid on the kind of opportunistic sectarian rebellion that can lead to civil war, exactly like this. The US probably secretly wishes he'd been firmer. He won't live forever, in any case.

[simple1]

55 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

"Tillerson said the United States still sees "no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. "

 

They have to say that to avoid looking total fools in making the necessary policy U-turn. When this is all over the US will sigh with relief to get back to the pre-war situation with Assad firmly in place. By now the US have surely learned the lesson: segmented countries need a firm hand to keep them together. If Assad is firm, it's to keep a lid on the kind of opportunistic sectarian rebellion that can lead to civil war, exactly like this. The US probably secretly wishes he'd been firmer. He won't live forever, in any case.

Previously Assad had assisted with Sunni terrorism against the US in Iraq and it has been mentioned a number of times Assad had enabled Sunni terrorism, within Syria, in an effort to gain sympathy from the international community. Could always be proven incorrect, but I seriously doubt the US would welcome Assad regaining total power as he has proven to be completely untrustworthy, especially with his prior efforts to destabilise his neighbours.

 

For those interested some background to the OP:

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/jordan-talks-washington-russia-safe-zones-border-syria.html

Edited July 10, 2017 by simple1