AMU Homeland Security Intelligence Middle East Opinion Terrorism

U.S. State Department Designates Al-Nousra Front

By William Tucker

The U.S. State Department has designated the Syrian Al-Nousra Front as a foreign terrorist organization, and as such, has applied sanctions to the group. In the time that Al-Nousra has come to international attention it has reportedly carried out 600 attacks with many occurring against civilian targets. The methodology of attacks the State Department calls out vary, but the fact that they are counting shows that the U.S. is closely watching Syria and is distinguishing between the different elements of the Syrian opposition. This is a vital distinction as the U.S. is reportedly preparing to officially recognize the Syrian opposition counsel as the “sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.” Naturally, the U.S. would be unwilling and unable to do this if the opposition contained elements with overt ties to al-Qaeda.

Any designation is not without risk; however. Many in the Syrian opposition have voiced resentment towards the U.S. for the designation, but that may be short-lived. Should the U.S. do what is expected later this week and recognize the opposition as the legitimate Syrian government, Washington will then have greater leeway is supporting the anti-Assad movement. Without the distinction between the opposition and the various jihadist movements this support would be impossible. With both the designation of Al-Noursa and the plan to recognize the opposition occurring in the same week, it is hard to view these moves as coincidental. Part of the rationale behind this is the situation that resulted in Libya following the overthrow of Gaddafi. As Washington moved to support the anti-Gaddafi movement, it provided arms to the rebels – some of which went to al-Qaeda. This has caused the Obama administration to exercise greater caution in how it supports armed, political uprisings.

For the past few weeks there has been abundant speculation that Washington, and some Western allies, have been using the threat of Assad’s chemical weapons as a pretext for conventional intervention. While that may be the case, at least in the form of political jockeying, it is hardly justification alone. It is more likely that the U.S. and Assad were engaged in escalation to lay the ground work for negotiation – as was stated here at IHS last week. Taken together, the chemical weapons discussion, the designation of Al Noursa, plans to recognize the Syrian opposition, and word that Assad is looking for asylum behind the scenes may indicate that an endgame to Assad’s rule may be in play. This, of course, will unlikely be sufficient to end the violence in Syria, but it may open the door to political negotiations that will lead to a post-Assad government. While that’s certainly a desirable outcome, the problem of sectarian representation and a continuation of violence is a subject that is unlikely to be solved any time soon.

Comments are closed.