Who Gets to Pick the Winner in Syria?

As the civil war continues to murder innocents with the latest estimate approaching one-hundred-thousand murdered civilians and over one and a half million refugees fled to neighboring Turkey and Jordan there is a group of nations attempting to influence who wins. The problem is that many of these outsiders are backing different forces which serve to extend the fighting possibly endlessly producing no winners, just increasing casualties in an endless procession. First we need to define the disparate groups and then find who is backing whom. The supposed home team definition would likely have to go the current President for life Bashir al-Assad and the Alawite tribe from which he comes. There are two sets that are considered rebel forces which sometimes cooperate and at other periods work either independently or actually impede each other. One rebel group consists mostly of members from the Muslim Brotherhood while the other consists of forces aligned with Jabhat al-Nusra which is the al-Qaeda terror group. Then there are two other groups which currently support Syrian President Bashir Assad but actually represent the Iranian interests and are likely to continue to engage in the war even after Assad collapses or is killed. These two groups are Hezballah, the terrorist group whose political wing currently leads the ruling coalition in Lebanon, and the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a group of fighters which make up a second military force roughly equivalent in size, equipment, training and capabilities to the Iranian Armed Forces used mostly to assist in foreign interventions, terrorist training internationally and domestically as required, and any other clandestine operations which may be assigned by the leadership of Iran. So, generally speaking there exist five groups vying to take control over all of Syria.

 

Oddly enough getting the teams all figured out who are operating within Syria is difficult enough, but trying to untangle the external interests and influences is far more complicated especially when dissecting their various motives. Let us first address the most up front, above board and obvious of the external influences. The most obvious is Turkey who is steadily supplying arms to both rebel forces for the most selfish of reasons, assuring their continued preeminence as the only stable rout for oil and gas pipelines. There is a further reason driving Turkey in providing arms for the rebel groups which is that there is no love lost between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Syria President Bashir Assad as both view themselves as a leader in some future Muslim Caliphate, Assad as leader of the Arab nations in an Iranian Caliphate and Erdogan as leader of a reborn Ottoman Caliphate. Add to this that as long as there exists some sustained level of violence which would discourage construction of new oil and gas routes through Syria then Turkey, with its already existent pipelines, would remain the uncontested and sole route of pipelines for oil and gas from the Arabian Peninsula and related reserves.

 

Another supplier of arms to one of the rebel forces is Saudi Arabia who is backing the Muslim Brotherhood aligned rebels. The Saudi interest is the opposite of Turkey as the Saudis would very much like to have an additional player supplying pipelines to the Mediterranean Sea and into Europe as competition would result in lower prices for them in transporting their oil and gas. Furthermore, the Saudis are rivals of the Iranians and thus would love to see Bashir Assad removed from ruling Syria thus breaking the Iranian crescent in which Syria is a vital link connecting Iran and Iraq through to Lebanon and the ports of the Mediterranean Sea. The Saudi Arabians are supported by the rest of the members of the GCC, Gulf Cooperation Council; whose members are of far less military capabilities thus the Saudis make all the decisions. The Saudis are also counting on support by the United States but they may run into some surprises in that relationship which we will cover later.

 

Then there are those exterior forces supporting the Syrian military and Syrian President Bashir Assad and at the same time defending the Iranian interests. These two groups are the IRGC and the Hezballah terror group. Should Bashir Assad fall either by fearing being taken by the rebel groups who would likely give him treatment similar to that used to dispatch Libyan Dictator Muammar Gaddafi, a rather unpleasant death, these two groups would simply continue the fight in support of their true masters, the Iranians. To either of these forces the continuance of Bashir Assad as the President of Syria is simply something that makes their presence in the fight more readily explainable. Remove Assad and their real motivations are revealed and Iran would be uncovered as the true force behind Assad remaining in power. Another nation supporting Bashir Assad, even if in a somewhat limited manner, is Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Russia has thus far limited their support to continuing to fill all past weapons orders they have agreed to with Syria and are preventing any overt support for the rebels such as interventions or establishment of a no-fly zone by the United States or NATO. The most disturbing participation by the Russians is their intent to follow through with the sale and supply of their S-300 Anti-Aircraft Missile Systems which would make any Israeli strikes to prevent chemical weapons or other game-changing weapons from being transferred to the Hezballah forces in Lebanon for use against Israel in the future more hazardous. There is one potential future situation which would prove most intriguing, if President Assad should be killed or otherwise removed from the situation, would Russia continue their support giving the future weapons shipments to the IRGC and Hezballah or would their interest in the situation in Syria be terminated.

 

And then there is the most troubling foreign influence, and that is the United States and President Obama. The obvious interpretation of the United States interests is that they are aligned with Saudi Arabia and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and against the entirety of other forces. This façade also has another participant, Turkey, who also appears to work with the Saudis while also passing weapons to their intended recipient without question. Some of these weapons are intended for Jabhat al-Nusra as they are supplied from the al-Qaeda forces and influences who were involved in Libya. There have been rumors that the truth behind the catastrophe in Benghazi may have been related to attempts to prevent powerful and game-changing weapons, possibly stinger missiles, from being sent from Libya to undesirable recipients. Even if such a proposition were true, that is one truth that will never see the light of day. As is said, some secrets are secrets for a very good reason and as such must remain nothing more than a rumor, a whisper in the tempest and nothing more.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

How Can One Compromise with Those Holding Such Positions?

One of the leading representatives with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, Jibril Rajoub, was giving an interview on Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen TV when he allowed the truth to leak out. Mr. Rajoub when queried as to whether the Palestinian would ever plan to return to negotiations with the Israelis replied that negotiations would be considered only if the Palestinian Authority’s preconditions are met. It was in further explaining what he viewed as the Palestinian Authority’s desire in place of negotiations that he stated, “Listen. We as yet don’t have a nuke, but I swear that if we had a nuke, we’d have used it this very morning.” Rajoub is the Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and chairman of the Palestinian Authority Olympic Committee. This should make for some serious doubts as to the sincerity of any position including compromise with the Israelis the Palestinian leadership express in interviews given to western media outlets. As many other as well as we have pointed out, if only the world would take the time, investing some effort even if only to satisfy curiosity and translate what the Palestinian spokespeople express when speaking in Arabic translating and placing them in their reports with equal prominence they give their articles denouncing Israeli efforts at self-defense, the public would be well served in making an informed and balanced evaluation of the realities of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Unfortunately, it appears that truth and honest reporting are the first two casualties in the mainstream media coverage of virtually all things concerning the Middle East and its relevance and importance to the current world struggles.

 

In another recent television appearance, another senior PA official, Sultan Abu al-Einein on Palestinian Authority TV stated about the recent stabbing murder of Evyatar Borovsky by a Palestinian terrorist recently released from Israeli custody, Salam al-Zaghal, “We salute the heroic fighter, the self-sacrificing Salam al-Zaghal. He insisted on defending his honor, so he went against the settler and killed him. Blessings to the breast that nursed Salam Al-Zaghal.” Such comments being broadcast on Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian and other Arabic broadcast media are far from being the exception, they are by far the rule. It is solely due to the willful negligence of our Western mainstream media that prevents such claims from being widely known and the hidden truth behind who are the true impediments to peace being more broadly recognized. When covering the Middle East much of the media either omits information or represents misinformation unchallenged as if it were fact. There is a near constant drumbeat claiming that the presence of Israeli communities on established Palestinian claimed land which prevents any possibility for peace and stands in the way of negotiations. What is not explained are the facts that the Palestinians not only claim the areas known as the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem but also the rest of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Galilee and all of the land that makes up Israel, every single square inch. The Palestinian leadership reserves the right to continue the resistance until all of Palestine is freed which is an actual declaration that the terrorist attacks must continue even after any peace accord which may be signed in the future. Whenever this fact is admitted in the Western media it is portrayed as belonging only to Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are represented as being moderates who are willing to make peace. The unfortunate truth is that the Fatah, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and the entire Arab League all hold fast to their claim to replace all of Israel with an Arab state and the eradication of any trace of Judaism as their only acceptable goal. Since the Khartoum conference of 1967 the entire Arab World has held to the Declaration of the Three No’s; No peace, No negotiations, and No recognition. Such a position does indeed make holding peace talks rather difficult.

