Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

In Al Monitor The Russian-Iranian alliance that wasn't
...
The main reason for Russia’s decision to become militarily involved in Syria was its desire to secure its bases in western Syria that guarantee it access to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, to Moscow, the relationship with Damascus has an obvious geopolitical dimension and is directly related to its “hard” interests. In the case of Russia’s relations with Iran, however, ties have so far been limited to economic exchanges, the arms trade and, at the highest level, cooperation in the sphere of nuclear technology. For Russia, however, none of these areas of collaboration are considered strategic or non-negligible interests.

Thus, it could be argued in general that what Russia has so far been trying to achieve through its Middle East policy is obtain US recognition of its role and interests as an equal. If Russia can achieve this primary objective by establishing a successful balance of power or by another means — such as some form of compromise — its approach toward its international partnerships will change or at least result in a slower pace for the development of such partnerships.

Under these circumstances, the Russian-Iranian relationship can only move toward a serious partnership or an alliance by either being institutionalized through genuine Iranian engagement with Russian-centered regional initiatives, such as the Eurasian Economic Union, or by expanding the level of bilateral cooperation to a more structured relationship in “harder” political and security spheres, such as the signing of a mutual security agreement with certain conditions and promises. As such, given Moscow’s current foreign policy approach, if Iran really wants to elevate the level of its bilateral relationship with Russia, now is the best time to do so. If not, Iran should have in place alternative plans for the day when regional and international circumstances change.
There's a basic misunderstanding here. The Islamic Republic is by revolutionary Khomeinist principle unaligned with any great power. That's why Teheran got so grumpy about Moscow announcing it's bombers were using an Iranian airfield as a stop off point before Syria. Their wary relationship with the Russians in Syria is as expedient as IRGC-QF toying with AQ or the Taliban. Persia was an arena of the Great Game between the Russian and British Empires and the natives resented that greatly. Even in Syria Russian and Iranian interests are sometimes at odds particularly over the Israelis who the Kremlin has no desire for trouble with but Teheran certainly does. Nor does the Supreme Leader desire the sort of detente Putin appears to crave from the Great Satan.
 
On Rudaw US balancing act between Syrian Kurds and Turkey cannot last
...
Haid N. Haid, a Syria researcher and Chatham House Associate Fellow also outlined the precarious nature of Washington’s balancing act in this operation.

“The US is trying to avoid confrontation with any of its allies by sending mixed signals,” Haid told Rudaw English. “According to recent statements by Turkish officials, American officials have assured the government of Turkey that, while the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is largely Kurdish fighters, the Kurds will not take on the main role of liberating the Islamic State ‘capital’ of Raqqa, Syria.”

This, Haid explained, might work in the short-term but will have destructive effects in the long-term.

“The US has been able to avoid addressing the elephant in the room, however, this can’t continue forever,” he explained. “The frequency and intensity of military confrontations between Turkish-backed forces and the SDF in Syria is increasing and will likely rise as the groups come into further contact along shared front lines.”

Since the launch of Operation Euphrates, Turkey and its FSA proxies have increasingly clashed with US-backed SDF forces in northwest Syria. None of these clashes have yet escalated into a full-fledged war between them. Washington invariably responds to these incidents by urging both sides to turn their guns away from each other and focus their efforts on defeating ISIS.

Haid also estimates that continued US support of the PYD and SDF will result in Turkey increasing its ties with Moscow and distancing itself from the US and its traditional western allies.

“This US policy is creating secondary conflicts in Syria and creating mistrust with its strategic ally, Turkey, which is pushing the latter further towards Russia,” Haid warned.
Landis also crops up here pointing out that the Arab rebels have just not proved capable of fighting IS.

There's a risk here not just that we are laying the seeds for a future PKK-rebel conflict, that was in any case inevitable, but the Pentagon does what it did with the Sahwa in Iraq: treat the PKK as a purely tactical ally and abandon them entirely. What happened in Iraq was AQI was defeated but morphed into the more powerful IS within a few years.
 
In The Nation The Debate Over Syria Has Reached a Dead End
Has two competing narratives on Syria:
  • A pure people's revolution against a cruel tyrant as maintained by Assad's opponents
  • A largely foreign conspiracy against a legitimate ruler as maintained by Assad's friends
Subtle enough to acknowledge that both are fictive though not without a basis in fact.

It doesn't quite come to grips with the reality that there isn't one revolt but several provincial risings with contending objectives. The original Arab Spring protest movement demanding reform and then regime change still exists but its rather obscured by the men of violence. It's a cause lost in the momentum of Jihad. The toughest, best organised and most likely to succeed rebel groups are nearly all Salafist in nature some very radical ranging all the way to Jund al Aqsa. Even this can't be called a united front. They have serious disagreements that often lead to fighting. The other rebels include some big blocks but tend to be rather localised groups. Some are not much more than neighbour hood watch outfits. Some are effectively mercs taking some power's shilling. Some are literally bandits. Then there is IS of course but after taunting Uncle Sam into attacking them in Syria their dream of uniting the revolt under the Caliphate's black banner and taking the Holy places seems to be crashing. And lets not forget the PKK: a tough, rather competent Old Skool 70s revolutionary group that lucked out getting US backing to fight IS. It probably won't get US CAS to fight the very different forces of the revolt backed by Turkey but that is where it is headed. Good luck trying to unite that into a coherent opposition.

