What will happen after the Battle of Aleppo? What has the battle done to the regional and international balance of power, in light of the collapse of all international humanitarian norms and laws? Russia made it clear from the outset that there was no choice but to win in Aleppo no matter the cost, including perpetrating war crimes. However, what will Russia do with its tainted victory? Has this "achievement" prepared Russia to negotiate with the US over a grand bargain? Or is this just one battle that has been won, and not the war, making this bargain still far from reach and portending more bloodletting in a fragmented Syria? The time between Election Day and inauguration of the new president in the US is known as the transition, which acts as extra time for the axis of Russia, Iran, and the Damascus regime and their allies, also backed by China, to vie for a bloody settlement in Syria. During this time, they can be confident the US will be powerless to act, even vis-à-vis war crimes. Thus, the axis prepared the ground for US president-elect Donald Trump to help him wash his hands clean of the Syrian issue, having benefited greatly from the dithering and prevarication of outgoing president Obama on Syria. Both presidents are isolationists when it comes to Syria, which has emboldened the members of the Damascus axis to settle the battle for Aleppo at any cost. The axis considers the outcome in Aleppo to be a victory, at the same time a defeat for rival Gulf Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia. But the attitudes of the GCC countries are divergent; their peoples are preoccupied with their future and their ambitions, and do not want to be dragged to Arab conflicts from Syria to Libya via Yemen. For this reason, there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding both official and grassroots attitudes in the Gulf, where a detachment is felt from non-Gulf Arab countries. Whether the Gulf role in the conflict zones was a mistake or not, the Gulf people and leaders now want to preserve their calm oasis surrounded by a sea of flames. For their part, the peoples of the countries whose fires were fed and had oil poured on them, they feel they were the victims of manipulation and exploitation, which have led to the Afghanization of their nations and the fragmentation of their social fabric. So what lies in store for the region?
Key powers like China, who is playing a behind the scenes role in the Arab region, recently joined the global war on terror, according to what its envoys have started to state publicly and overtly. China sees the battles in Iraq's Mosul and Syria's Aleppo as part of the same effort against Islamist terrorism, and is a strategic partner of Russia in this context. Traditionally silent, China recently started to go public with its political positions, if not its logistical support for military operations in Syria.
Chinese officials justify the first four vetoes co-deployed with Russia at the Security Council against international resolutions on Syria by saying they were meant to prevent attempts to remove the "elected" president, Bashar al-Assad, while describing their fifth veto as being aimed against terror. They also echo the Russian-Iranian-Syrian regime rhetoric, which has turned the Syrian issue that began with calls for reforms into a war on terror. In other words, there is a bona fide Russian-Chinese partnership seeking to shape Syria's future under the broad title of fighting terror, but with the real aim of securing the strategic interests of the two allied powers in the Arab region against US and Western influence and interests there.
What does Russia want in Syria? The answer is everything, from military bases to economic interests - oil and gas corridors to Europe, investment, and reconstruction. At the same time, Russia wants to use the Syria card to bargain with the US and Europe in other places, as part of a grand or even a great bargain.
Russia and Turkey are now on truce terms. The deal between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan is multifaceted: Erdogan entered the Syrian war to pre-empt the perceived Kurdish threat, moving against Kurdish factions Turkey designates as terror groups with de-facto green light from Russia. By contrast, Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf countries have been deafeningly silent on the Russian-led atrocities in Aleppo, a major Sunni city.
The Kurds in Iraq have moved away from any bid to unite Kurds in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, and decided to focus on independence and statehood in Iraqi Kurdistan, now a near fait accompli. They just need to produce and export enough oil before declaring independence. According to experts, the prospective Kurdish state would need to export 800,000 barrels of oil per day to do so, compared to current level of 500,000. Negotiations are ongoing with the authorities in Baghdad, with tacit approval from Iran, to achieve Kurdish statehood, and if all else fails, this could be imposed.
This would lead to the partition of Iraq in an organized manner not so far from now, possibly after the battle against ISIS in Mosul and other major cities is concluded. This way, Iran would gain the necessary geographical contiguity with Syria and Lebanon, as reflected in events on the ground.
