Syria's Consequences for Blowing Tomorrow's U.N. Deadline

This article is from the archive of our partner .

All eyes will be on Syria tomorrow as the country promises to "cease all military fighting throughout Syrian territory as of 6 a.m." If the pledge is broken, it will be mean the collapse of the United Nations peace plan brokered by special envoy Kofi Annan. It will also mean the peace process was exploited by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to continue killing rebels and civilians. But what are the actual consequences of blowing the U.N. deadline? We asked the Brookings Institution's Daniel Byman, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Here's what a blown deadline can mean:

Increased American involvement First off, the authorization for Annan's U.N. mission in Syria doesn't talk about specific consequences if Syria doesn't cooperate but that doesn't mean there won't be indirect geopolitical ramifications. One of these is the U.S. playing a greater roll in supporting the Syrian rebels. "We're almost backing into this," he said. "Initially it was diplomacy, then a concerted diplomatic campaign and now humanitarian aid. Each step is an escalation." Already, the U.S. has given the rebels $25 million in humanitarian support, satellite communications equipment and night-vision goggles. "The next step is military aid," said Byman. "You can see the progression moving here." The Los Angeles Times has indicated that the implementation of a no-fly zone or "pinpoint airstrikes on Syrian artillery" are both possibilites.

The 'Shame Game' on Russia and China heats up After China and Russia vetoed a U.N. resolution to end the violence in Syria in February, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said the U.S. was "disgusted" by the two countries. If Syria torpedoes the diplomatic route, you can bet the calls for outrage will ramp up on its closest allies. "The American approach for increasing pressure is to prove that alternative situations haven't worked," said Byman. "To get Russia and China on board, you show that that none of the alternatives are working." It's not clear if Syria's allies can be swayed by diplomatic pressure but Byman noted that at least Russia and China haven't said "they don't care" if the peace plan succeeds or fails. "They're not saying that at least."

Arab countries openly start arming the rebels Arab states like Saudi Arabia have been the most vocal in calling for the international community to directly arm Syrian rebels. Some reports have indicated that the Saudis are already attempting to funnel weapons in, though the country has denied such allegations. Byman said he's seen some unconfirmed indications that Arab states are already supplying arms to Syrian rebels and that a blown deadline could justify more arms shipments. "It could get bigger," he said.

Of course to avoid all this, Assad has two options: Comply with the ceasefire or offer some sort of concession that doesn't satisfy the peace plan but doesn't completely kill it. Either way, the ball's in Assad's court.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

Richard Ben-Veniste on the uncanny parallels between the scandal he investigated and the controversy over the White House’s alleged links to Russia

Watching the national controversy over the White House and Russia unfold, I’m reminded of Karl Marx’s oft-quoted observation: “History repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce.” I was a close witness to the national tragedy that was Richard Nixon’s self-inflicted downfall as president, and I’ve recently contemplated whether a repeat of his “Saturday Night Massacre” may already be in the offing. Given how that incident doomed one president, Trump would do well to resist repeating his predecessor’s mistakes—and avoid his presidency’s descent into a quasi-Watergate parody.

The massacre began when Nixon gave the order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, a desperate effort to prevent him from hearing tape-recorded evidence that proved the White House’s involvement in a conspiracy to obstruct the investigation of a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters. Nixon’s misuse of executive power backfired, immediately costing him two highly respected members of his administration: Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus, who both resigned rather than follow Nixon’s directive. Third in command at the Justice Department was Solicitor General Robert Bork, who agreed to do the dirty deed and fired Cox.