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

 

Give Egypt Credit as Credit is Due and Blame to Where it is Due

The United Nations released a statement expressing great concern over the immense volume of weapons being illegally transferred from Libya into both Syria and Gaza. It is about time that some oversight agency, department, public official, world leader, or international organization finally took notice of a problem which has been thus far addressed by Israel and Egypt virtually alone. The United States, while not making any pronouncements warning of this danger, they did at least request the new Egyptian leadership take steps to intercede and take steps to confiscate these shipments should they cross Egyptian areas of jurisdiction or influence. But on the other side of this problem we actually find the United States and their NATO allies were complicit in this illegal transfers of weapons by providing these weapons to the Libyan rebels in the first place as well as not taking any steps to prevent the distribution of the massive stores of Libyan weapons which had been procured mostly from the Soviet Union by Gaddafi over the years he was in power. The real problems are the agents who are on the receiving end of these weapons transfers. In Gaza the recipients are al Qaeda in Gaza, Islamic Jihad, the Salafists and other terror families and entities. It is not clear whether or not Hamas has been the recipient of these weapons as they seem to be destined to reach terror entities even more extreme than Hamas. In Syria the weapons have been transferred to the terror wings of the rebels forces mostly those fighting under the Syrian Al Nusra Front which was recently confirmed by al Qaeda to be their armed resistance within Syria.

The reasons for concern are the types of weapons being transferred which include such items as portable air defense systems, mines, explosive materials, tons of ammunition and small arms. The United Nations report confirmed that “Libya has over the past two years become a significant and attractive source of weaponry in the region. The lack of an effective security system remains one of the primary obstacles to securing military materiel and controlling the borders.” Some of the arms are finding their way through Turkey while other are being directly sent into Syria. The weapons destined for Gaza are being smuggled through the tunnel systems linking Gaza with the Sinai Peninsula. It has been these particular weapons transfers which Egypt has been most crucial in preventing. Still, some intelligence reports have expressed concerns that some of the more sophisticated weapons systems as well as some larger weapons systems have made it into Gaza despite the Egyptian efforts to prevent such deliveries.

The reality is that these weapons will be distributed by numerous terror entities to their fellow terrorist entities throughout the world which will greatly increase the potential for diverse types of attacks. The antiaircraft systems could pose a critical problem for civilian air traffic once such systems are smuggled and distributed to terror cells throughout the world. This problem will only increase should Syrian President Bashir Assad fall with the Al Nusra Front of the Syrian rebel forces prove the dominant influence in whatever governance forms. Such an outcome would also provide al Qaeda with a safe country in which to set up training camps and store weapons and other materials for future use in executing ever more serious mass terror attacks. The real question has to be asked of why was this allowed to come to pass and who dropped the ball on securing the Libyan weapons stores. Since NATO, for the most part, was the main party supporting the various rebel groups, they must be held responsible for not taking the necessary steps to secure these weapons stores. This would have probably required a far more active participation of the United States as the only country with sufficient capabilities to guarantee a comprehensive interdiction. Unfortunately this would require the United States to lead from the front and not from behind.

It was not mentioned in the report but it also likely that many of these weapons are drifting south into Mali and Nigeria to the Islamic revolutionaries who are attempting to transform these two nations into Islamic states. The real and full extent of the damages caused by the international distribution of these extremely dangerous weapons will never be fully disclosed. The reason that such information will remain undisclosed is that those who should have taken responsibility for securing these weapons will work to assure that such information is squelched. There may have been an attempt to control these weapons and possibly even turn off the spigot but that effort turned out very poorly. That is another reason that very little if any information will ever see the light of day about the scope and range of weapons which are now being distributed to terror outfits possibly throughout the world. This may have been exactly the mission which sent the United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens to Benghazi where he was murdered along with four other Americans on September 11, 2012. That alone would make it even less likely that the full story will ever be divulged, at least not in our lifetimes.

Beyond the Cusp

Signs how President Obama Damages Israel

The usual list of reasons that prove that President Obama has a distinct distaste with Israel and shows his displeasure through particular mistreatments of either Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or of Israel herself only relate to actions directly related to Israel and her Government. It is often pointed out that despite numerous overseas trips which have taken President Obama to the Middle East and in many cases crossing over Israel when flying from one country to the next on his itinerary pass directly over Israel, he has yet to visit Israel. They relate to the many times that President Obama has displayed direct insult or disrespected Prime Minister Netanyahu or other members of the Israeli government and leave it at that. But are there other signs, indications, and actions which further depict a concerted set of actions which can be seen to be driven by a desire to harm Israel or make the future of Israel more difficult, dangerous, threatened or simply impossible? Well, let’s look at some actions and inactions and see whether the overreaching theme could be that these decisions were made more directly for their deleterious effect on Israel than they’re done for their considered effect on the United States.

