Assad’s Downfall and Its Impact on Iran, Russia and Turkey Transcript

Disclaimer: This transcript is an edited version version of a transcript created using AI technology and may not reflect 100% accuracy.

The video can be found here.

Sarah Stern: Good afternoon and welcome to yet another topical and timely EMET webinar. Today is day 437 of the multi front war, waged by Islamists against the State of Israel. In the last two weeks, we have seen a tectonic change in the geostrategic map of the Middle East. On November 30^th, rebel forces conquered Aleppo. They took over Hama on December 5^th, Daria on December 6^th and Damascus on December 8^th. After 53 years, the suffocating grip of the Assad family has been removed. Bashar Assad is somewhere in Russia and the doors of Sednaya Prison have been opened. We know that anti-Assad dissidents were released. We suspect that common criminals and members of Al Qaeda or ISIS were released as well. Many of us are relieved that such a large tentacle of the Iranian octopus has been destroyed. Assad’s passageway for transporting men and arms from Tehran to Beirut, has been blocked for now. However, many questions remain about the new regime in Syria.

Dr. Stephen Blank is with us today to help answer our questions about current events in Syria. Steven is a good friend. He is a non-resident senior fellow of the Eurasia Program, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Steven has published over 900 articles and monographs on Soviet Russian and on US, Asian and European military and foreign policies. He testifies before Congress on Russia, China and Central Asia. He has consulted with the CIA and with major think tanks and foundations and has chaired major international conferences throughout the United States and in Florence, Prague and London. Stephen has been a commentator on foreign affairs in the media in the U.S. and abroad. He has advised many major corporations on investing in Russia and serves as a consultant for the Gerson Lerman Group. Stephen has a very lengthy and erudite biography, and it is indeed an honor and a privilege to have him with us today.

Steve, tell us a little bit about Muhammad Al Jolani, also known as Mahar Al Shara. What are his roots? Does he still follow the ideology of Al Qaeda’s and ISIS? What do you think about his current charm offensive? Is it a genuine outreach or a form of taqiyya?

Steve: As you pointed out, we can trace Jolani’s roots back to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Jolani is only 42 years old, but he was involved with those groups are far back as 15 or 20 years. Then he joined the Syrian opposition. Now he claims that he and his new government want nothing more than peace in Syria. They want to create harmony amongst Syria’s diverse religious communities. There are many such communities in Syria, and they are not all Muslim. As an example, there is a sizable Armenian community in Syria, most of whom are Christian. Jolani claims he wants to achieve more than peace among amongst Syrian residents. He claims he wants to rid Syria of Iranian influence and he wants to have peace with Syria’s neighbors.

Jolani’s claims in this regard may not be sincere. At this point, we really do not know what this government is going to do. We are not sure yet how it will be constituted and what its’ policies will be. Syria has enormous and daunting domestic challenges, and it needs peace both internally and externally. For the moment, we are in the springtime of the revolution. However, its challenges and problems are going to become clear very soon and the new government will need to make serious political decisions. That will be when the hard work starts. It will show us whether Jelani has reformed or whether he and his government are still committed to violent Islamic tactics, both at home and abroad. For the moment, this is a government whose motto appears to be peace at home and peace abroad.

There is an opportunity here for the countries which have gained something through this war. The countries are Turkey, and potentially the United States and Israel. There is a chance here to achieve a solution serving the best interests of all involved parties. However, there is the risk that they could forfeit these opportunities. In that case, conflict and war in Syria could break out internally and externally and the Iranians and the Russians will certainly try to return to Syria. Iran and Russia have lost hugely from the rebel takeover in Syria. The Turks on the other hand, have won an enormous amount. There is a real chance for Israel and the United States to benefit hugely as well.

Sarah Stern: Speaking of the Turks, we all know that Erdogan has a tremendous animus toward the Kurds. The Kurds had been extremely helpful to the United States and our fight against ISIS. How vulnerable are our Kurdish allies right now?