 

The truths which are lost because of the ruse known as the Palestinian’s claim to reconstruct their ancient homeland called Palestine are that there never was in all of history such a place as Palestine, the British used the term Palestinian to describe the Jews who resided within the British Mandate, The Balfour Declaration addressed the rights of the Arab populations residing within the British Mandate, Transjordan (currently called Jordan) was created as the Arab State for those Arabs living within the British Mandate and required the Jews to relinquish their legal claim to 78% of the British Mandate, Israel was not required by UNSC Resolution 242 to relinquish any of the West Bank but to relinquish only those lands acquired as a result of the 1967 War that were not determined by Israel to be vital for secure borders. Of the lands under UNSC Resolution 242 Israel has already relinquished well over 75% of the area by returning the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptians, and lastly the original conflict was never between the Israelis and the Palestinians but between the Arab World and Israel.

 

Even should one look at the Oslo Accords one would almost immediately draw some interesting conclusions. The Oslo Accords drew three distinct areas within what is often referred to as the West Bank, and was historically referred to as Judea, Samaria and Benyamin (which kind of explains why those wishing to prevent Israel from claiming these areas had to rename them), into three separate areas, A, B, and C. Area A was given over to complete control of the Arabs under the auspices of the PLO and Yasser Arafat. Area C was given over to total Israeli control. Area B was jointly controlled by both the Arabs and the Israelis. This makes an obvious demarcation suggesting the intended solution originally was that Israel required all of Area C as their minimum needs to have basic security and the Arab population already, as it existed, was concentrated within Area A. This left Area B which held some concentrations of Arab villages and farms, some open lands, and some lands claimed by Jews who had their lands confiscated by the Jordanians after the 1948 war which the Arabs referred to as the war to eradicate the Jews and Israel calls their War of Independence, which gives some insight to the perspectives of the two sides. Since Area B was placed under dual control one might be led to think that these were the lands disputed between the two sides as originally observed when the Oslo Accords were enacted. It also would be prudent to believe that the negotiations should have been over where the border should be placed in order to fairly divide the lands within Area B. Instead we have muddied the original intents to the point that there have been discussions of granting the Palestinian Arabs a corridor across the Negev Desert so that their areas near the Jordan River have easy access without entering Israel to Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea, never mind that by doing such Israel is cut in two and is no longer contiguous, as long as the Palestinian areas are contiguous everything should be wonderful. There was a period when Mahmoud Abbas felt he had such a strong position he began claiming the entirety of Jerusalem as the capital city for the Palestinians. Fortunately, somebody managed to disavow him of such a felonious concept. All of this is a prime example of how far removed today’s perceived realities are from the original ideas of the Oslo Accords, let alone from the decisions, treaties, conferences, and even the White Papers which were all ratified soon after World War I and blessed by the League of Nations, the United States, Russia, and even the leadership of the Arab World, King Faisal. Sometimes time worsen wounds, not heals them.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Why Does Inaction on Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Matter?

I tried to think of an idea to write about that was important and almost everything I thought about came back to the situation of the use by Syrian troops loyal to Bashir al-Assad of chemical weapons. The problem is that when one thinks about this subject, it just does not appear all that overly vital yet it affects every other problem in one way or another. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the entire Syrian civil war touches on every vital subject facing the world at the moment. It ties to the terror bombing in Boston as the arch-terror group Hezballah is actively aiding the Syrian forces loyal to al-Assad and are responsible for most of their gains of late. It reflects on the problems in Egypt and Tunisia as the Muslim Brotherhood which currently rules both of these countries is the main impetus behind one of the two major rebel factions trying to overthrow al-Assad. On the human rights front, what could be a bigger situation for them to address than the over seventy-thousand civilians murdered and the many millions forced into refugee camps by the Syrian civil war, yet despite this the main impetus of human rights remains obsessively focused on the purported evil acts of the Israelis. But what is likely the most central importance over Syria has to do that the outcome in Syria is seen as the most central item currently addressable regarding Iran and the entire Iran-North Korea alliance which is by far the biggest threat to the world currently.