The initial signs that some kind of problem was present even before the United States elected President Obama on his undefined slogan of “Hope and Change” were present. Yet we were told that they were either youthful indiscretions from his youth and no longer were applicable, or a choice made for practical reasons but not necessarily indications of his actual thoughts and positions. Every indicator has an entire story woven around them simply to put space between candidate Obama and each foretelling indicator. Saying that Barack Obama was one of the most storied Presidential candidates in American history has a completely different meaning than would normally be the case, and far less complimentary. The most obvious of these relations was his twenty year membership in Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. We were told that Barack Obama sat in Church for some odd twenty years and never heard a single disparaging word, quite a feat. Another relationship which came along with Reverend Write was one with Reverend Louis Farrakhan which was explained away by claiming that Reverend Farrakhan was actually a close friend of Reverend Write and any association, pictures, articles or other mentions of Barack Obama with Reverend Farrakhan were due to his membership on the Trinity United Church of Christ which we were then told had already been explained, end of story. There was his relationship with what was once described as his favorite professor, Edward Wadie Said, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and preeminent representative for the Palestinian Arab cause and anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Semite. Barack Obama even went to distinct lengths to assure that he was seated at the same table as Professor Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech. Google it and you may even find a photograph of he and Michelle seated with Professor Said and his wife Mariam. And then there is his longtime friendship with Rashid Khalidi who is currently the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. It is rumored that the Los Angeles Times has stashed away a tape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalid which they are apparently going to great lengths to keep from the public view. Strange that a news organization would sit on an actual tape concerning an important political figure which likely contains some startling revelations and instead of claiming the biggest scoop of the decade they lock it away and throw out the key. But all of these examples and others like the propensity for Illinois State Senator Barack Obama to regularly attend Pro-Palestinian events in the Chicago area, enough that he became to be known as a regular participant in such events, were all ignored as the press claimed that such things were not important nor did they reveal anything untoward about Barack Obama. Of course these events were attended in order to garner votes of a sizeable number of Middle Eastern residents in his district and nothing more should be placed on such events. But these are all water over the dam, under the bridge, and far out to sea and have gone way past their use by date, which was Election Day of November 2008.

So, have there been any further developments in the first four years of President Obama? Well, I thought you would never ask. Is there ever, a whole treasure trove. It even starts on Inauguration Day of January 2009 when newly sworn in President Obama returned to the White House and entered the Oval Office and placed his first phone call to a foreign leader. President Obama likely gave this some thought and was not likely to be simply the first person in his Rolodex, though that might also explain the call to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that President Obama has become disappointed with President Abbas as he has not caused sufficient results causing Israel insurmountable problems or, at the minimum, has not proven to allow for President Obama to utilize him as a political weapon against Israel in any truly detrimental means. This likely explains the switch to President Obama’s current best friend of the past two and a half years, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This transference of the title of best friend came about once Prime Minister Erdogan was well through his transformation of Turkey from a Europeanized Secular State into just one more Islamic State moving Turkey slowly but consistently towards Sharia styled governance. The scales tipped on May 31, 2010 with the confrontation between Islamist terrorists and IDF personnel who had boarded the ship Mavi Marmara in order to enforce the military blockade in place over Gaza in order to prevent weapons and other military use equipment and goods from reaching the Hamas forces that control Gaza. When Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan demanded Israel apologize for the IDF actions in defense of their soldiers and retributions for the families of those who died during the altercation and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu refused, President Obama quietly supported Turkey’s Erdogan in his posturing for preeminence against Israel’s Netanyahu. Since then, Prime Minister Erdogan has become President Obama’s best friend in the world as he appears most vocal against Israel other than the Iranians who are out of consideration due to other political necessities.