Steve: For as long as the United States military maintains its presence in northeast Syria, they are not vulnerable. The US presence will contain Erdogan’s campaign against the Kurds. Erdogan has been pursuing his campaign against the Kurds for over a decade now. Erdogan has some kind of obsession with them, and it clouds his policies and decisions. It is not clear how much of a threat the Syrian and/or Turkish Kurds constitute to Turkey. There is a great deal of propaganda asserting that the Kurds would break Turkey apart if they could and form their own state. I do not see that as a viable possibility. However, the Syrian state will remain crippled as long as Turkey believes it has a right and a duty to keep its military in Syria engaged against Kurds.

Sarah Stern: We have about 900 US troops stationed in the Kurdish areas in Syria. Do you think they will remain there?

Steve: It is impossible to predict what President Trump is going to do in this case. The Biden administration has about a month left before they leave office. Barring some major catastrophe, I do not see them taking on any new major policy initiatives in the Middle East. On the other hand, none of Trump’s national security team have been confirmed yet. As such, they are legally blocked from taking any serious policy action. Irrespective, Kurdistan would certainly not be on the top of their list. However, if Syria begins to spiral out of control, it may rise on that list of priorities. Either way, I do not see the United States abandoning the Kurds in the immediate future.

The current situation presents an enormous opportunity for the United States. If we take Jolani at his word, we will provide Syria with US support. We can leverage the financial and humanitarian support we bring into Syria, and create the peaceful, domestic peaceful situation Jolani claims he wants. This would also mean that Syria would no longer be a hub for anti-Israel and anti- American sentiment. Syria would become a country that lives in peace with its neighbors. It would be a state that is no longer used by Iran as the linchpin in its’ strategy of destruction. So, we have a great opportunity, and I think we need to seize it.

It is always cheaper to seize the opportunity for peace rather than war. You are probably going to ask me what this implies regarding Israel. Israel needs a peaceful Syria. Occupying Mount Hermon, moving troops into buffer zones and destroying the military is not going to win friends and influence people in the new Syria. This is true even if Israel is doing it on the grounds of attacking Hezbollah. Israel’s actions are going to make it difficult for them to assert they want to be at peace with Syria. So, I am not sure the moves Israel is making are the smartest ones right now. An article in Foreign Affairs Today suggests that Israel needs to find political solutions. The purpose of using force is to bring about peace. The great British military historian Little Hart wrote that using force to perpetuate war because you cannot imagine a peace, means you perpetuate war and nobody wins.

Sarah Stern: On the other hand, the Middle East is a very tough neighborhood and peace in the Middle East comes through strength and not through appeasement. Sometimes it is necessary to be able to defend your own borders.

Steve: It is clear to the entire world that Israel can and will defend its borders. Nobody has any illusions about that anymore. The alternatives here are not just peace through strength versus peace through appeasement. Israel has won a major victory. Churchill said there was magnanimity in victory. The Israelis now have an opportunity to bring about a peaceful Syria. They should encourage the Syrian government to go ahead and seek peace because a peaceful Syria is the safest option for Israel. If Israel continues bombing people, they will be at war with Syria and face a multi front challenge again. So, I think they need to change their plan of attack here.

Sarah Stern: Israel’s policy toward its neighbors must be a mixture of carrots and sticks.

Steve: I think the Israelis have the sticks, and do not have to demonstrate it anymore. The carrots are what are important here. Everybody understands that Israel is a major military power. There are no longer any illusions on that score. We will not see direct challenges to Israel for a while. Israel can now set up a beneficial long-term situation by taking the new Syrian government at its word and encouraging it to act on what it says it wants to be. If it does not behave peacefully, I think we will have plenty of warning and the Israeli government is certainly positioned to act forcefully if challenged.

Sarah Stern: I think the Syrian government is asking for 60 days. We must wait and see what happens after the honeymoon period.

Steve: 60 days from now, we should have a better idea of what will happen there. If there is trouble, the Israeli army is positioned to defend Israel. If Israel acts too soon, they are in danger of creating an enemy. This is something they do not need to do.

