Qatar resets its Syria policy
Doha tilts away from regime change in Syria and opens up a channel to Hezbollah.
BEIRUT — When the Free Syrian Army (FSA) first came to light more than two years ago, the main financial backers and supporters were Qatar and Turkey — both countries that were leading efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Back then, the FSA was the main umbrella most of the Syrian militants came under despite differences in thoughts, goals and doctrines. The FSA was to a certain extent the army of the regime’s main opponent, and most regime soldiers who decided to defect found in the new revolutionary force the right door to knock on.
Today, the FSA seems to be having its worst days. For months, its forces fought multiple wars with both the regime and its allies and fellow revolutionaries fighting under Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), both al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. An Al-Monitor piece written by Edward Dark explained more on the current situation of the FSA.
What are the main reasons behind the new situation? An Arab official from a country that used to be involved in the military support of the Syrian revolution revealed to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that regional reasons are behind the current situation: mainly, a unified Turkish-Qatari decision to retreat from the Syrian mud after reaching a conclusion that the political solution might be the best choice, not only for the Syrians but also for the region.
The source, an official who visited FSA-controlled areas in Syria twice during the crisis, stated that the reason behind backing the revolutionaries back then was “to topple the dictatorship of the Assads and help the majority of Syrians fulfill their demands.” The official added, “Qatar had excellent relations with Bashar al-Assad. The former emir and he were very good friends, their wives were friends; the emir tried to help find a solution in the beginning, even Al Jazeera didn’t start its anti-Assad coverage until he failed to deliver what was agreed-on before his first speech in the parliament.”