But while the partition of Iraq may be organized, the partition of Syria will be chaotic. The battle in Aleppo will not end the war in Syria, not remove ISIS and al-Nusra Front from Syrian territories. It will not guarantee victory for Assad or guarantee him the ability to rule the entire country once again.
Iran will guarantee for itself the geographical corridor in Syria that links it to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This corridor is part of the Persian-Shia crescent the neo-cons in the US wanted to create, to link Iran and Israel in a relationship of appeasement designed against the common Arab foe. Perhaps this explains the lack of protests coming from Israel regarding this geographical engineering, as it may not perceive it as a threat.
In turn, the Gulf countries do not appear panicked by the Iranian expansion via Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon towards the Mediterranean. The Gulf countries seem confident that the part related to the Saudi eastern region in the context of this crescent will never see the light of day under any circumstances. But what happens outside the Gulf is no longer a priority for the Gulf countries, and this much was clear from a tour of the Gulf that included the GCC summit in Bahrain and the Arab Thought Foundation conference in Abu Dhabi focusing on Arab integration.
Realistically speaking, the only viable integration taking place is within the GCC, not with other Arab countries, relations with which are marred by detachment and mutual distrust.
One of the participants at the conference, a veteran Saudi figure, said: "We must scale back when it comes to the Syrian issue." The intervention was a mistake and a foolish policy, he continued, insisting that the Gulf no longer had any business in Syria, now an issue between the West and Russia. "We are not responsible for the Arabs everywhere. We are responsible for our people, their development, education, security, safety, and health...we must focus on our countries in the Gulf to tackle falling oil prices, deficits, and debt, and it is time we become a developed society."
His view is that the so-called Iranian victory in Syria will become an inevitable attrition of Iran, which is in a tough economic shape. "In the end, Iran not us will suffer, especially as it is surrounded by a sea of disaffected Arabs." It is not true that the Gulf countries were defeated in Syria, he adds. "We did not send armies or enter as a party to the conflict, but only answered the call to help Syrians. Iran has an agenda. We don't. This is not our defeat. It is a defeat for the Syrian people."
The Gulf thus is seeking to retreat, especially in light of the disillusionment with Gulf interventions in Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf attempts led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to forge an alliance with Egypt to shore up the Arab component of the regional balance of power. Egypt is now pivoting to Russia and Iran on Syria, having concluded that there is a Saudi inclination to accommodate the Muslim Brotherhood and establish an alliance with Turkey. The desired relations important for the regional balance of power thus failed, prompting further Gulf retreat from the Arab region.
There are two views regarding Saudi-Qatari-Turkish reactions vis-à-vis developments in Syria: One view insists that this trio of countries will sustain their opposition to Bashar al-Assad and will not accept the outcome of the battle for Aleppo, and would therefore continue supporting what is left of the moderate rebel forces. The other view holds that these three countries are realistic and pragmatic, and have read international developments well. They realize the Trump administration will now allow support for the Syrian rebels, and instead wants to close the chapter on Syria with Bashar al-Assad in power for now.
Some cite the fate of Saddam after he had thought he was victorious in his wars, especially after the US decided to leave Baghdad in the First Gulf War and not settle it by ending Saddam's rule. These voices say the major powers know how to choose the time and the place to achieve their objectives, and that it would be imprudent to rush to declare that one party has won in Syria and another has lost.
Regardless, what happened in Aleppo remains fateful. The international reactions have discredited all claims regarding accountability for war crimes, and exposed the apathy of the Arab and international public opinions. The collapse of moral values and norms was stark in Aleppo, and no one has the right to pretend to hold on to the minimum humanitarian rules any longer.
Will a grand bargain follow, on the ruins of humanity in Aleppo? Or is this just a stop in Vladimir Putin's long journey towards realignment and negotiations for a deal with Donald Trump? Clearly, the two men want to sit at the table to conclude a deal, so they can both boast of their abilities to impose their terms. They might take a liking to one another, but the interests of the US and Russia may require them to continue doubting one another as each gathers his bargaining chips.
The battle of Aleppo has been a stain on the conscience of the international community. Everyone will rush to wash it clean under the pretext of the war on terror. Until alignments are demystified and the negotiations convene, the battle of Aleppo is not necessarily a roadmap for ending the Syrian war. Winning a battle is one thing, and winning the war is another.
Translated by Karim Traboulsi: https://goo.gl/YXnKLu