Sarah Stern: Okay. Can we discuss other winners and losers? Russia is not pulling out of Syria completely. That said, they are abandoning the Latakia air base and the Taros naval facility. Russian cargo planes are also being loaded up. How is Putin viewing this? Is he capable of acknowledging defeat, at least in the Middle East?

Steve: Putin is not commenting on this. He has not said a word about it and that is very typical. The Russians never talk about their defeats. According to them, Russia is a great power, and it is always victorious, or so they want you to believe. However, this is a stunning defeat for the Russians. Their bases are in danger. They are trying to hold on to them and renegotiate an agreement with the new government. However, I do not think they will succeed in this. I think the new government understands that the Russian bases were not just there to enhance Assad’s power and kill the opposition. The Russian presence made Syria a military subordinate of Russia.

Today’s Financial Times provides an example illustrating this. The article points out that Assad has shipped a quarter of a billion dollars to Russia over the last nine years. This covers the period of Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war. At the same time, Syria descended into a no man’s land. It became a narco-state and an economic disaster area. Millions of refugees fled to Europe and yet Assad paid tribute to Russia. That is going to stop, I think.

Again, if there is peace in Syria, the Syrians will not need Russian military bases. It is Russia that needs the military bases. They provide an enormous logistical center for them to project power through the Mediterranean, into Africa, Eastern Europe and particularly the Balkans. Having to close the bases constitutes a major defeat for Russia. I am not just referring to the two bases that we tend to hear about. I am also referencing their satellite air bases in northern Syria.

The Russian bases also constitute a standing threat to Turkey. The Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Russian forces in Crimea and South Russia, are a threat to Turkey and have been for centuries. Erdogan is not going to want the Russians to keep their bases in Syria. If Russia does maintain the bases, they will remain there on Turkish sufferance. This is not what Russia wants but it may be the only way they can retain their presence in Syria. So, the Russians have lost a big time in Syria. They have lost an ally. They have lost a source of tribute, and they have lost the logistical linchpin of their entire power projection operation into Africa.

The Russians are going to be intensifying their pressure in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Horn of Africa and maybe even in the west coast of Africa on the Atlantic side. They will be seeking naval bases and air bases. It is important to anticipate what is coming even though their resources are very stretched right now.

Iran is also a huge loser following the fall of the Assad regime. The Iranian regime’s strategy is in ruins. Its strategy was to support the axis of resistance. Syria was a military and logistic center which was used to provide support to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. The Iranian regime used these terror proxies to maintain a constant multi-front pressure on Israel. They were waiting until such time they could attack Israel directly. Hamas jumped the gun, but Iran was clearly planning to attack Israel. The Iranian regime planned to complete development of a nuclear weapon. They anticipated using it to extend deterrence to their terrorist proxies and provide them with escalation control with regards to their attacks on Israel. That strategy has now been destroyed. Iran has lost $50 billion of their Syrian investment, something they cannot really afford at this time. So, the Iranians now are scrambling for a strategy. Their initial response was truculent, and they blamed America for all this.

There is no sign that the Iranian regime is going to stop trying to get a nuclear weapon and they need to be stopped. I think this will be a major priority of the Trump administration. It is certainly a major priority for the Netanyahu government. Additionally, I think most Arab states would welcome actions preventing Iran from going nuclear, even if they cannot express their support for it publicly.

So, Iran and Russia are the two biggest losers. Turkey appears to be the biggest overt winner. There is also an opportunity for Washington and Jerusalem to improve the situation in the Middle East. I think they need to seize the opportunity. Seizing the opportunity, implies giving the new Syrian government the benefit of doubt and providing it the opportunity to help it to stabilize itself on a peaceful basis. If that proves impossible, they have the means to deal with it.

Sarah Stern: Let us get back to Iran. Do you think that the Trump administration would assist Israel in striking Iranian nuclear sites?

