Best Case, Worst Case, Scenarios For US In Syria

Obama’s Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed - NYTimes.com: "But as Mr. Kerry held meetings in London with representatives of Syrian opposition groups . . . in the hopes of reviving a proposed peace conference, the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough appeared dim. Mr. Assad’s position is stronger, and the rebellion has grown weaker, more fragmented and more dominated by Islamic radical factions."

Worst Case Scenario For The US In Syria - Business Insider: ".... Yochi Dreazen of Foreign Policy reports a diplomatic push for peace talks, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, "is about all Washington is willing to provide" — even though several senior State Department officials consider that to be more bad policy. “The only person who wants the Geneva conference to happen is the secretary,” a senior U.S. official told FP. “Who’s going to show up? Will they actually represent anyone? If not, why take the risk?” All in all, the U.S. strategy in Syria has gone as badly as Assad and his allies would hope. . . ."

Best case scenario, now that the Syrian conflict is essentially between pro-Assad Syrian government forces (supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah) and radical Islamists (Al-Qaeda, supported by Saudi Arabia?), is to have John Kerry negotiate (with and through Putin) a peace between Assad and the remaining "good rebels"--giving them a "place at the table" in Damascus, and then the US supporting eradication of the Al-Qaeda vermin within Syria.  Any stable, secular government in Damascus is better than any radical Islamist government ever would be -- better for Syria and its people, better for the region, better for Israel, and better for US interests. And if the Saudis can't get that, too bad.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole