The Trump Administration is ending the covert program to support Syrian rebels fighting against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to the Washington Post. This CIA program, in place since 2013, armed and trained the moderate rebels in the war-torn country, a dynamic disliked by Assad’s main backer – Russia. The Cipher Brief spoke with Emile Nakhleh, a former CIA Senior Intelligence Service Officer, about the program’s impact on the war in Syria – and who wins by shuttering it.
The Cipher Brief: Was this program, in your view, effective in countering the Assad government?
Emile Nakhleh: The program was partially successful in that two years ago, Assad was forced to turn to Russia for direct involvement to save his regime. The program also aimed to send a political message from the United States to Assad, the rebels, Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulfies that Washington was serious about a future for Syria without Assad.
TCB: Why is President Trump ending this program now? Do you agree or disagree with the decision?
Nakhleh: Regardless of the efficacy of the program, I disagree with the timing of the decision. President Trump is sending the wrong signal to all involved, especially the moderate rebels (a negative signal that they are being abandoned and that Syria is left with only two groups, the terrorists and the Russians).
Trump is giving the Russians and Putin a major concession without a tangible benefit.
If the program was designed to put pressure on Assad, abandoning it at this time loses that ability and indirectly marginalizes America's role in the conflict, and most importantly, its ability to play an influential role in designing a future political architecture for Syria without Assad.
TCB: What impact might this have on the moderate rebels in Syria – and the war more generally?
Nakhleh: The moderate rebels are finished as a fighting force even though Turkey and some Gulfies might continue to arm them. Saudi Arabia might not have the appetite to arm the rebels without U.S. support considering the internal succession troubles bedeviling Riyadh and Al Saud, on top of their tribal feud with Qatar and disastrous war in Yemen.
Even more critically, I think, is the disappointment among moderate Muslims in the region. By abandoning the program in Syria, Washington is creating a space for ISIS to occupy. Abandoning the program will not impact the execution of the war in Syria in the short-run but will have far-reaching, harmful, unintended consequences for American relations with the Muslim world.
TCB: The program has been referred to as a ‘bargaining chip’ for the U.S.; some said that it would be ended in exchange for concessions in other areas. What would those concessions have looked like? How does this decision relate to the U.S.-Russia negotiated ceasefire in southwestern Syria (if at all)?
Nakhleh: By abandoning the program without a tangible quid pro quo, Trump is handing Syria to Putin and Assad on a silver platter. If Trump wanted to entice the Russians to offer major concessions on Syria, he could have raised the possibility of arming the rebels with more lethal weapons, including MANPADS, as a way of forcing Putin and Assad to negotiate a more comprehensive ceasefire in wider regions in Syria. Abandoning the pro-American rebels at this time, shows that the Trump administration has not considered the wider and more strategic regional issues that could ensue from this hasty decision.
TCB: How does this impact Russian activity in Syria? What about Iranian activity?
Nakhleh: Russia will have a free hand in Syria, and Assad will feel empowered to continue persecuting his people and destroying Syria. On the other hand, Trump should have realized that some of the "abandoned" rebels will likely join ISIS and will no longer consider the U.S. as a dependable ally and protector. The unintended consequences will come back to bite us in the face because of this foolhardy decision.
Iran also will feel empowered. The decision is a propaganda bonanza for Russia, Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah.
TCB: After this decision, are there any steps left for the U.S. in Syria?
Nakhleh: The U.S. first and foremost must develop a clear vision of what future it would like to see in a post-Assad and post-ISIS Syria. Unless such a vision is clearly articulated, all other steps would be merely short-term fixes and band-aid solutions to a very vexing problem, which has been better understood and more clearly acted upon by Russia and Iran than by a foreign policy neophyte like Trump. Sad.