Steve: The US, under Trump, might even do it themselves. Israel does not have the capability to strike all of Iran’s nuclear sites. They struck some of Iran’s nuclear sites in October. They destroyed Iran’s air defenses and left them vulnerable to future air attacks. However, the Israelis are constrained logistically. They will likely not be able to reach some of the distant or buried installations in eastern and southern Iran.

When the Trump administration takes office, it is entirely possible that the US will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. They may do it themselves or in collaboration with Israel. As I mentioned, we really do not know what will happen. The Trump administration is not yet in office, and it does not yet have a national security team. We are hearing a lot coming from Mar a Lago, but Trump speaks a lot and often contradicts himself. So, what happens remains to be seen.

Sarah Stern: You think that Iran might act rationally given their current circumstances?

Steve: What we term rational is not rational to the Iranian regime. That is part of the problem. To change the trajectory of events, the regime would have to admit they have been wrong until now. They would have to recognize that they do not need a nuclear weapon, and that Israel is not a threat to them. I think both of those statements are true, but not according to the Iranian regime.

To achieve this kind of peaceful solution, the Iranian regime would have to be prepared to make political settlements with the states they believe are hostile to them. If that occurred, we would need to be tough bargainers because the Iranians are very tough negotiators. Still, that is a better scenario than one where everyone is shooting at each other.

Sarah Stern: So, what do you think are Erdogan’s aspirations? How far do you think he wants to go?

Steve: Erdogan wants to restore Turkey as a great power in the neighborhood. That neighborhood is not only the Middle East. This episode in Syria is the second time that Turkey has succeeded in advancing into a Russian sphere of influence. Turkey played a major role in the Nagorno Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. They now have a full-scale alliance with Azerbaijan. This was unheard of previously and the Russians have acquiesced to it. The Russians are going to have no choice but to acquiesce in Syria as well. Erdogan has also played a role in trying to moderate the Russo-Ukrainian war. The grain agreements were signed in Istanbul. Erdogan might be willing to host a peace conference because he has good relationships with both Kyiv and Moscow. The Turks are also trying to increase their energy capabilities. They found gas in the Black Sea, and they are still blocking the Eastern Mediterranean gas pipeline with their navy.

So, the Turks are attempting to play the role of a major regional power throughout the so-called extended Turkish neighborhood. Some analysts are using the term neo-Ottomanism to describe Turkish ambitions. The Turks are not going to be able to control developments on the ground. That said, they are certainly expanding their influence in the Caucasus, even in Central Asia and in the Middle East and into Africa.

Sarah Stern: What do you think is going to happen to the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria? In 2013, Obama threatened Syria that using chemical weapons would cross a red line. Assad subsequently crossed Obama’s red line and used chemical weapons on his own people. Do you think chemical weapons are a threat to our Syrian Kurdish allies?

Steve: Everyone in that area is threatened by chemical weapons. How it plays out depends on the threats faced by the new government. Israel has already destroyed Syria’s army, and the new government has no remaining military force. If they are attacked now, they will defend themselves using the means available to them. They do not have a professional armed force.

This presents an excellent opportunity for us to test the new government’s willingness to be at peace, and could be an excellent test of their intentions. We could help them get rid of their chemical weapons by providing them with professionals who know how to dispose of these types of weapons properly. We have the experts available. This would be a way to improve relations between the United States and Syria. It would also help the Syrian government get its legs under it and stabilize the situation on the ground. In principle, they do not need chemical weapons. However, we must create conditions in which no one believes they need those weapons. Again, we must build a state that lives at peace internally and therefore, with its neighbors.

Sarah Stern: All right. According to Thursday’s Guardian, 1.1 million people have been displaced, including 100,000 Kurds. Are these people just going to be living in refugee camps? Is the international community going to give them any support? What do you think is going to happen?

Steve: I am not a big believer in the “international community”. However, there are a frightening number of humanitarian challenges in Syria right now. There are more than 1.1 million Syrians who have become refugees over the past 40 years. I had surgery four years ago and one of my doctors was a Syrian refugee. His family fled Hama when Assad’s father murdered 20,000 people, including his grandfather.

