Where is Syria’s "Plan B"?

What is the world waiting for to change its way in dealing with the Syrian tragedy? What does de Mistura expect from loose negotiations with unclear titles while regime’s killing machines are claiming more lives? 

The American policy towards Syria has become a dull repetition for outdated political maneuvers. The meetings between Kerry and Lavrov have become very familiar. It is a repeated condemnation of violence and an agreement to end it by the help of Iranians and Russians! 

With a sorrowful tone, Russia’s foreign minister described the attack on Al-Quds Hospital in opposition-held areas as an “unscrupulous act” that should be stopped but Lavrov continued that he can’t give any promises about that pointing out indirectly to the alternative plan that will be implemented if the ceasefire agreement failed.

Last March, Kerry aroused many speculations when he referred in his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Congress to “important discussions” with the White House about “Plan B” in Syria. Those speculations grew bigger especially after a US senior official told CBS News that there are suggestions to take military procedures that will prevent Assad regime from attacking civilians and US-affiliated opposition groups.

At that time, sources in the Pentagon stressed that “Plan B” is an idea more than a specific track for movement. This means that National Security officials in the US administration believe that they should make a movement but they are still unsure what that specific movement is. 

There are now three choices: (a) to increase the number of American Special Forces on the ground, (b) to increase military support for US-affiliated groups and (c) to impose a no-fly zone.

Two weeks ago The Wall Street Journal published that the American alternative plan includes providing opposition forces with more lethal weapons while other reports pointed out that Kerry may push for stepping up military support to opposition forces.

However, there are some views which argue that increasing the military support to the opposition would lead to more killing and destruction. That could be true but leaving the unbalanced situation like that wouldn’t lead to any kind of peace and that ceasefire would be as unsuccessful as the previous ones.  

Monalisa Freiha in Annahar 

Translated by Orient Net English