Scratching the surface of Syria’s ceasefire

From a humanitarian perspective, there could be no complaints about the deal, but neither the US nor Russia are humanitarian actors.

There’s no incompatibility between the interests of the US and those of Russia in Syria, the writer points out. In 2011, the US understood the fact that Assad was the main destabilizing factor, but this has long since passed. And this is perhaps one of the most important factors behind this deal.

The US dream is to see the Syrian rebellion end, and for all warring parties to focus solely on ISIS - the Russian intervention on behalf of Assad essentially ensured that the US would view the Assad regime and its allies as the more appropriate partners in its fight against ISIS.

One of the most controversial elements of the deal, as the writer explains, is the announcement that the US and Russia will now begin what is essentially joint operations against Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. 

The idea that Russia intervened in Syria in order to "fight terrorism" and so-called extremist groups like JFS is a monstrous lie – a lie that Russia has cultivated as propaganda to justify its true reasons for intervening, namely to ensure the survival of the Assad regime and to weaken the rebellion.

Hamad concludes that the ultimate aim is the controlled demolition of the rebellion under the pretext of combating JFS. Unlike the implicit threats by the US to join with Russia’s year-long strategy of hitting any group that has proximity with JFS, there is no threat to take action against Assad or Iran, should they break the ceasefire. They have nothing to lose from the deal collapsing, but might very well have everything to gain from it being sustained, and this is precisely what opposition fighters fear.