Then there have been the seemingly coordinated actions of President Obama in reference to the Arab Spring, turned Arab Winter. Unlike common belief, the protest and uprisings which led to the changes in the Middle East did not begin in Tunisia as everybody seems to report. The first uprising is the oft forgotten and overlooked uprising in response to the presumed fraudulent election results in Iran from the June 12, 2009 which reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Presidency. What was most obvious during these pro-democracy protests was the complicity out of Washington where nary an encouraging word came in support of the protests. Even more dispiriting was when the Iranians unleashed the Basenji Militias, National Police, IRGC Units and other clandestine forces against the protesters and onto the college and university campuses where unbelievable violence was unleashed upon unarmed demonstrators and even some of the innocent bystanders yet there was no objections or actions by any in the West with President Obama leading the campaign of intense silence. Why were there no attempts to assist these people who strived to be free and replace their oppressive government? What could have been the driving reason for the deafening silence in response to the despicable violence perpetrated against the Iranian people? Well, first let’s look at the rest of the uprisings which make up what is ever more frequency being referred to as the Arab Winter, a name we have been utilizing since early on in these revolutions as we predicted the Islamist results early on. We had the revolution sparked in Tunisia with the self-immolation of a street vendor. This was followed by the uprising in Egypt where we finally got reactions out of Washington. Initially the support was for order and allowing Mubarak to remain in power. That was short lived and soon President Obama and the State department were fully behind the revolt. This came about soon after the Friday when the Muslim Brotherhood gave their support for the uprisings. After Mubarak was torn from power, Washington turned their attention to actively backing the Rebel forces in overturning Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This was done with minimal investigation as to who these rebels were and what their allegiances might be with. We have recently paid for that lack of judgment. Then came the uprising in Yemen where Washington was more ambivalent than anything else. Eventually, Washington called for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to accept an offer from Saudi Arabia and step down allowing his Vice President to assume power. Now we are facing the long ongoing unrest which has become a full-fledged civil war in Syria against President Bashir Assad. Here President Obama has been relatively noncommittal giving only the slightest of verbal support for the rebels.

What is interesting about each of these situations is you can predict the level of support which will come from Washington simply by applying a simple formula. Measure the amount of opposition and difficulties the current leadership of any one of the Arab countries currently cause the Israelis. Then look at what is the likely level of difficulties and opposition the revolutionary forces would cause Israel. Compare them and whichever will cause Israel the highest level of difficulties or, better yet, threats and that is who President Obama and the State department will give their full amount of support. In Iran it is obvious that should the Mullahs be overthrown and President Ahmadinejad tossed from power and Iran adopt a Western friendly democracy that Iran would cease to be a thorn threatening Israel’s very existence. This made it impossible for President Obama to support the pro-democracy students and other protesters. Really a missed opportunity when one realizes that these protests were supported by many of the working class people in Iran including unions and many vendors and store owners and the West passed on one made to order revolution which would have had far reaching ramifications in the entire Middle East. There will likely not be a second chance any time soon. Next we had Egypt. Initially the uprisings in Egypt appeared to be another democracy aimed uprising. When that changed and it became known that the Muslim Brotherhood stood in the wings ready to take complete and total control once Mubarak was removed, then President Obama switched from tepid support for Mubarak, who was upholding a cold peace with Israel, to active support placing their full support behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which promises to make life for Israel much more difficult. In Libya there was a castrated Gaddafi who had his teeth pulled by President Reagan and had been completely neutralized when he surrendered his nuclear program after Saddam Hussein was toppled. So, whatever the Rebel Forces offered had to be a more active anti-Western and anti-Israel policies than what was in place with Gaddafi. This has already produced the kind of rewards that President Obama was likely seeking as the Libyan Rebels have already armed the Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza with advanced weapons such as anti-tank missiles, antiair missiles and likely anything else they found that they did not have their own use for. Yemen was another case of having next to no difference when considering its effect on Israel, thus we had only the smallest of efforts and only upon insistence from the Saudis. Lastly, we have Syria. This is a rough choice for President Obama which has been proven by the lack of any solid commitment to the rebels and no real or overt pressures on Assad. The reason is either side is likely to be relatively close in their ability to cause Israel problems. President Assad is a close friend of Iran and would likely be at their disposal to apply pressure or even declare war upon Israel. President Assad holds the critical link in the supply lines for Hezballah, one of the constant problems constantly faced by Israel. On the other side we have the Muslim Brotherhood which would work with Egypt against Israel in the future. Such choices, who will President Obama finally choose to support. From all appearances, he will be happy with either side being the victor as either way it will cause Israel difficulties. So, in a quick summation, it appears that those who claim that the United States foreign policy in the Middle East is formed, influenced and directed by what situation it will produce for Israel are dead on correct; they are just incorrect about President Obama siding with Israel and not against them. President Obama has proven without a doubt that he will choose whoever will strike fear and produce extreme difficulties for Israel in general and for Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular. It really does appear that President Obama has very strong feelings against Prime Minister Netanyahu, very, very strong animosity.

Beyond the Cusp