The Syrian issue started to draw greater attention from the international community after the terror attacks in France. In addition to this, we can say that Westerners generally have not seen the forest for the trees. It is obvious that the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will not end or alleviate the Syrian crisis. In this context, it can be said that, as a result of Turkey's various initiatives, even if inadequate for the time being, an international perspective – aimed at the crisis in Syria as a whole – has started to develop.
Following the draft resolution presented to the UN Security Council by France, Russia, too, presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council regarding the crisis in Syria, yet the draft was rejected by a majority of the council members based on the grounds that it proposed cooperation with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In addition to this, it seems that international diplomacy aimed ending the civil war in Syria is going to mobilize recognizably in the near term.
Hence, the opinion that the home stretch has been reached in the Syria crisis is spreading. Yet it is still better to remain moderate on this matter and take note that the crisis has turned into an international fault line.
The sides in Syria have now shifted from a proxy war to a direct war. It was not before 2014 that the sides entered the ground in the Syria crisis that turned into a civil war with the escalation of violence, which began in the form of opposition protests against the regime. In other words, direct contact between international or regional powers may now be in question.
When Iran failed to prevent Assad forces from regressing in the past year after interfering in the course of the war in Syria by the hand of Hezbollah, it started to use direct force in Syria. Russia, another party to the Syria crisis, started to carry out direct operations within Syria in the second half of 2015.
Taking all this into account, it become clear that an extremely serious effort is necessary for a likely international solution in Syria. It is not impossible, but it is quite difficult without serious flexibility in the current positions of the sides. Russia is continuing to hit positions in Syria with missiles fired from submarines in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, in news reported based on information from Russian authorities, it is claimed that Russia is using cruise missiles in addition to long-range missiles when hitting these targets. There is no need to focus in length on the theory that there is more to these attacks by Russia from the east Mediterranean than the Syria crisis and ISIL problem.
The most serious question on minds regarding Syria is whether the US and Russia reached an agreement on Syria's future. Russia explaining after US Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that Turkey and the US are going to start cleaning Syria's border, that its intervention in Syria is aimed at protecting the Syrian state, not the Assad regime, and adopting a moderate approach regarding Russia's operations in Syria, strengthens these opinions. However, it could be said that assessing all this within the scope of “smart power” approach that emerged as US President Barack Obama's foreign policy paradigm, would be a more accurate analysis.
The term “smart power” was introduced as a product of “hard power,” which can be roughly defined as military power, and “soft power,” which also can be roughly defined as culture, political value and economic power elements. But the Obama administration applied the term differently than defined by Joseph Nye, who is credited with having coined the term. What Obama defined as “smart power” was already named “Ostrich Diplomacy” by opposition groups.
The vibrations caused by smart power in the US's foreign policy led to a greater radical vibration of players regarding Syria. In other words, it could be argued that the most important cause of significant failures in foreign policy of global and regional powers on Syria and regional policy for the last five years, is the US's lack of a determined attitude in its foreign policy. So, the effect of the vagueness of smart power on US foreign policy regarding intervention in areas of crisis, is felt more clearly and with impact by the other players. The power voids that appeared as a result of this were filled by terrorist organizations such as ISIL and People's Protection Units (YPG).
When analysis is made in this way, it could be said that ISIL taking the spotlight over the real issue that has weakened US's foreign policy. We had previously mentioned that ISIL has become a medium that provides legitimacy to not only the players in Syria, but also regionally. Such that even Bashar Assad, the bloodthirsty dictator of the Syrian regime, said that he will not leave power before wiping out the ISIL threat from Syria. It seems as though ISIL's multifunctional Swiss army knife-like state has led to the following situation: Similar to Syria, every country actually has its own ISIL. Germany, France, the US, Russia, Iran, the Assad regime and even Israel all have their very own ISILs, because ISIL is a qualified skeleton key that opens all doors. It could be thought that every player, who points to only ISIL as a threat, without taking the Syrian crisis as a whole, has its own ISIL. The broadness created by ISIL leads to the failure of the US's foreign policy.
It should now be clearly stated with determination that the solution in Syria requires the end of the Assad regime as much as the necessity to fight ISIL, and policies should be centered on this. Any alternative aside from this will simply help push through alone and will not yield any outcomes.
