Rehabilitating Assad, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the ayatollah

 The New York Times editorial board recently referred to Syrian President Bashar al Assad as a “necessary, if still unpalatable potential ally” in the war on ISIS. They’ve concluded that this is a time when we must abandon our national ideology and employ shrewd realism to secure American interests abroad. However, Assad’s mass torturing, barrel bombing, and gassing of Syrian civilians make him worse than “unpalatable” for the United States: it makes him poisonous. America should not allow itself to be lured by the false choice between brutal dictator and extremist horde. This week’s 60 Minutes piece on the 2013 chemical should be a stark reminder of the risk. The obvious concept of an alliance with Assad is another trap set by Iran, and one that we are dangerously close to triggering.

Assad has been on a media jaunt in the last several months: first in an interview with Jeremy Bown for BBC, then with Charlie Rose for CBS and PBS, and most recently with France 2. In these interviews, Assad categorically denied his use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilians, crimes for which there is direct proof.  Interviewers did not ask about the massive torture system he implements in military prisons throughout the country, which US War Crimes Ambassador Stephen Rapp called “the kind of machinery of cruel death that we haven’t seen frankly since the Nazis.” They did ask not why Assad released future ISIS commanders and other extremists from Syrian jails at the beginning of the conflict. They did not ask why Assad’s government regularly trades with ISIS and fails to confront them on the front lines in strategic cities. They also shied away from addressing the Assad government’s decades-long tradition of sponsoring attacks against Americans in the region.  The Syrian government is capitalizing on this moment to present itself as an “unpalatable but necessary” partner against terror.

{mosads}As the Obama administration sprints toward a nuclear deal, Iran and its proxies have secured military dominance in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Obama’s administration sees the rising tide of Iran as inevitable, and he wants to be sure to ride it smoothly into a new era of Iranian regional control. It’s a tough decision, and one that will require the spilling of a lot of Arab blood. In a New York Times interview, President Obama asserted that “Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region.” He added that if Iran “was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region […] it would be an extremely successful regional power.” Yet not one of Obama’s actions, both related and unrelated to the nuclear deal, has put any pressure on Iran to stop its “proxy wars.” In fact, Iran’s path to regional power relies on victory in these conflicts. Regional meddling has served the Iranians well despite debilitating sanctions from the west. With increased empowerment, we can only expect such interference to increase.

In Iraq, the US finds itself supporting Iran-backed Shia militias in their fight against ISIS. These militias decapitate civilians, rape women, and brutalize the Sunni population, giving them a reputation as the Shia version of ISIS. Iranian dominance in Iraq will lead to a lot of Sunni deaths and create a more oppressed Sunni population, elements that are sure to solidify a deep-rooted insurgency. Gen. David H. Petraeus has warned that Iran’s meddling in Iraq to be our biggest problem in that country. Meanwhile in Syria, Iran is in control over Assad’s military, both directly and through proxies. Assad makes no strategic decision without approval from Iranian generals. Thus, an alliance with Assad in Syria is an alliance with Iran.

The result of such an arrangement will turn Syria’s 70 percent Sunni population decisively against the United States. Syrians are very confused as to why the United States will bomb ISIS only in the hinterland and not on its offensive fronts against opposition fighters. They also question why the US does nothing to stop Assad’s slaughter of Syrian civilians. By tolerating Assad and Iran’s mass killing, the United States helps complete a widespread extremist narrative: that the world intentionally facilitates Sunni civilian death. Meanwhile, opposition fighters from a diverse range of religions and ethnicities are on the Syrian front lines defending their territory from the aggressive advances of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah fighters, and against ISIS, with no meaningful help from the U.S.  Desperate for a low-cost solution to ISIS in Syria, the “work with Assad” crowd considers the equivalent of drinking Drāno to cure its stomach cancer. The flaw at the root of the faux-realist argument is quite simple: no one has proven to be worse at fighting ISIS than the Syrian government. It does not engage ISIS on strategic fronts. Instead, Assad and Iran focus their attacks on the Syrian opposition, which has proven to be much more effective at driving out ISIS and appealing to local Sunni populations where ISIS would potentially garner support.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is taking an important step this week in introducing a resolution that the Senate will oppose any role for Assad in Syria’s future, but the United States needs to take more decisive action to stop the killing and end Iranian dominance in Syria. Sens. Durbin (D-Ill.), McCain (R-Ariz.), Kaine (D-Va.), and Graham’s (R-S.C.) letter calling for humanitarian safe zones is a step in the right direction. A similar open letter from high-level signatories published in the Washington Post calls for protected zones and an alliance with the Syrian people, not Assad or Iran, as a solution to ISIS. The president clearly does not want to lead on Syria, but he must not allow Iran and its murderous proxies in Assad, Hezbollah, and other groups to prove ISIS’s narrative right. A generation of young Syrians, and America’s national security, depend on it.

Thompson is an international lawyer, policy director for United for a Free Syria, and policy adviser for the Coalition for a Democratic Syria.