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

 

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

 

Abbas Should Draw a Map Just Like Netanyahu

One of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s now world infamous preconditions is the insistence that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu deliver a map showing what the Israeli leaders foresees as the borders between Israel and Palestine. Abbas claims that until he is able to actually visualize the borders which Netanyahu is suggesting he will be unable to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile for him to meet and restart negotiations. Abbas is using this ploy so he can continue to reject one map after another claiming that Netanyahu is not serious about making peace as the map does not come anywhere near the minimal area which Abbas feels is required for the Palestinian State. By having Prime Minister Netanyahu draw such a map Abbas excuses him from having to make any demands or claims as to what he would accept leaving him to simply reject any map proposed without stating what would be acceptable. So, perhaps in all fairness Prime Minister Netanyahu should offer to exchange maps with Abbas thus having both men draw up their idea of what would make a fair border from which to begin the final border negotiations. Of course Mahmoud Abbas will refuse to exchange maps while continuing to demand that Netanyahu must submit a map to Abbas.

 

There is no doubts as to why Palestinian President Abbas will refuse to present a map of the final borders he envisions as acceptable to the Palestinians for the establishing of a final solution to the question of borders. His reason is simply as such a map already exists and is available for anybody to see. All one need do is look at the maps of Palestine in the Palestinian schoolbooks or the map behind Abbas’s desk in his office and the map of Palestine that they consider their minimal requirements are there for anybody to see. These maps all depict all of Gaza, Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and Israel as the borders for their state of Palestine. That is correct; everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is their envisioned state with no Israel whatsoever. That is the reason that Abbas would reject any request for him to also present a map of his vision for final borders and also why no matter what map Netanyahu might present, as long as it depicted any of the land as belonging to Israel as a Jewish State would be unacceptable to Abbas. Along with offering to present Abbas with a map if and only if Abbas returns the favor and presents his ideal map in a mutual exchange, why not also do similar offers on some of the other preconditions which Mahmoud Abbas is currently hiding behind using them as a means to avoid negotiations.

 

Where Mahmoud Abbas demands that Israel accept the Right of Return for as many as five to six million refugees, Israel could demand that Abbas admit to how many Jews who own lands in Judea and Samaria will be allowed to remain on their lands after a settlement has been reached. It is unlikely that Abbas would surprise the world and admit that the Palestinians intend to dispossess the Jews who are living or own land beyond the Green Line and refuse to allow even a single Jew to remain and become a citizen of the Palestinian State. Once Abbas has made the situation clear that there will be no Jews allowed to remain within Palestine then the Israelis can hardly be condemned for not accepting the refugees, especially all five to six million, within Israel and demanding that they only be allowed to settle in Palestine. In all truth, Israel actually holds the moral high ground on this issue as there are already sizeable Arab sectors within the Israeli population who have full rights and are found throughout Israeli society. There are Arab doctors and nurses working right next to Jewish doctors and nurses in every Israeli hospital, Arab members in the Knesset even to include some who act more for the Palestinians than they do the Israeli Arabs who elected them. There are Arab judges, Police, and soldiers in the IDF, though the Arab Israelis are not required to serve in the IDF as Israeli Jews and Druze are required to serve. You cannot find a single Jews even allowed to reside in Area A of the West Bank or within any of the Arab villages under Palestinian Authority rule.

 

While President Abbas has demanded that Israel issue a building freeze once again in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, perhaps in exchange Abbas will freeze all Palestinian building within East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and Areas B and C of the West Bank in a gesture of equality and fairness. Just as the Israelis would still be entitled to build within the Green line and only cease building in the contested lands, the Palestinian would continue to build in Area C and they would also not build within the contested lands. As for the Abbas demand that Israel agree to utilize the 1967 Lines as a reference for final borders, these are actually the Armistice Lines from 1949 which the Arabs demanded could never be used to denote a border, that the Israelis could demand that Abbas recognize that the original British Mandate was presumably for the establishment of a Jewish State and that all the lands east of the Jordan River were already ceded by the Jews to the Palestinian Arabs when they forfeited those lands for the establishment of Jordan. Should that be too difficult a pill for Abbas to swallow then there is always the compromise position that at the establishment of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 Israel possessed the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, Judea and Samaria and as required by Resolution 242 Israel had surrendered territories by returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the disengagement from Gaza thus Israel is not technically or legally required to surrender any further lands except by mutual agreement and should Israel wish to fully exhaust their rights they could annex all of Judea and Samaria and still have satisfied all legal international requirements. There has to be a point where the truth is stated and a requirement that the actual International legal requirements are made obvious and that Israel has technically met every International requirement proposed by the United Nations and accepted by International bodies.

 

Proposing that for every precondition which Israel is requested to meet to jumpstart the peace process the Palestinians also meet a like precondition would be simply an equalizing and fairness measure. The examples above are simply that, samples, suggestions. It would be up to Israeli leadership to present proposals which they would deem as evenhanded. There are other preconditions such as the releasing of large numbers of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons, including some of those who have committed the most grievous crimes, is one demand for which I am unable to find anything which would balance such out to pose in return. The other problem with this idea is that I have little doubt that Mahmoud Abbas would not simply keep adding more preconditions to the list while ignoring the Israeli answer of preconditions of their own. Still, by proposing such return preconditions they would add into the discussion a review of what are the demands and positions on each subject the Palestinians hold. Any turning of the tables that potentially reveals the truth of the Palestinians refusal to negotiate works in Israel’s favor. Trying to tell the world that these preconditions are merely excuses not to negotiate is not accepted and will not be accepted unless Israel actually gave in on them and the Palestinians still refused to negotiate. The problem is once Israel surrenders on any point there will be no backtracking away from the conceded point. For example, if Israel commits to a building freeze for a period, say six months, in order to allow for negotiations we all know exactly what would be the response as we already danced this dance. Abbas would simply ask about another set of preconditions such as agreement on the 1967 lines for borders and the acceptance of the Right of Return for all five to six million Palestinian refugees and the prisoner release. Israel would have allowed the building freeze to be established as something that Israel is obliged to commit to in order for negotiations just as it has been pushed ever since it was introduced and forced down Israel’s throat by United States President Obama. We also need to remember that the concept of the building freeze and using the 1967 lines as the starting point for borders were both brilliant ideas introduced and proposed by President Obama, not Mahmoud Abbas. Ever since their introduction they have stuck and Abbas realizes that these two gifts from the American President are in his pocket ad infinitum. As these preconditions will never depart the scene on their own, Israel has to find some tactic to turn them back on the Palestinians and use them to reveal the duplicity behind these demands being used deceptively by the Palestinians. Turnabout is only fair as all’s fair in love and war, and if this is not one it must be the other.

 

Beyond the Cusp