Putin-Assad twosome comes out on top

G8 Superstar Vladimir Putin

The Vladimir Putin-Bashar al-Assad alliance emphatically won yesterday’s G8 summit finals in Northern Ireland, according to Abdelbari Atwan.

The publisher/editor-in-chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi writes in Arabic this morning:

Proof the Russian president came out on top at the G8 meeting is corroborated by three peculiarities in the summit’s final statement on Syria, namely:

1. Absence of any explicit and unambiguous call on his partner Assad to stand down as the sine qua non of a political solution to the Syria crisis.
2. Strong endorsement of Geneva-2, where the Syrian regime will be represented by Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem. This translates into recognition of the regime’s legitimacy.
3. A commitment by the G8 leaders to fight and destroy Islamic extremist groups affiliated to al-Qaeda or other Muslim Jihadist organizations.

Thus, after a 26-month uprising and over 100,000 chiefly innocent Syrian fatalities, G8 leaders agree with Assad that he is fighting armed gangs.

This conclusion must have shocked and shaken the armed Syrian opposition, its supporters and its sponsors, especially the Gulf Arab states.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, one of the most ardent Western advocates of arming the Syrian opposition, said, “Yes, there are elements of the Syrian opposition that are deeply unsavory, that are very dangerous, very extremist, and I want nothing to do with them.

“I'd like them driven out of Syria; they're linked to al-Qaeda. But there are elements of the Syrian opposition who want to see a free, democratic, pluralistic Syria that respects the rights of minorities, including Christians, and we should be working with them...

“We have to learn the lessons of Iraq by ensuring the key institutions of the state are maintained through the transition and there is no vacuum.”

Cameron used two very indicative expressions – drive out Islamic extremists and avoid a political vacuum.

The question that begs an answer is this: Who would drive out the extremists and how? The Free Syrian Army under the command of Chief of Staff Gen. Salim Idriss, who was picked by the U.S, and the West as sole conduit of arms aid to opposition forces? Given the arms and funds, the man is presumably prepared to do the job. Gulf countries can chip in and provide both.

Cameron’s suggestion of ridding Syria of extremists is easier said than done, if not impossible in the foreseeable future. The Jihadists groups already have a pervasive presence in Syrian opposition ranks.

Assad told the German premier daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an interview published on the eve of the G8 summit: “My current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave.

“I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in a lifeboat!

“If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum.”

A Russian president like Putin, who keeps saying he won’t allow a no-fly zone over Syria and he will continue arms shipment to Damascus, backs Assad.

An American president with trembling knees, who was stung by two defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and half or quarter of a victory in Libya, backs the Syrian opposition.

Isn’t Assad justified to relax and stretch his legs?

For the nth time, their Western and Arab “friends” have duped the Syrian people.

The Middle East’s likely “escape to war”

My English wording of Ghassan Charbel’s editorial appearing today in pan-Arab al-Hayat:

Will we wake up one day to news of missiles raining on Israel and of Israeli warplanes mounting retaliatory raids? Or will we wake up to news of an attack on an Israeli embassy or cultural center and of Israel hitting back in South Lebanon? What if Israel opted to widen the scope of armed conflict to settle accounts with Iran’s nuclear facilities? Where will Iran elect to respond and will the United States be able to stay out of the fray? And what if we woke up one day to sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz? Or to a suicide attack on a U.S. ship in Gulf waters?

I am aware of speculation going around here and there. Many are saying:

• That the West does not want war and is incapable of waging one even if it wanted to
• That Barak Obama, who is seeking a second term, wants to come across as a president who returned the troops home from a war initiated by his predecessor, rather than a president who involved the U.S. military in new hostilities
• That Nicolas Sarkozy, who ventured into Libya, has no appetite for a new adventure
• That David Cameron and Angela Merkel are immersed in the West’s financial crisis and its fallout on the euro

All the above is true, except that wars are sometimes triggered by a sudden breakdown in this or that volatile area.

I am also aware:

• That Iran masters war brinkmanship, but is also adept at avoiding war at the nick of time
• That the Syrian army’s deployment today rules out confrontation with Israel
• That Damascus knows Syrian missiles won’t cripple Israel but an Israeli air blitz on elite Syrian army units would break the regime’s back
• That Hezbollah won’t readily invite war in Syria’s present circumstances and during the sea change enveloping Lebanon

I am aware of all this, but I am tempted to pose a war-related question. What are the chances of either being driven to war, or hotfooting to one, in the belief that (1) it would shuffle the cards and (2) its price, no matter how high, would still be less than the price of eclipsing the rejectionist crescent.

I write this after closely monitoring news over the last few days. Clearly, tension in Iran is rising. Its economy is suffering from sanctions, with more to come. It is unable to halt the decline in the value of its national current. Enrichment of nuclear fuel is proliferating its isolation. Its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz earned it a stern warning. Blaming Israel for the assassination of yet another Iranian nuclear physicist, the fourth in two years, is no simple matter.

I also write in the wake of President Bashar al-Assad’s speech. Clearly, the Arab observer mission is dead and buried and so are the prospects of any other Arab League solution. The regime rejects any solution that would see Syria going into a transition phase. The regime is still counting on eradication and victory, irrespective of the staggering price tag. In turn, the opposition is unwilling to accept any cosmetic solution that would keep the regime in place. Thousands of people killed in opposition ranks have strengthened arguments for internationalization and an armed face off.

Missed solutions raise the specter of a civil war with regional dimensions, given the internecine squabbles in Iraq and Lebanon over Syria’s predicament.

A great showdown is looming. What is taking place on Syrian soil does not only put at risk the regime. The whole rejectionist front’s future is in the balance. Collapse of the Syrian regime, if it happened, would lose Iran a hub it spent years and fortunes nurturing. It would relegate Hezbollah to the status of a local player. It is an open secret that most missiles the party used in the 2006 war were manufactured in Syria with Iranian funds.

The gloomy picture I detect reminds me of something I heard a few months back. My interlocutor said, “Bailing out Syria’s regime is worth triggering a war on Israel that might change the region’s landscape. If you face such an enormous loss, better take the risk and use all your cards.”