United States Picks Between Wrong Sides in Syria

President Obama’s Administration reached a decision to, in theory, begin to send small arms directly. This is being sold as the United States will begin to send arms to the rebels in Syria. This implies that the United States was not arming the rebels before this decision. If only they were that discerning in their decision making. What this is actually announcing is that with Turkey now falling into chaos with riots in every major city across the nation, the United States has lost their go between which had allowed them to funnel arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly originating out of Libya, through Turkey while being able to pretend in the domestic news to appear to not being at all involved in the Syrian Civil War. The question the American public needs to decide is has their country chosen the right side to support. The obvious answer is they have not but the reality is that there was no correct side to choose. All that is being chosen in Syria is which terror groups will lead the Islamic world for the immediate future in any future engagements with the rest of the world. Perhaps some inspection and tracing the history behind this decision will make things more understandable.

 

Perhaps the first item would be to attempt to discern who gets the credit or blame for deciding to support the rebels in Syria. The first item we need to state is that, like or hate the choice, President Obama really did not have much of a choice in which side to support. He chose whether or not to support a side in the Syrian Civil War, but the side was chosen all the way back in 1953 and possibly even earlier. It was that year the United States backed Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 28 Mordad coup, date of the coup in the Persian calendar, with Operation Boot under the title of the TPAJAX Project during the end of the Truman Presidency, replacing the democratically elected government in Iran which was proposing to ally with the Soviet Union. Needless to point out that this alignment and access to the oil fields were the driving motivations for the United States and no altruistic reasons were present. This was purely a case of we will put our man in for the oil and to spite our adversary, the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was attempting to make amends for the previous devious actions that inspired President Carter to back the revolt which brought the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini to power establishing an Islamic religious regime which remains in power today under the second Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The miscalculation by President Carter was quickly made evident as the new leadership in Iran chose to ally with the Soviet Union soon after coming to power. Perhaps there was just a bit of schadenfreude felt by the Iranians and Soviets from these turns of events. This resulted in the current alignment with Russia aligned with the Shiites and Iran and the United States aligned with the Sunnis and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully that is sufficient historical reference.

 

The current excuse for a Civil War in Syria has in all actuality become a power struggle for preeminence of the Muslim world between its two main groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Alawite Ruler of Syria, President Bashir al-Assad, is backed predominantly by Iran which has provided him with troops from the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Hezbollah terrorist troops from Lebanon, another satellite of the Iranians. These are the Shiite Islamic forces in Syria. The rebels originally consisted of one side representing secular interest and the other representing Islamist interests. The secular rebel forces have basically been all but removed from the conflict and have virtually no hope of prevailing in the conflict. That leaves the Islamist forces which consist of two camps, those with the Jabhat al-Nusra Front which has declared their alliance with Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda and those supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. The challenge in this is to find which side consists of the good sides, or at least the less bad side. President Bashir al-Assad has utilized intimidation, torture, rape, and other equally abhorrent instruments of oppression to retain his hold on power and his two supporting groups are equally renowned for cruelty and ends justify the means reasoning. This does not necessarily make the rebels any more benign. There is not much that needs to be said about al-Qaeda beyond World Trade Center terror strike and the horrors of a fateful day in September 2001 and their compatriots in the conflict, the Muslim Brotherhood, are not the choir boys who have, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “…an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” In truth they are exactly the opposite but somehow possibly still preferable to al-Qaeda as long as one ignores such aligned subgroups such as Hamas. So, this pretty much defines the adversaries from which President Obama has now presumably chosen one side to support. Perhaps he simply chose the side which was not supported by the Russians, but one might hope that such a decision was made with deeper concerns that just that.

 

So, President Obama has chosen to back the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in their attempt to be the preeminent guiding force in Islam while the Russians are supporting the Iranian sponsored terrorist out of Lebanon, oppressive dictator of Syria and the terror specialists out of Iran, the IRGC. The problem is deciding which side is populated with people who deserve the support of the nation which claims to be the bastion of freedom and human rights in the world. Truthfully, the reasoning behind President Obama backing the rebels is more realistically stated as backing Saudi Arabian and Egyptian interests and opposing Iranian interests, not to mention opposing Russian attempts to rise to power over the Middle East. As mentioned before, the sides were chosen far before the Civil War broke out in Syria and goes back to two fateful choices in Iran, the 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power to prevent Soviet Union preeminence in Iran and the 1979 coup that placed the Ayatollahs into power who then chose to join the Soviet Union block of nations despite the attempts by President Carter to make amends for the perfidy under the administration of President Truman. Now all that remain is to have one side prove out victorious and gain, for the moment, the leadership of the Muslim world. Will it be the Shiites with their Russian allies or the Sunni with their American allies? Why does it matter? That is the problematic part of the equation. Which side of this conflict would present the higher likelihood to bring peace to the Middle East? The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has benefitted greatly from the Arab Winter which was initially represented as the rise of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world but really has simply changed the prearranged winners in every election from some nationalist dictator to some Islamist dictatorial party such as the Peace and Justice Party in Egypt which is nothing more than the Muslim Brotherhood political influence. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has risen to power across Northern Africa in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya all with backing and praise from the United States. Those changes in leadership were of no consequence to the power structures as the dictators were Sunnis as are the Islamists who have replaced them. Syria is the first place where the Sunni and Shiite both have a serious shot at controlling Syria. Syria is vitally important to Iran as it represents a critical nation in the Shiite Crescent which currently exists starting in Iran and the Persian Gulf and proceeding through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia has the most interest in neutering of Iran and breaking their control through the heart of the Middle East would be an impressive first step. If, on the other hand, the Shiites prevail and retain their control over Syria, the potential for the Shiites to continue their slow spread across the Middle East and, more importantly, the greater oil fields in the center of the Middle East, Iran will continue to spread its strangling tentacles across the Muslim world. Iran had made an attempt at expanding during the Arab Winter revolution in Bahrain in direct opposition to the Bahraini Monarchy, Saudi Arabia. The Shiites were repulsed by heavy Saudi Arabian troops which were sent across the causeway which connects Saudi Arabia with the island nation of Bahrain. This was the second part of the Sunni-Shiite contest for preeminence in the Middle East after the Shiite taking control over Iraq after the United States war to remove Saddam Hussein. Syria will be the deciding battle. Should the Shiites and Iran prove successful the spread of the Iranian influence is likely to continue while should the Sunnis and the Saudi Arabian-Egyptian alliance will present a more stable future.

 

So, what does this mean we should look for in the future that might signal a change in the status quo? Should the Sunni win out in Syria there will be relative quiet, is the Middle East ever really completely tranquil, and the first sign of trouble coming would be the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian monarchy by either the Wahhabi or the Muslim Brotherhood. This would soon result in the final contest to begin for who will lead the Muslim forces in any eventual contest. Should the Shiites prove victorious in Syria their next target appears to be Turkey followed by Jordan. After Turkey and Jordan, choosing their next target will be problematic as their preference would appear to be Saudi Arabia and their satellite nations they provide protection for such as Bahrain, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar and Omar or Egypt in order to begin a march across Northern Africa. Iran is being patient with their slow and inexorable march to gain the preeminent position at the head of the Muslim world. But the first stop of this creeping revolution is in Syria. The worst result that could result in Syria would be actual Russian or American troops intervening in the Syrian Civil War. Should either of these nations transit from arming their chosen side to actual boots on the ground or even fighters in the skies, the other will be obliged to also enter the war. Where that leads is unimaginable and something to be avoided at all costs. The critical point of no return will come when one side appears poised to prevail and defeat the other side and the United States or Russia will have to either accept defeat of their surrogate or intervene. Intervention should be avoided but I seriously doubt that either President Obama or President Putin is capable of accepting defeat. That means that the only end to Syria may be decided across the entire planet and that should scare any reasonable person greatly. This does not bode to end well or even to end any other way than a devastating conflagration.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Israel Need Not Sacrifice to Entice Palestinians to Talk Peace

Once again a United States President has tasked his Secretary of State with forging that ever elusive Arab-Israeli Peace. Let’s be honest, there is no difference between the so-called Palestinian Arabs and the Arabs living in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Tunisia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or any other Arab community. If we were dealing honestly we would not allow the recent use of the term Naqba to refer solely to the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 because it has an earlier reference from the promise to make a Jewish State through the founding after World War I of the French and British Mandate. This too was called the Great Naqba but not because of the intent to make a Jewish State in the future, that would come later. There was a far more immediate catastrophe deserving of the title Great Naqba. With the formation of the French Mandate over the lands which would become Syria and Lebanon minus the Golan Heights and mountains surrounding Mount Herman and the British Mandate over the lands which would become Jordan, Israel, Gaza, Judea, Samaria (West Bank), Golan Heights, and the mountains surrounding Mount Herman, it split the areas which under Ottoman rule were called Greater Syria. The French Mandate took the areas referred to as Syria and the British Mandate took the areas referred to as Southern Syria. The French referred to their Mandate Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, as Syrian Arabs which met with their approval. The British referred to their Mandate Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, as Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish residents simply as Palestinians. It was the splitting off the British Mandate from central Syria placing a boundary between their Arab populations and Damascus which was a pilgrimage destination for the Arabs in these areas. They also rejected being called Palestinians and demanded to retain the label as being Syrians. Later during World War II the British formed a corps fighting in North Africa and the Middle East named the Palestinian Brigade which was made up almost entirely of Jews from the lands surrounding Jerusalem, Hevron, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Akko, Jericho, Tiberius and the other towns and cities from the Jordan River valley to the Mediterranean Sea. The largest Arab Units formed during World War II served the Nazis in the Balkans and were commanded by the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el Husseini. There were also Arab revolts during World War II by Iraqis who had intended to join allying themselves with Germany but were eventually retaken by the British. Iran also allied with the German Nazis and were so enamored with the idea of the Aryan Master Race they changed the name of their country from Persia to Iran, which means Aryan.

 

Between World War I and through the period of World War II there were repeated uprisings by the Arabs of the British Mandate against the Jews. One of the particularly serious episodes spread through Hevron and Jerusalem with much of the Jewish areas in Hevron being burned down or otherwise damaged. To avoid any more difficulties for the British troops stationed in the Mandate areas the British in their infinite wisdom forced all the Jews out from Hevron and resettled them largely in Jerusalem. Many of these Jews who were driven from Hevron have had their descendants attempt to return to Hevron and reclaim their lands and homes after the Six Day War and the return of Hevron to Jewish control. In a totally futile attempt to placate the Arabs and prevent further uprisings the British made an offer to the Zionists. They promised if the Zionists would allow the lands east of the Jordan River to be used to make a state for the Palestinian Arabs population then the British promised that all of the lands west of the Jordan River would remain undivided and be used for the Jewish State. The Zionists deciding that it was best to take the guarantee of the lands west of the Jordan River as a guaranteed border for their state would be better than attempting to form a state in the entire of the Mandate lands. They also realized that there were virtually no Jews residing east of the Jordan River anyways and the few who lived on the east bank could be resettled readily on the west bank and thus Transjordan was formed and is today known as Jordan. That was the first sacrifice which relinquished all claims to 78% of the British Mandate for a guarantee that they would receive the remaining 22% of the lands and they would be indivisible in perpetuity.

 

During the debates in the United Nations over the founding of the Jewish State the Zionists agreed to sharing what had been guaranteed indivisible by the major powers and organizations of the world even if the vast majority of the lands they would receive was the Negev Desert and the majority of arable lands were to be made into a second Arab state out of the British Mandate. The Arabs refused to accept the division because they could not agree to allow any Jewish state whatsoever. Despite the sacrifice at the point of declaring the state of Israel so as to live in peace with their Arab neighbors, Israel was forced to defend herself against the combined armies from six Arab countries and numerous assorted militias at the dawn of the Jewish nations first day of existence. When the fighting ended the Israelis once again accepted the boundaries which were still less than the full amount promised twenty years earlier at the founding of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Arab League refused to accept the boundaries and insisted that the lines dividing the warring armies at the hour the truce was established be merely a set of Armistice Lines and never ever be utilized to determine a border in the future.

 

In early June of 1967 Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran for all shipping to or from the Israeli southern port of Eilat which was a casus belli under International Treaty and Laws and with their ally Syria massed troops on Israel’s northern and southern borders. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser threatened a war of genocide to drive the Jews into the sea repeating the threat for days. Israel responded to the existential threat and attacked Egyptian airfields. An immediate thrust by both Syrian and Egyptian armies was met and repulsed and though the Israeli Defense Force was advancing on both fronts the Arab news reports were claiming a great victory was in progress. Jordanian King Hussein declared war on Israel opening a third front despite Israeli pleading that the Jordanian leader reconsider informing Hussein that the reports of Egyptian and Syrian forces closing on Tel Aviv were false. King Hussein believed the Egyptian and Syrian reports figuring that the Israelis were attempting to deceive him and deny him a share of the glory and spoils of war. By the end of the Six Day War Israel was in control of the entire Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Israel made peace with Egypt in March of 1979 sacrificing the entire Sinai Peninsula and offering the return of Gaza which Egypt refused thus leaving Gaza under Israeli control. The return of the Sinai Peninsula was a significant sacrifice for peace made by Israel. Israel and Jordan also made peace in October 1994 and Israel offered to return the areas gained from Jordan during the Six Day War which Jordan refused thus leaving Judea and Samaria under Israeli control. Syria and Israel have yet to make peace and an armistice enforced by the United Nations still exists.

 

Even when discussing the Israeli Palestinian peace negotiation the Israelis have done the vast majority of sacrificing. Israel removed every single Israeli from all of Gaza along with all Israeli Defense Force troops and bases surrendering complete control to the Palestinian Authority. Those who claim Israel never released control over Gaza because of the naval blockade claiming that Gaza has never been totally free of Israeli influence are misrepresenting the facts. Israel withdrew in August 2005 and there was no blockade or any other Israeli influence imposed after the disengagement. Israel had no naval blockade and had even surrendered their monitoring to the European Union of the Philadelphia Corridor which is the boundary between the Sinai and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Currently the Egyptians are responsible for monitoring the Philadelphia Corridor which is circumvented quite adequately through the existence of an extensive tunnel smuggling system. The Israeli Naval blockade was not implemented until after Hamas took control of Gaza after winning the Palestinian elections in 2006. The Israeli blockade has been ruled legal and justified by the United Nations and is recognized as lawful under the auspices of International Laws. A further sacrifice by Israel was the implementation of the Oslo Accords which allowed the establishment of self-rule for the majority of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has total economic, security, and civil autonomy over Area A within the areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and economic and civil autonomy with shared security control over Area B. Only Area C is under Israeli civil, economic and security control which still allows those Palestinians who reside there to remain in their homes and farming their land and tending their flocks. Area A which is under complete Palestinian Control there are no Jews permitted to tread within its boundaries without Palestinian Authority permission. Somehow this situation has been distorted to represent total Israeli oppression of the Palestinians residing anywhere in Judea and Samaria. There is also a claim that the Israelis do not permit Palestinians to have any basic rights in the Area under Israeli control. This deceit is finally being corrected as politicians who have accepted invitations to inspect the reality in Area C have revealed the truth that Palestinians are working side by side with Israelis in the industrial parks and attending Ariel University right along with Israeli Jews and the two peoples are living side by side in peace and prospering.

 

The last example of Israeli sacrifice is one that goes beyond any of the sacrifices depicted in this article. The Israelis allowed for the Muslim Waqf to continue to manage and take charge of affairs for the Temple Mount. In return for this privilege the Waqf has overseen the destruction of millenniums of artifacts with heavy construction equipment and severe restriction placed on Jews when they are allowed to visit the Temple Mount, the holiest place on Earth for Jews. The most unkind restriction is not being allowed to pray while visiting the Temple Mount. Even appearing to pray is sufficient provocation for the Waqf officials to ban a Jew from being permitted entrance on the Temple Mount. The Waqf passed an edict defining all of the Temple Mount to be part of an all-inclusive Mosque complex defined to be an integral part of the al-Aksa Mosque. One may wonder if this definition includes the Christian Churches and other structures as well as the ancient Synagogue’s remains at the periphery of the Temple Mount which was destroyed by the Crusaders in 1099 as Jerusalem was being cleansed of Muslims and Jews.  Still, not simply exercising control over the Temple Mount and allowing for continued Islamic jurisdiction over the entirety of these holy grounds is very probably the most significant sacrifice made by Israel, especially as this sacrifice was made in the name of Jews everywhere.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Syrian Desert Calling United States

Well, as anticipated United States President Obama has acknowledged the use of chemical weapons by the forces loyal to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Responding to the mounting avalanche of evidence presented by the British, French and Israelis, President Obama has declared there will be additional support provided the rebels in their efforts to dethrone al-Assad. Specifics were obvious in their absence but most believe that at a minimum the Americans will be supplying the rebels with arms including such items as small arms, ammunition, grenade launchers, and possibly also anti-tank rockets and even anti-aircraft missiles likely in the form of MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense System). It is thus far unclear whether or not the rebels will also receive active allied air-support such as a No Fly Zone which would include destroying al-Assad’s air assets both on the ground and in the air while bombing the airports and runways making them unserviceable. President Obama has made it clear that he does not intend to place American troops on the ground in Syria. So, are we supposed to be all happy and throw down with al-Assad and up with the rebels’ parties? I think not and the reasons why will follow. 

 

Supporting the rebels very early on in the Civil War would have been something which at least would have had a slim glimmer of hope of placing better governance in Syria as at least a sizeable plurality of the rebel forces at that time were supportive of secular rule. As the Civil War has progressed there have been large numbers of casualties on all sides. This meant that the numbers in each faction have taken a severe toll. This has been ameliorated by al-Assad by incorporating both Hezballah irregular forces and IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) troops from Iran. The Islamist rebel forces have been reinforced by a sizeable influx of Sunni Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and additional Mujahedeen from numerous other predominantly Sunni terrorist groups from numerous countries and organizations. The secular rebel forces have not had the luxury of a plentiful supply of new recruits and therefore seen their numbers impacted heavily by the fighting. This has led to the current situation where the two main groups vying for future control of Syria are the Sunni Islamists of Jabhat al Nusra who consist largely of al-Qaeda supporters against the Shiite Islamists who support either Bashir al-Assad and, should he be killed, the Ayatollahs of Iran. Even should the rebel forces prevail and defeat the Iranian Shiite forces, the fighting would not be finished. There would be a secondary struggle for full control between the secular rebel forces and the Sunni Islamist rebel forces. Such a fight promises to be extremely brief as the Islamists have near unlimited reinforcements resupplying their ranks while the secular rebels have no such pool of fighters from which to resupply their units suffering casualties. This has led to a weakened secular force while the Islamist forces remain relatively robust.

 

Now that President Obama has finally completed his many months of dithering, setting a Red Line and then sliding it one way then the other and is now prepared to aid the rebel forces, there is a serious consequence to his delaying the decision to send aid for over two years. It is a fact that the makeup of the rebel has drastically been shifted away from any possibility for a secular representative governance to result once al-Assad and Iran have been defeated, if that is even possible without placing United States and/or NATO forces on the ground. Judging from the manner that President Obama has committed to removing almost completely from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard for any consequences is a strong indicator, if not proof, that there will be no direct intervention. In the support of being candid and honest, the lack of the possibility for actual United States or NATO troops entering the Civil War in Syria is fortunate as that will prevent the intervention by the Russians who have warned there would be severe ramifications for any intervention by the West. The fact that the United States will be arming the rebels only serves to prolong the conflict as it will serve as a balance for the Russian weapons supplied to al-Assad and by implication to Hezballah and the IRGC. We can expect the Russians to at least consider moving up the delivery dates for the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which they have claimed would not be delivered until early 2014.

 

The losers due to this decision by President Obama are the Syrian people. Those who have fled to neighboring countries will be forced to remain for a far more prolonged time in the refugee camps. The neighboring countries can expect even more refugees to be fleeing the Civil War as the battles are likely to increase in intensity making life within Syria even more impossible. As mentioned earlier in the article, the length of the conflict could easily be extended for an indeterminable time as now both sides have outside logistical support from major weapons and other necessities virtually without end. The other losers will be the secular rebel forces as their numbers will continue to decrease which will soon make their influence inconsequential which will leave only the Shiite-Sunni Islamists battling for control of what has become the pivot point in their historical battle for preeminence over Islam. This will be proven by history as one more time where President Obama arrived at a decision just in time for it to be too little too late, mostly too late. It has become evident that President Obama has no taste for foreign policy and that evident revulsion only grows if there is any potential requirement for him to commit to an action and gets even worse if the action is of a military nature. The most glaring and by far most consequential evidence of President Obama’s inability to act definitively in the face of a crisis which potentially requires a military response was the debacle of Benghazi and the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and former navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

 

Beyond the Cusp