So, there are more than a million people who have fled Syria. Some of whom may want to return to Syria. Many of them are talented professionals and conditions should be created so that they can flourish if they choose to return. As I mentioned, this is an opportunity for Syrians to return to a normal, stable life. They need help. Their country is broke, and there are urgent humanitarian needs. We need to provide humanitarian aid for strategic purposes as well. If we do not help, we are going to return to the type of situation we have seen before.

Sarah Stern: An audience member is asking if Israel should take the opportunity to destroy the Russian armaments and bases? A lot of them have already been destroyed, is that correct?

Steve: Israel should not attack Russian bases. This is not Israel’s issue. Israel has crippled the Syrian army. I think the answer to your question has already been overtaken by events. Irrespective, the Israelis have no business getting involved in the question of whether the Russian bases stay in Syria or not. That is for Syria to decide. Turkey is the new government’s patron, and so they will get involved in those decisions. We know the Israelis are going to want to get the Russian bases out of Syria but attacking them makes no sense at all.

Sarah Stern: Is the revolution in Syria a pathway for Turkey to replace Iran as the most serious threat to Israel, the US and the West?

Steve: No, it is not. The revolution provides a path for Turkey to replace Iran as Syria’s foreign patron. That said, I am not sure that Turkey’s influence over the new Syrian regime will be equivalent to the influence Iran has over Bashir Assad.

Erdogan is not a friend of Israel, but he is certainly not interested in sending the Turkish military to war with Israel. I do not anticipate him doing that. There is still significant trade between Israel and Turkey, even though we do not hear much about it. Erdogan would not benefit from going to war with Israel. He would not want to cut off the trade between Israel and Turkey.

Sarah Stern: How are the Gulf states viewing the situation in Syria?

Steve: I am not a Middle East specialist. However, I think the Gulf states should see the situation in Syria as a great opportunity. The threat to them from Iran and its terror proxies has been reduced significantly. This includes the threat from the Houthis. The situation provides them the chance to make Syria a base for investment and stabilization in the Middle East.

If Syria becomes stable, there is the real opportunity for an expansion of the Abraham Accords framework. This does not just pertain to Saudi Arabia, but to other states as well. If Syria is at peace and beginning to thrive, it may be a good addition to the Abraham Accords. This is an opportunity that presents itself once in a generation and we must seize it while we can. I realize there is a danger that we will not be able to achieve stability and peace in Syria. However, Israel should not dismiss this chance for peace. It has the means to defend itself if things go bad in Syria. Israel should not provoke more violence there.

Sarah Stern: One of our anonymous attendees wrote that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was also an opportunity for Iraq to become stable and peaceful. How did that work out?

Steve: These are two completely different scenarios. Saddam Hussein was not overthrown in a revolution. He was overthrown by the American army, an external invasion. There is a fundamental difference between an external invasion and a domestic revolution. The reconstitution of the Iraqi national government became an act of national liberation. In Syria, the overthrow of the Assad regime was an act of national liberation. It was an expression of opposition against Assad and not against the United States, Russia or Iran. So, we cannot compare apples and oranges.

If you can get hold of objective accounts of what happened in Iraq, you will learn that we made a lot of mistakes there. We have an opportunity in Syria, and we should take care not to repeat the mistakes we made in Iraq. We need to ensure that our good decisions in Syria outweigh the bad ones.

Sarah Stern: There is an enclave of Kurds who have been incredibly loyal to the United States. What would happen if Erdogan attacked the Kurds using the Syrian corridor? He has tremendous animus against the Kurds. What do you think will happen to the Kurds and should the United States push for Kurdish independence?

Steve: I really do not know. It is an incredibly difficult problem. Erdogan has already commenced military operations against the Kurds. The Turks are obsessed with the Kurdish problem, and they believe this is their opportunity. The Turks are not going to be able to eliminate the Kurdish problem. To accomplish that, they would have to devote the entire Turkish army to chasing Kurds down in Iraq, Turkey and Syria. It would take years, and it would not work. Ultimately, the only answer is a negotiated settlement supervised by objective third parties. Those third parties must be willing to act to make sure the Kurds are able to have normal lives, and the Turks remain at peace with them. They need to put in place a political arrangement that makes sense. I cannot even begin to predict what that would look like, and I will not even try. I do not have the expertise for that.

