With increasingly confusing statements and actions from the White House and the Pentagon on U.S. policy toward Syria, The Cipher Brief presented a live briefing from Amman, Jordan with Cipher Brief Expert and former CIA Chief of Middle East operations, Robert Richer during the 2018 Threat Conference. Richer talked about the perspective of local actors and how U.S. statements and actions are being interpreted on the ground. The briefing has been adapted for print below.
The biggest perception in the Middle East and specifically here in Jordan, is this inability to understand what U.S. policy is. That inability translates into concern for everything from instability to next steps to long-term commitments. Some of the recent pronouncements– i.e. whether the U.S. is going to withdraw troops, keep troops or keep troops in play–have gotten people in Jordan on edge. There are close to 100,000 refugees right across the border, looking for a place to go, and Jordan does not believe they can accept them at this point based on their population.
They don’t know what kind of retaliation will look like in terms of what we do to Syria, if in fact something does happen. There is an escalation in terms of the violence between Israel attacking Iranian and Syrian elements inside Syria, particularly in the last couple of days, but there have been other operations. There is an increased number of cyber attacks in the region. There is a lack of understanding in terms of what is going on with the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process and of course what’s going to happen with Jerusalem next month.
So there is a palatable sense of unease. People and governments are uncomfortable and they’re looking for direction. Looking at the comments I heard, they are looking at—what’s the U.S. intent? What’s Western intent in terms of the region in the absence of a strong-handed dialogue? And the umbrella over all of that is actually what’s going on with Russia in the region?
In short, there is a great uneasiness in the region, particularly in this area. There is a great lack of understanding of what the U.S. commitment is to this. And there is concern over more potential destabilizing actions here over the next couple of weeks.
The U.S. needs to make a consistent, sustained and enforceable agreement to support our allies in the region and that includes the Kurds whether they are in Iraq or the Kurds we are supporting in Syria. There is also a large presence of opposition elements that we have supported in the past leading up to last year – 40,000 plus – who have been kind of abandoned and are looking at a pretty dismal future as the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Russians will focus on them once they clear out the northern elements.
So number one, we need to make commitments, make public commitments, and stand by those commitments. Unfortunately, the way we’ve walked away from supporting the Kurds in northern Syria with the ongoing Turkish offensive, the way we’ve walked away from the Kurds we were supporting in Iraq and the opposition elements in the southwest corner of Syria, gives the indication that we are not going to be true to our support for them and they can’t bet their lives on it. If in fact the U.S. is going to go forward with a plan to support the opposition and people who are looking for democracy, particularly in Syria, they have to believe that the U.S. is sincere in its commitment to support them.
Defining that commitment, be it militarily, humanitarian or political, is critical for them to have a consistent framework to live with and build to. Right now, there is no framework. Right now, it’s day to day looking at tweets, looking at statements, looking at little action to try to decide what they do for them, for their families, or for their political challenges. The U.S. needs to come up with a strategy or walk away completely because several of the opposition people that I’ve spoken to have said that the U.S. is doing more damage by how it is handling the situation than if in fact, the U.S. was doing nothing. I think it’s a consistency, it’s a framework and an understanding that whatever framework is established is the framework going forward, be it support or no support.
I don’t think the U.S. should walk away from Syria. I think the U.S. should be in Syria and doing more than it actually is right now.
On rolling back Iranian presence in Syria
Looking forward, I don’t see a rollback of Iranian presence in Syria unless the Russians allow it or want it to happen. As of right now, the Russians are basically directing Assad both in fighting and supporting the war, but also in terms of their strategic alliances. Their military supplies, their intelligence and their expertise have kept him alive and have turned the battle.
The Russians have the ability to maybe not replace the Iranian presence, but to counter the Iranian presence just by sheer numbers and presence and capabilities. To put them in a box at this point, I don’t see Russian President Vladimir Putin having any interest in that. He sees having a strategic alliance with Iran in the Middle East as a way to advance his own agenda. So unless Putin and the Russians were to decide it is contrary to their interests to see a strong Iranian presence in Syria, we are not going to impact this as we are currently conducting policy.
Rob Richer retired in November 2005 from the Central Intelligence Agency as the Associate Deputy Director for Operations (ADDO). Prior to his assignment as the ADDO in 2004, Richer was the Chief of the Near East and South Asia Division, responsible for Clandestine Service Operations throughout the Middle East and South Asia.
