Guest Post email from Robert Naiman

Doesn't it seem like the Administration and the Pentagon are groping towards a "plausible denial" collaboration with Assad against IS?

It seems like they are putting out the following messages:

- can't defeat IS without bombing them in Syria

- we have no plans to bomb them in Syria

- but, if someone would bomb them in Syria, it would be a good thing

- we have no plans to collaborate with Assad. 

That seems to suggest that if they could collaborate with Assad without political fingerprints, they would do it. 

You can see that a lot of the people who wanted Admin to do more to arm Syrian rebels seem pretty nervous right now. Because what Admin is doing (whether one supports it or not) goes against their narrative. It's kind of hard to imagine, for example, that the Pentagon would sign off on giving MANPADs to some "Syrian rebels" while the U.S. Navy is flying missions nearby that are already taking small arms fire from other "Syrian rebels," given that everyone acknowledges that IS is not a group with a clear boundary from other Sunni militant groups. 

Hamas is on the State Department list of officially designated terrorist groups. U.S. officials are barred from interacting with "Hamas." But, when it was U.S. policy to try to get a ceasefire in Gaza, the U.S. knew what to do. It talked to Qatar and Turkey, who have good relationships with Hamas. No-one really complained. The Israelis complained about the meeting in France, but that was mainly about the pomp and circumstance. The U.S. continued the same policy more quietly. 

The U.S. has relationships with people who have relationships with Assad, just as the U.S. has relationships with people who have relationships with Hamas. The U.S. can quietly talk to Assad anytime it wants.

===

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman@justforeignpolicy.org

(202) 448-2898 x1