That said, it is clear to me that the Turks are never going to win its war against the Kurds. They have been fighting it for 50 years, and they have achieved nothing. The Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi Kurds are not moving anywhere. They will stay on their lands, as will their children. One day, Erdogan will be replaced, and maybe the new president will be wise enough to find a political solution. Maybe that solution will enable the Turks and the Kurds to live in peace.

Sarah Stern: As regards Iran, do you think there is an opportunity for the Iranian people to revolt against the Islamic Republic?

Steve: In 2018, I was part of a war game. Iran was involved. One of the CIA guys said that the Iranian regime will not be in power in five years. Well, five years have passed, and they are still in power. I do not put a lot of faith in this talk about an uprising in Iran. The regime controls too many of the armed forces to be easily overthrown. We need to concentrate on removing nuclear weapons from their hands. If we need a military operation to do it, I think it is worthwhile, provided it is completed quickly and effectively. The right for the Iranians to have nuclear weapons has no basis in international law. Colin Powell said that we do not seek to be the world’s policeman. That said, whenever a crime is committed, everybody comes to us. Iran’s nuclear program is a crime.

The Iranian regime seeks war with Israel. They also want to aggrandize Iran at the expense of their Muslim neighbors. So, they must be deprived of nuclear capabilities. That would stabilize the entire area and lead to peace in the region. Peace will come when no state threatens its neighbor. That is where we need to get to in the Middle East. It is a long and difficult road, and we have enormous opportunities.

Sarah Stern: On Saturday, Yoav Gallant told David Ignatius that the US and Israel are facing an urgent choice right now. Iran is vulnerable, and Israel has a window to strike within the coming weeks. Will Israel strike once the Trump administration assumes power?

Steve: I have no idea. I do not think it makes sense to speculate on what Trump will and will not do because he changes his mind constantly. As an example, he said he was going to impose 100% tariffs on the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. If he were to follow through with that, there would be a worldwide economic depression, and we would suffer more than anybody else. Trump makes off-the-cuff statements without taking their implications into account. That could lead to real disasters. Trump, and the people around him, need to talk less and think more.

Sarah Stern: One of our audience members noted that we have not yet mentioned Hezbollah. Will Lebanon and Syria be able to rearm soon and will Hezbollah send their troops to Syria?

Steve: I think that is quite unlikely. Hezbollah has been beaten. They are going to try to evade the ceasefire agreement, but the Israelis are not going to let them get away with it. For the moment, I think they are a defeated force. Iran has no way of supporting them directly. Syria was the logistical linchpin for them. They used the Syrian ports to support Hamas, and that path no longer exists. Israel has prevailed. It has shown the world that it can restore deterrence, and it is more than capable of defending its interests and borders. Israel now has an opportunity to show magnanimity and to create goodwill and peace. If this opportunity is squandered, the consequences will be very tragic.

Sarah Stern: Do you think Israel and Turkey might clash by accident? Might that result in an escalation? Could that impede the opportunity for peace?

Steve: I do not think they will clash directly. There might be a proxy war involving Israel against a Turkish proxy. I do not see Turkey leading a war against Israel. Erdogan is no friend of Israel but will lose a lot of trade and money in a war with Israel. Also, exactly how will Turkey transport its entire army to fight Israel? We need to consider the practical operational considerations. Israel is certainly not interested in attacking Turkey.

Sarah Stern: We are going to end on a positive note. It looks like the events over the past few weeks have made Turkey and Israel the big winners. Conversely, Iran and Russia are the big losers. We will have to see how the dust settles in the next few months. But thank you.

Steve: Absolutely.

Sarah Stern: Yeah. Thank you so much, Steve, really. Okay, you take care now. Bye-bye.

Steve: You too. Bye.

[END]