Rapid change has put Britain in a political dilemma

The pace of the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria is giving us real insight into foreign policy dilemmas.

In the blink of an eye the solid turns into liquid, and a whole series of strange questions arise.

A dictator flees, his regime collapses and Foreign Secretary David Lammy addresses the Commons, telling MPs that Assad is a “monster”, a “butcher”, a “drug dealer” and a “rat”.

But things are moving forward rapidly.

Asked whether Britain would suspend asylum applications from Syria, Lammy indicated he did not know.

He did not know that his Cabinet colleague, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, was saying at the same time that he was being suspended.

By September, the fifth largest number of asylum claims by nationality came from Syrians and almost every claim – 99% – was approved.

But the government is now blocking applications from France, Germany and others.

Why?

The main reason most people applying for asylum from Syria were doing so was because they were fleeing the Assad regime, he said.

That system is now gone and so, apparently, the center case is being made in most applications.

The second reason, which has been described as much less significant in numerical terms, but still a potential cause for concern on security grounds, is that Syrians associated with the failed regime are now trying to claim asylum.

People in the government are now also considering the possibility that some Syrians in Britain may now want to return to their home country.

And what about who – and who – is next in Syria?

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few days about Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham or HTS.

The British government declares them a banned terrorist organization.

The United States and the European Union attach their own labels that amount to roughly the same thing.

Being banned means that it is a criminal offense for people to promote, support, or become members of the organization.

And in practical terms this means that the government cannot maintain traditional diplomatic relations with it.

It’s one thing when it’s an organization with which it wants nothing to do, and quite another when it eventually becomes the recognized government of a country.

So how soon can HTS be banned?

Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, one of the most senior figures in the government, told the BBC there could be a “relatively quick decision” on whether to talk to HTS.

But fast forward a few hours and both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were insisting on a very slow pace, saying – in line with the White House message – that HTS would be judged on its actions, the implications of which would take time. Can and will not be hasty.

Lammy said it was right to be “vigilant.”

Sir Keir Starmer said, “No decision is pending.”

So much has changed so rapidly in Syria, with many implications and difficult decisions to be made – and there is more to come.