|
 Western officials said the Syrian leader’s days were numbered and
predicted he would soon be forced to the negotiating table.
It did not turn out that way. Secret preparations were already
underway for a major deployment of Russian and Iranian forces in
support of Assad.
The military intervention, taking many in the West by surprise,
would roll back rebel gains. It would also accelerate two shifts in
U.S. diplomacy: Washington would welcome Iran to the negotiating
table over Syria, and it would no longer insist that Assad step down
immediately.
"That involved swallowing some pride, to be honest, in acknowledging
that this process would go nowhere unless you got Russia and Iran at
the table," a U.S. official said.
At the heart of the diplomacy shift – which essentially brought
Washington closer to Moscow's position – was a slow-footed
realization of the Russian military build-up in Syria and,
ultimately, a refusal to intervene militarily.
Russia, Iran and Syria struck their agreement to deploy military
forces in June, several weeks before Assad's July 26 speech,
according to a senior official in the Middle East who was familiar
with the details.
And Russian sources say large amounts of equipment, and hundreds of
troops, were being dispatched over a series of weeks, making it hard
to hide the pending operation.
Yet a senior U.S. administration official said it took until
mid-September for Western powers to fully recognize Russia's
intentions. One of the final pieces of the puzzle was when Moscow
deployed aircraft flown only by the Russian military, eliminating
the possibility they were intended for Assad, the official said.
An earlier understanding of Russia’s military plans is unlikely to
have changed U.S. military policy. President Barack Obama had made
clear early on that he did not want Washington embroiled in a proxy
war with Russia. And when the West did wake up to Russian President
Vladimir Putin's intentions, it was short of ideas about how to
respond.
As in Ukraine in 2014, the West seemed helpless.
French President Francois Hollande summed up the mood among
America's European allies: "I would prefer the United States to be
more active. But since the United States has stepped back, who
should take over, who should act?"
SIGNPOSTS
In July last year, one of Iran's top generals, Qassem Soleimani,
went to Moscow on a visit that was widely reported. The senior
Middle Eastern official told Reuters that Soleimani had also met
Putin twice several weeks before that.
"They defined zero hour for the Russian planes and equipment, and
the Russian and Iranian crews," he said.
Russia began sending supply ships through the Bosphorus in August,
Reuters reported at the time. There was no attempt to hide the
voyages and on Sept. 9 Reuters reported that Moscow had begun
participating in military operations in Syria.
A Russian Air Force colonel, who took part in preparations and
provided fresh details of the build-up, said hundreds of Russian
pilots and ground staff were selected for the Syria mission in
mid-August.
Warplanes sent to Syria included the Sukhoi-25 and Sukhoi-24
offensive aircraft, U.S. officials said. In all, according to U.S.
officials, Russia by Sept. 21 had 28 fixed-wing aircraft, 16
helicopters, advanced T-90 tanks and other armored vehicles,
artillery, anti-aircraft batteries and hundreds of marines at its
base near Latakia.
Despite this public build-up, the West either played down the risks
or failed to recognize them.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sept. 22 that Russian
aircraft were in Syria to defend the Russians' base - "force
protection" in the view of U.S. military experts.
At the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 28, the French
announced their own first air strikes in Syria.
"The international community is hitting Daesh (Islamic State).
France is hitting Daesh. The Russians, for now, are not doing
anything," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Fabius said at the time.
The next day Russia announced its strikes in Syria.
[to top of second column] |
WARNINGS
One former U.S. official, who was in government at the time, told
Reuters that some U.S. officials had begun voicing concern that
Russia would intervene militarily in Syria two weeks before the
bombing began.
Their concerns, however, were disregarded by officials in the White
House and those dealing with the Middle East because of a lack of
hard intelligence, the former U.S. official said.
"There was this tendency to say, 'We don't know. Let's see,'"
recounted the former U.S. official.
Yet between October and December, American perceptions shifted, as
reported by Reuters at the time.
By December, U.S. officials had concluded that Russia had achieved
its main goal of stabilizing Assad’s government and could maintain
its operations in Syria for years.
"I think it’s indisputable that the Assad regime, with Russian
military support, is probably in a safer position than it was," a
senior administration official said.
DIPLOMATIC U-TURN
At that point, the U.S. pivoted to the negotiating table with Russia
and Iran. Officials say they had few other options with Obama
unwilling to commit American ground troops to Syria, aside from
small deployments of Special Operations forces, or provide
U.S.-backed opposition fighters with anti-aircraft missiles.
In Munich on Feb 12, Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov announced an agreement for humanitarian access and a
"cessation of hostilities" in Syria, far short of a ceasefire.
"Putin has taken the measure of the West... He has basically
concluded, I can push and push and push and push and I am never
going to hit steel anywhere," said Fred Hof, a former State
Department and Pentagon Syria expert now at the Atlantic Council
think tank.
Today, U.S. officials sound a far different note than in the early
days of the uprising against Assad when they said his exit must be
immediate. Now, with the war entering its sixth year, they say they
must push the diplomatic possibilities as far as possible and insist
Kerry is fully aware of what Russia is doing to change facts on the
ground.
In congressional testimony on Wednesday, Kerry acknowledged there
was no guarantee the "cessation of hostilities" would work, adding:
"But I know this: If it doesn’t work, the potential is there that
Syria will be utterly destroyed. The fact is that we need to make
certain that we are exploring and exhausting every option of
diplomatic resolution."
For the rebels, the reality is bleak.
Government forces have closed in on the city of Aleppo, a major
symbol of the uprising. Their supply routes from Turkey cut, rebels
in the Aleppo area now say it may only be a matter of time before
they are crushed altogether.
"We are heading toward being liquidated I think," said a former
official in a rebel group from the city.
Other fighters remain determinedly upbeat, saying Assad is only
gaining ground because of Russian air power and he will not be able
to sustain the advances.
For Syrians living under government rule in Damascus, Moscow's
intervention has inspired a degree of confidence. They credit one of
the calmest periods since the start of the war to the death of rebel
leader Zahran Alloush, killed in a Russian air strike on Christmas
Day.
There are few foreign visitors these days. Bashar al-Seyala, who
owns a souvenir shop in the Old City, said most of his foreign
customers are Russians. His shop had just sold out of mugs printed
with Putin's face.
(Additional reporting by John Irish, Arshad Mohammed, Lesley
Wroughton, Warren Strobel, Lou Charbonneau and Mark Hosenball;
Writing by Giles Elgood; editing by Janet McBride)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
