Opinion article Obamas Disastrous Betrayal of the Syrian Rebels What a difference a year makes in Syria. And the introduction of massive Russian airpower. Last February, President Bashar al-Assads regime and its Shiite auxiliaries mounted a large-scale attempt to encircle Aleppo, the northern city divided between regime and rebels since 2012 and battered by the dictators barrel bombs. Islamist and non-Islamist mainstream rebels to the surprise of those who have derided their performance, let alone their existence repelled the offensive at the time. What followed was a string of rebel advances across the country, which weakened Assad so much that they triggered Moscows direct intervention in September, in concert with an Iranian surge of forces, to secure his survival. Fast-forward a year. After a slow start and despite wishful Western assessments that Moscow could not sustain a meaningful military effort abroad the Russian campaign is finally delivering results for the Assad regime. This week, Russian airpower allowed Assad and his allied paramilitary forces to finally cut off the narrow, rebel-held Azaz corridor that links the Turkish border to the city of Aleppo. The citys full encirclement is now a distinct possibility, with regime troops and Shiite fighters moving from the south, the west, and the north. Should the rebel-held parts of the city ultimately fall, it will be a dramatic victory for Assad and the greatest setback to the rebellion since the start of the uprising in 2011. In parallel, Russia has put Syrias neighbors on notice of the new rules of the game. Jordan was spooked into downgrading its help for the Southern Front, the main non-Islamist alliance in the south of the country, which has so far prevented extremist presence along its border. Turkeys shooting down of a Russian military aircraft that crossed its airspace in November backfired: Moscow vengefully directed its firepower on Turkeys rebel friends across Idlib and Aleppo provinces. Moscow also courted Syrias Kurds, who found a new partner to play off the United States in their complex relations with Washington. And Russia has agreed to a temporary accommodation of Israels interests in southern Syria. Inside Syria, and despite the polite wishes of Secretary of State John Kerry, the overwhelming majority of Russian strikes have hit non-Islamic State (IS) fighters. Indeed, Moscow and the Syrian regime are content to see the United States bear the lions share of the effort against the jihadi monster in the east, instead concentrating on mowing through the mainstream rebellion in western Syria. Their ultimate objective is to force the world to make an unconscionable choice between Assad and IS. The regime is everywhere on the march. Early on, the rebels mounted a vigorous resistance, but the much-touted increase in anti-tank weaponry could only delay their losses as their weapons storages, command posts and fall-back positions were being pounded. Around Damascus, the unrelenting Russian pounding has bloodied rebel-held neighborhoods; in December, the strikes killed Zahran Alloush, the commander of the main Islamist militia there. In the south, Russia has fully backed the regimes offensive in the region of Daraa, possibly debilitating the Southern Front. Rebel groups in Hama and Homs provinces have faced a vicious pounding that has largely neutralized them. Further north, a combination of Assad troops, Iranian Shiite militias, and Russian firepower dislodged the powerful Islamist rebel coalition Jaish Al-Fatah from Latakia province. But it is the gains around Aleppo that represent the direst threat to the rebellion. One perverse consequence of cutting the Azaz corridor is that it plays into the hands of the al Qaeda-affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra, since weapons supplies from Turkey would have to go through Idlib, where the jihadist movement is powerful. Idlib may well become the regimes next target. The now-plausible rebel collapse in the Aleppo region could also send thousands of fighters dejected by their apparent abandonment into the arms of Nusra or IS. The encirclement of Aleppo would also create a humanitarian disaster of such magnitude that it would eclipse the horrific sieges of Madaya and other stricken regions that have received the worlds (short-lived) attention. Tens of thousands of Aleppo residents are already fleeing toward Kilis, the Turkish town that sits across the border from Azaz. The humanitarian crisis, lest anyone still had any doubt, is a deliberate regime and Russian strategy to clear important areas of problematic residents while paralyzing rebels, neighboring countries, Western states, and the United Nations. Assad all along pursued a strategy of gradual escalation and desensitization that, sadly, worked well. Syrians already compare the international outcry and response to the IS siege of Kobane in 2014 to the worlds indifference to the current tragedy. To complicate the situation even more, the regimes advances could allow the Kurdish-dominated, American-favored Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to conquer the area currently held by the Free Syrian Army and Islamist militias between the Turkish border and the new regime front line north of the Shiite towns of Nubl and Zahra. This would pit the SDF against IS on two fronts: from the west, if the Kurds of Afrin canton seize Tal Rifaat, Azaz and surrounding areas, and from the east, where the YPG is toying with the idea of crossing the Euphrates River. An IS defeat there would seal the border with Turkey, meeting an important American objective. The prospect of further Kurdish expansion has already alarmed Turkey. Over the summer, Ankara was hoping to establish a safe zone in this very area. It pressured Jabhat al-Nusra to withdraw and anointed its allies in Syria, including the prominent Islamist group Ahrar al-Sham, as its enforcers. True to its record of calculated dithering, President Barack Obamas administration let the Turkish proposal hang until it could no longer be implemented. Turkey faces now an agonizing dilemma: watch and do nothing as a storm gathers on its border, or mount a direct intervention into Syria that would inevitably inflame its own Kurdish problem and pit it against both IS and an array of Assad-allied forces, including Russia. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the rebellions main supporters, are now bereft of options. No amount of weaponry is likely to change the balance of power. The introduction of anti-aircraft missiles was once a viable response against Assads air force, but neither country suspecting that the United States is essentially quiescent to Moscows approach is willing to escalate against President Vladimir Putin without cover. Ironically, this momentous change in battlefield dynamics is occurring just as U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura yet again pushes a diplomatic track in Geneva. But the developments on the ground threaten to derail the dapper diplomats peace scheme. Fairly or not, de Mistura is tainted by the fact that the United Nations is discredited in the eyes of many Syrians for the problematic entanglements of its Damascus humanitarian arm with the regime. Despite U.N. resolutions, international assistance still does not reach those who need it most; in fact, aid has become yet another instrument of Assads warfare. Neither Kerry nor de Mistura are willing to seriously pressure Russia and Assad for fear of jeopardizing the stillborn Geneva talks. Seemingly unfazed by this controversy, de Misturas top-down approach relies this time on an apparent U.S.-Russian convergence. At the heart of this exercise is Washingtons ever-lasting hope that Russian frustration with Assad would somehow translate into a willingness to push him out. However, whether Putin likes his Syrian counterpart has always been immaterial. The Russian president certainly has reservations about Assad, but judging by the conduct of his forces in Chechnya and now in Syria, these are about performance not humanitarian principles or Assads legitimacy. For the time being, Moscow understands that without Assad, there is no regime in Damascus that can legitimize its intervention. Ever since 2011, the United States has hidden behind the hope of a Russian shift and closed its eyes to Putins mischief to avoid the hard choices on Syria. When the Russian onslaught started, U.S. officials like Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken predicted a quagmire to justify Washingtons passivity. If Russias intervention was doomed to failure, after all, the United States was not on the hook to act. Russia, however, has been not only been able to increase the tempo of its military operations, but also to justify the mounting cost. And contrary to some pundits, who hailed the Russian intervention as the best chance to check the expansion of IS, Washington knows all too well that the result of the Russian campaign is the strengthening of the jihadist group in central Syria in the short term. This is a price Washington seems willing to pay for the sake of keeping the Geneva process alive. The bankruptcy of U.S. policy goes deeper. The United States has already conceded key points about Assads future concessions that Russia and the regime have been quick to pocket, while giving nothing in return. In the lead-up to and during the first days of the Geneva talks, it became clear that the United States is putting a lot more pressure on the opposition than it does on Russia, let alone Assad. Just as Russia escalates politically and militarily, the Obama administration is cynically de-escalating, and asking its allies to do so as well. This is weakening rebel groups that rely on supply networks that the U.S. oversees: In the south, the United States has demanded a decrease in weapons deliveries to the Southern Front, while in the north, the Turkey-based operations room is reportedly dormant. The result is a widespread and understandable feeling of betrayal in the rebellion, whose U.S.-friendly elements are increasingly losing face within opposition circles. This could have the ironic effect of fragmenting the rebellion after years of Western governments bemoaning the divisions between these very same groups. Its understandable for the United States to bank on a political process and urge the Syrian opposition to join this dialogue in good faith. But to do so while exposing the rebellion to the joint Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught and without contingency planning is simply nefarious. Washington seems oblivious to the simple truth that diplomacy has a cost, as does its failure probably because this cost would carried by the rebellion, for which the United States has little respect or care anyway, and would be inherited by Obamas successor. The conditions are in place for a disastrous collapse of the Geneva talks now delayed until late February and a painful, bloody year in Syria. All actors understand that Obama, who has resisted any serious engagement in the country, is unlikely to change course now. And they all assume, probably rightly, that he is more interested in the appearance of a process than in spending any political capital over it. As a result, all the parties with a stake in Syrias future are eyeing 2017, trying to position themselves for the new White House occupant. This guarantees brinksmanship, escalation, and more misery. 2016 is shaping up as the year during which Assad will lock in significant political and military gains. Emile Hokayem - Foreign Policy http://www.qasioun.net/en/article/Obama%E2%80%99s-Disastrous-Betrayal-of-the-Syrian-Rebels/6006/
'Death better than this'... Syria war: Hunger stalks besieged Madaya Sat, 08 Oct 2016 - Aid workers tell the BBC what they saw in Madaya when they entered the city to deliver humanitarian supplies for the first time in almost six months.
Well...... some of those Syrian Rebels...... are not exactly nice people with good ideas on how to treat...... even other Muslims?! http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ghts-96-arabs-want-genocide-all-alawites.html Why Assad Fights - 96% Arabs Want Genocide Of All Alawites
After Obama is out, I predict the Russians and Americans will unite to defeat ISIS (Rebels) and the tolerant Assad will remain in power.
I hope you are right... But Assad is not tolerant. He is an evil dictator just as his father was; just as Saddam Hussein was. However, the irony is that he should probably be left in power or yet another vacuum will be created.
Almost one million living under siege in Syria... Syria conflict: Almost one million living under siege - UN Mon, 21 Nov 2016 - The number of people living under siege in Syria doubles this year to almost a million, the UN says.