10-28-2015, 04:30 PM
Your inference translator might be right on target, Tiki.
Another possibility in my mind is that Assad and Putin would genuinely like to help the coalition forces and the Syrian rebels do major damage to ISIS -- "one down, one to go" kind of strategy.
Once ISIS is impotent, then it's on to handling the rebels, at which point Assad and allies will try to convince the coalition forces that immediate "free elections" is the most reasonable (and democratic) next step for the country (and they might be right).
But, I don't think there is any organized rebel-led group that's qualified to take control and I don't believe Assad and Putin (and probably not Iran) would easily agree to an election where Assad isn't a candidate anyway.
If Assad was allowed to run and he won fair and square with international oversight, would the rebels give up their fight to oust him again? I doubt it, based on what they've invested for more than 4 years now.
So, maybe Assad's allies would ultimately agree to elections without Assad but with a variety of puppet candidates, in order to minimize the risk of ongoing war. Or, Russia would suggest a temporary occupation in order to stabilize the country.
I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud. It's a mess. Sometimes I agree with those in the U.S. who say, "let Russia take the burden this time; we've got our hands full with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya." But, I don't think that's where any of the 2016 Presidential candidates is heading (except possibly Sanders and Paul).
Another possibility in my mind is that Assad and Putin would genuinely like to help the coalition forces and the Syrian rebels do major damage to ISIS -- "one down, one to go" kind of strategy.
Once ISIS is impotent, then it's on to handling the rebels, at which point Assad and allies will try to convince the coalition forces that immediate "free elections" is the most reasonable (and democratic) next step for the country (and they might be right).
But, I don't think there is any organized rebel-led group that's qualified to take control and I don't believe Assad and Putin (and probably not Iran) would easily agree to an election where Assad isn't a candidate anyway.
If Assad was allowed to run and he won fair and square with international oversight, would the rebels give up their fight to oust him again? I doubt it, based on what they've invested for more than 4 years now.
So, maybe Assad's allies would ultimately agree to elections without Assad but with a variety of puppet candidates, in order to minimize the risk of ongoing war. Or, Russia would suggest a temporary occupation in order to stabilize the country.
I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud. It's a mess. Sometimes I agree with those in the U.S. who say, "let Russia take the burden this time; we've got our hands full with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya." But, I don't think that's where any of the 2016 Presidential candidates is heading (except possibly Sanders and Paul).