Syrian opposition leaders suspect that the United States will not work towards ending Syrian President Bashar Assad’s rule.

By trying to impose the Russian and Iranian terms on the Syrian opposition, the American administration’s credibility is crumbling among the Syrian opposition.

Implicit in US Secretary of State John Kerry’s most recent visit to Riyadh was an American attempt to convince the opposition leaders to participate in the current peace talks.

Some opposition leaders leaked that Kerry warned them that their failure to show up at the peace talks would lead to loss of international support.

Despite the clarification made by the American side with regard to the administration’s commitment to the Syrian opposition, it seems that only a few, if any, believe this evasive American position.

The running argument among the opposition groups is that the United States has backed away from its initial position that Assad will have no future in Syria.

Worse, it seems that Washington is desperate for any solution, and because of this, it distances itself from the Geneva I Declaration that talks about a transitional governing body with full prerogatives.

Kerry’s clarification of his comment made little difference.

The High Negotiations Committee is adamant that for the opposition to show up and attend the talks, Assad should meet several conditions, including lifting sieges on parts of the country.

It is said that the opposition sent a delegation to test the intention of the Syrian regime.

In addition to the opposition groups, key countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are dissatisfied with the demoralising American role that only plays into the hands of Iran and Russia.

As a result, the American administration lacks credibility in this part of the world.

Throughout the crisis, the American administration had yet to reconcile words with actions.

According to Robert Ford, former American ambassador to Syria, “words don’t mean much. What are the Americans doing on the ground to help put pressure on both sides to help make concessions? That’s what matters. It is just hot air from Washington to talk about the need for a political deal without actions taken to make it happen”.

The American administration should realise that its leverage in the current talks is modest due, in part, to Obama’s unwillingness to play a bigger military role in the conflict.

Journalist Seymour Hersh says in an interview that former chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff Martin Dempsey had told Obama that if Assad falls, chaos will break out.

In fact, Dempsey said that the United States should support Assad against the Islamists.

The American policy is going to backfire.

By failing to make Assad’s stepping down a central part of the new peace plan, the United States is bound to make the talks fail.

It is difficult to understand why Kerry things that this time around things will be different.

The Obama administration is so fixated on rooting out terrorism that it is willing to tolerate Assad’s survival.

But Daesh is by no means the root cause of the current Syrian crisis. It is Assad’s policies, and his survival serves as a magnet for terrorists.

When all is said and done, all stakeholders in the conflict will realise that as long as Assad remains, the war is far from over.

All opposition members agree on one thing: Assad must go.

This is exactly why the American programme for training moderates has failed. They refused to agree with the American demand that the only target be Daesh and not the Syrian regime.

Assad will clearly not negotiate his removal. He will only manoeuvre to hijack the whole transitional period to prevail again.

Therefore, the West, Turkey and Saudi Arabia should come up with a unified policy on Syria rather than play into the hands of Iran and Russia.

hassbarari@gmail.com