Outcome of Syrian war could hinge on battles around Aleppo

The ongoing battles around Aleppo could decide whether the Syrian war is brought to an end or prolonged, risking further spillover into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Aware that there can be no military solution to the Aleppo problem, the Syrian government, backed by Russia and Iran, is determined to seal off insurgent-held quarters and maintain control of access to these districts.

The insurgents, led by renamed al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and radical fundamentalist Ahrar al-Sham, are equally determined to regain freedom of movement in order to maintain their presence in northern Syria.

The 250,000-300,000 civilians said to be in the eastern quarters are trapped between two stubborn, brutal forces. Stockpiles of food and medical supplies could run out within two to three weeks. This could force increasing numbers of civilians to follow the example of those in the besieged Iraqi city of Falluja and exit by multiple humanitarian corridors opened by Russia last week.

So far, only 324 civilians and 82 fighters have left, surrendered their weapons, and claimed amnesty, Russian sources say.

Mass flight would be the worst option for the US, its western allies and the insurgents' regional sponsors, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. They seek to maintain the status quo in divided Aleppo to deny Syrian government forces victory and ensure the city's fate is decided in negotiations between the government and the Riyadh-backed expatriate opposition High Negotiations Committee.

Ceasefires

The other option is for

Damascus

and Moscow to agree to 48-hour ceasefires demanded by the UN and to open humanitarian corridors into eastern Aleppo like those provided for other besieged towns. This would permit the UN and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to deliver sufficient supplies to sustain the population. Aid convoys could be searched to prevent weapons and munitions from entering eastern Aleppo.

While this would be better for the opposition and its supporters, this option would leave the government and Russia in charge.

Either option would give Damascus leverage in talks proposed for the end of August by UN envoy Staffan di Mistura. While the US and Russia have held protracted talks over an agreement to co-ordinate the air war against Islamic State and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, this has not been finalised due to disagreements on political issues.

Washington demands an end to offensives against insurgents at a time when the Syrian army, operating under Russian air cover, is regaining territory, and it insists that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad must stand down under any political deal. Moscow and Damascus reject these demands.

Arming insurgents

Moscow is sticking to its longstanding policy of supporting Assad and providing him with the military muscle to stay on and gain territory. Washington vacillates between calling for his removal ahead of a “transition” between the current regime and the next and suggesting he could stay on through the transition. Washington’s Arab allies argue he must go as the price for an end to hostilities and are arming insurgents to keep the war going.

Secretary of state John Kerry has been pushing hard for co-ordination with Russia and for a third round of talks in Geneva, perhaps with the objective of securing a major triumph for Barack Obama before his presidential term finishes in January. Obama and Kerry would certainly prefer a legacy of ending the Syrian war to handing it over to a successor administration.

Washington’s regional allies are likely to favour prolonging the conflict whatever the cost to Syria and its people in the expectation that a new administration would commit arms and troops to the insurgent side and overthrow Assad.