The United States (US) has become a part of the problem in Syria with the endless excuses she keeps coming up with. We will come one more step closer to the solution not when the US supports, but when she stops being a barrier to the Syrian Opposition.

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, the international support that somehow could not be given to the opposition fighters has been a topic of debate as much as the support that Iran and Russia have given to the Baath regime. In the meantime, the United States made appearances at international meetings and acted with the rhetoric “We are behind you!”, but intentionally avoided providing aids just enough for the Opposition to change the game. The hope that the support remarks the US made for months could turn into concrete steps, instead turned into disappointment right at the beginning of the US President Barack Obama’s second term in office; the rhetorical support has also started to diminish visibly, let alone its transformation into concrete steps. Putting aside the military aid, the US flunked on account of humanitarian aids, too.

DEMANDS OF THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION

At the dawn of the crisis, The Oppositions’ demands varied and the US gave a red light to the aid based on the demand most unlikely to be met.. Some of the opponents asked for international support, some for external military intervention, and some for arms support. The US, on the other hand, concentrated more on the third demand than the first two, and issued a statement: “Military intervention is not on the table.” In fact, crossing out the military intervention option was a favor to the Syrians that perhaps the US had not intented. Although the US acted in the direction of its own interests, it happened not to pull Syrians into an Iraq- like disaster.

The US brought up pre-requisites for the demand of international support. Although a big part of them were met, the expected support was not provided for some reasons. The meeting of conditions, such as opposition groups’ power to represent the hinterland in Syria, representation of minorities, and a post-Assad projection etc., were not satisfactory enough for US to exert efforts, similar to what she did on the issue of Iranian nuclear crisis, and to convince Russia at the United Nations Security Council.

With the unmet first two demands in hand, the Syrian oppositions’ demand for arms with the hope of taking matters into their own hand was rejected by the US due to her concern as to “where the weapons might end up” Right at this point, the US categorized opposition military groups into two: the moderates gathered around the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and the “Salafi-Jihadist terrorists” around the Al-Nusra Front. However, FSA’s being in the moderate camp was not enough for US to give an affirmative answer to the arms demand of the Syrian opposition.

WHY IS THE US UNWILLING?

Of the US not fulfilling demands voiced by the Syrian opposition fighters is based on two main reasons, one of which being the US priorities and the other being the nature of the Syrian revolution. US officials many times issued statements from which one can deduce that chemical weapons would have to be used in the theater in order for the US to play an active role in the Syrian crisis. In the interview US President Barack Obama gave to the New Republic in late January, what laid bare between the lines while he compared deaths in Syria with deaths in Congo was that the US has a list of priorities, and Syria is not at top of this list.

On the other side, the point that the Syrian revolution has evolved into also makes US unwilling about aids. Lately, the US seems pre-occupied with the Al Nusra Front and other Islamic fronts rather than the humanitarian drama continuing to unfold in Syria. The US uses Islamic fronts as an “obstacle” to the efforts of the opposition, by overlooking the fact that alternatives to the FSA have gained