 

What I find most interesting about the Iran-North Korea alliance is how everybody attempts to separate these two problems and behave as if one has nothing to do with the other. This would be like pretending that in World War II the Japanese had nothing to do with the Germans except that Iran and North Korea are far more intertwined than they were. It is ridiculous to address the missile problem posed by North Korea while ignoring the joint research being performed largely in Iran to improve both countries missile technologies and upgrade their missile systems with longer range and more accurate heavy launch systems along with increased diversity of missile weapons systems for multiple and varied uses. Even more evident is how both Iran and North Korea have been interdependent in their pursuit of nuclear weapons as most of the research into nuclear weapons constructions has been carried out almost exclusively of late in North Korea while uranium enrichment as well as plutonium manufacturing have been pursued full-bore in Iran. Yet despite the evidence the United States and their allies have been addressing these two as completely separate threats rather than a unified front who are mutually supportive in aims of the same ends. The strongest evidence of their mutual cooperation leads us back to Syria and the fact that as Iran supplies Syria with weapons, intelligence reports, and manpower in their civil war, it was North Korea who provided Syria with their nuclear facility that Israel destroyed back on September 6, 2007.

 

But despite all of this evidence, it is the seeming lack of resolve in addressing the Syrian blatant disregard of the warnings over utilizing their chemical weapons stores that presents the biggest situational difficulty. It is blatantly obvious that the weakest link in the Iran-North Korea alliance is definitely Syria but that it is also a vital link in their chain which connects them to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria and Lebanon which is controlled for Iran by Hezballah. Syria is very much like Italy was to the German-Japanese alliance in World War II in that Italy guarded the underbelly of the European theater, Syria is the vital link to the Mediterranean Sea and through that the Atlantic Ocean as well as all of Europe. The threat to act against Syria and al-Assad if and when he introduced chemical weapons into the Syrian civil war was less important strategically about protecting the Syrian battlefield from such threats as it was about being the wedge that allowed for a casus-belli for intervention leading to the removal of Bashir al-Assad from power thus breaking the link for the Iran-North Korea axis connecting them to their Mediterranean ports and the Hezballah who serve as their enforcers. Losing their Syrian connection also wounds the Iranian Shiite alliance from their crescent of power that stems from Iran across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon presently and thus allows Iran to have influence and the ability to apply pressure throughout the Arab World and most of the Muslim world. Syria and the Mediterranean ports are also vital for the growth of the Iranian influence in South America which they have been carefully and slowly cultivating and growing for the past decade. For these reasons as well as the human rights and prevention of the potential catastrophe that could result from chemical weapons attacks make Syria the center-point of too much of the current world situation to not make each and every step well thought out and treated as the crucial elements that they are.

 

Despite all that is resting on the outcome of the Syrian civil war, President Obama appears to be taking the most passive interest in responding to the latest reports of chemical weapons use by al-Assad despite the hard evidence presented that Sarin gas was utilized. The reports of such use came from Israeli, British and French intelligence sources and not simply made by the rebel forces that could be doubted due their interest in removing al-Assad by any means available. President Obama not only reacted to this evidence by not taking any actions which would indicate the possibility of a military response, but simply restated his warning of dire consequences should chemical weapons be used by any side in the Syrian civil war. By refusing to even place some military forces on a higher alert status signaling the readiness to take the steps necessary to interdict any further use of chemical weapons, President Obama has virtually given al-Assad a pass on using these weapons as long as it is not overt and made undeniable. Why the President would refute the evidence presented by every allied intelligence report and allow al-Assad a pass is honestly disturbing. Such inaction could lead to wonder as to what outcome the United States would prefer to come as a result of the fighting in Syria. Could President Obama desire to simply allow the fighting to continue in order to drain Iran of resources and force them to be tied down by the open front threatening their Syrian connections? Time will tell but should al-Assad take the inaction by President Obama as permission for more extensive use of chemical weapons in the fight against the rebel forces one can only fear the full repercussions and the potential for unimaginable horrors should such weapons be used in an overt fashion in order to turn the tide and go for a quick end to the rebel fight. The potentials for a humanitarian disaster are too great for such a risky route to be taken. President Obama might still have an opportunity to enforce his edict of not accepting any chemical weapons usage before more general use is implemented and all the horrific consequences to the Syrian people become realized. Nobody could desire the consequences of the liberal use of such weapons and the indiscriminate and horrendous death which can be so easily dispersed literally on the winds across large swaths leaving a desolate ruin in their wake.

 

Beyond the Cusp