& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Addressing the Syrian riddle

Syed Mansur Hash 1X4
It is no longer possible to let Syria play it out on its own, especially in context of the "spill over" effect in neighbouring countries and the enormous humanitarian cost.
100,000 dead and with an average casualty rate of 6,000 per month, the never-ending Syrian saga continues to dominate international headlines as one of the bloodiest civil wars in recent memory. The UN dithers as permanent members remain determined to stick to their guns. The latest allegation of use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime has merely added more impetus to do something to end the conflict. Apart from the humanitarian disaster, the conflict is causing enormous problems for Syria's neighbours. Lebanon is at forefront of the tensions spilling over the border. Sunni and Shiite armed groups are at each other's throats at home and actively engaged in conflict in the Bekka valley. As the conflict ebbs and flows, the Syrian quagmire has become a beacon of hope for radical Islamic elements that are streaming in from places as far away as Chechnya.
Direct intervention is the last resort. With the US retreating from foreign adventures, first in Iraq and soon from Afghanistan, it is highly unlikely the Obama administration, in its second term, will put lives of American servicemen in the line of fire in a constantly shifting political landscape that is fast evolving into a Somalia-type scenario. With regional players ranging from Saudi Arabia to Iran supporting and arming a fractured Syrian opposition where radical religious groups are in the ascendance over moderate elements, the question of getting bogged down in a war of attrition drawn along sectarian lines (as has been witnessed in Iraq) is not particularly encouraging for the US.
So precisely what is to be done? It is no longer possible to let Syria play it out on its own, especially in context of the "spill over" effect in neighbouring countries and the enormous humanitarian cost. The regime remains propped up by aid from Iran and diplomatic and military aid from Russia and China. Fighting it out until one side prevails over the other could take years.
Limited military strikes are being viewed as one option. Such military action would amount to removing the regime's capacity to deliver toxic agents such as sarin gas. The Assad regime is in possession of one of the largest stockpiles of chemical agents in the region that must be contained or neutralised. Such assertive action would send a clear message to the regime that the international community means business. Establishing a "no-fly zone" would eliminate the threat posed by Syrian Air Force and considerably reduce the regime's offensive capability and help level the playing field for opposition forces. However, it remains to be seen if the US is willing to strain an already strained US-Russia relationship by sidetracking UN approval for such a course of action.
Looking beyond the regime’s offensive capacity to wageon its own people, the threat that is equally worrisome is the likelihood of the Syrian armed rebellion being hijacked by religiously-motivated elements. With continued US dithering, Gulf States have stepped in to fill the void. They have done so with the aim of promoting groups aligned to their own ideological beliefs that are not always secular or liberal in nature. Hence, a fundamental rethinking is required here. For Washington to retain its influence and promote a unified Syria in a post-civil war era, the US would have to engage with active opposition groups fighting the Assad regime under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army in terms of training, arming and sharing intelligence. Until the opposition gains a significant upper hand in the conflict, there will no negotiated peaceful settlement.
The sticking point in finding a ceasefire that will hold, leading to a peaceful and negotiated settlement, has been the Kremlin's refusal to come to any arrangement that does not involve the Assads. For decades, Syria has been part of the Russian sphere of influence. With the loss of Iraq and later Libya, Russia has effectively been shut out of lucrative arms deals and strategic opportunities in the region.
The Assad regime cannot hold out indefinitely. The increasing diplomatic and economic isolation enforced through sanctions is eroding its capacity to wage war. Iran, its principal ally in the region, has its own sanctions to worry about and cannot continue to subsidise the regime's continued survival indefinitely. Sadly, the opposition will take months, if not years, to be in a position to tilt the scales to its favour. In the meantime, thousands will continue to die and millions made stateless.
Notwithstanding the enormous humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in the country, isn't it time to conclude that there can be no negotiated settlement minus the Assads? Since the ultimate goal revolves around a united Syria and not a fragmented one engaged in perpetual war set along ethnic lines, a peace process overseen by all the permanent representatives of UN's Security Council could possibly the only hope Syria has. A workable peace process would have to include all the communities inhabiting Syria including the Alawites since members of this community constitute the bulk of the Syrian regime and senior ranks of the Syrian army.
The writer Is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.