On the other side is the regime. This is a crumbling structure short on man power and slowly losing control of its own people. It's bankrupt in more than one sense and rotten but simultaneously resilient. The regime's retains more political coherence than the revolt but its highly authoritarian power structures are subverted by NDF militia warlords and the Iranians. Assad has no partner for a negotiated peace (or rather surrender) but it's also not clear Assad may actually be able to stop his warlords rather profitable war. He may even have more popular support than the revolt in Useful Syria. Or rather the many stranded revolt faces fearful opposition in many urban spaces not just a hardcore of Baathist loyalists. In particular the Salafist style of rule we see in areas of Idlib appears an unwelcome innovation. And this regime support varies greatly by region. Yet Assad would rule in every corner of Syria rather than consolidate around areas of support. The regime's allies are now essential to its survival but have limited leverage over Damascus's incompetent ruler. But it's their level of commitment that is the decisive thing here. They are willing to own a very problematic Syria the rebels backers fundamentally are not.

You have an extremely repressive and corrupt regime that gives good cause for revolt but the risings against Assad that often provoke more fear than hope for the future. And the author is right Assad won't reform. He's stiff necked but too afraid to show weakness and is almost impossible to excise.

I was going to post this up myself. It's nothing special - a simple observation that propagandistic narratives exaggerate various aspects and dismiss other aspects of things. But that observation needs stating in the case of the specifics of Syria. The conclusion that there needs to be an attempt to find a middle ground sits uncomfortably with me though. I struggle to see any way forward. The prospect of Assad being militarily overthrown fills me with dread as does any victory of Ba'athist forces. But the alternative of a negotiated peace is just as bad.

I read about claims that the Local Coordinating Committees are still organising at grass roots level, but I'm sceptical of their extent and their independence. And any secular remnants of the armed opposition are so minor and so completely entwined with the jihadis that they aren't worth considering. I remain thoroughly pessimistic. There needs to be a serious look at what went wrong in 2011. My own observation was that I kept seeing secular activists adopting Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood or AKP not jihadi) or Sunni sectarian rhetoric either with respect to the Alawite character of the regime and its military or in terms the demand for a "civil state". It seemed that the Islamists actually had a stronger political narrative and could dominate the opposition even before armed conflict broke out - a situation that seems all the more remarkable given the largely secular character of Syria. I wonder to what extent regional, rural biases to the revolt gave it its character. I also wonder if in a society like Syria where political organisation is carefully proscribed, that mosques become the natural center for political organisation. One peculiar thing is that there has not been much in the way of sociological or class analysis of the revolt even by various self-proclaimed Marxists. The idea of the people on one side and the regime on the other sort of worked in Egypt and Tunisia, but drove a bulldozer over the complexities of what was happening in Syria. There's no question that the revolt was a revolt against totalitarianism, but we still have to ask what its social basis is.

The political problems with opposition voices persist. I was reading an article blaming the regime for the infighting between Kurdish forces and rebel forces. As it is with much of this sort of literature the rebel forces represent the people (plus some jihadis), in this case they represented the Arab people. This from a leftist of some sophistication who supports self-determination for the Kurds. The instinct to not criticise opposition forces and to see them as organic arms of the self-organising people is still strong. The reverse problem of seeing the regime as an embattled anti-imperialist dictatorship fighting outside forces is also still strong of course - but I think this problem is one of a different character, it is a problem of spun hopelessness rather than of misplaced hope.

By the way thanks CrabbedOne for providing all these updates.
 
I don't think Syria fits into a Marxist analysis particularly well Marxist-Lenninst perhaps. There's class and resources aspects within a rentier state but it's if anything a series of peasants risings and a lot of warlordism. This is obscured a little by the peasants recently having moved into the cities. It's against a background of various Salafist currents that were always latent in Syrian politics. The parts of the Sunni Arab revolt that succeed on the ground against the quasi-fascist Baath tend to be essentially reactionary and authoritarian. They may in some cases be better to live under than the awful rule of the Assad clan but I suspect Marx would find this out break of nostalgia for Sixth Century ways rather perplexing.

It's a real stretch to think of the Baath with their foot on the neck of the Syrian people as anti-Imperialists. Backed by Russian kleptocrats and Iranian theocrats they are just, for now, a gang of thieves on the wrong side of the US. That may or may not change under Trump. Bashar being rehabilitated as a Sisi like stooge to keep his unhappy people in check may even happen.

The CIA and KGB both mistook the Iranian revolution for a Red takeover when it was a heretical Ayatollah who had gargled a lot of Lenin who had the strong hand and simply hung the socialists in droves. Mistaking the Syrian Sunni Arab revolt for the inevitable Messianic march of history was perhaps a similar error.

At back of all this is changes to the nature of Sunni Arab identity particularly a new sense of sectarian victimhood. I see parallels and cross effects with the appallingly brutal first Sunni rising in Iraq which was also rather fragmented politically to the extent that in the end it turned on itself. Syrians were talking about the disaster next door for years before they rose. Some participated in the insurgency. It's created a rich field for future increasingly reactionary Salafi-Jihadi revolts.

You stage a revolution with what's available and really only the PKK in Syria can be said to be successful so far and then in large part because of US support and an expedient hudna with the regime.
 
In The National Muhammad Surur and the normalisation of extremism
...
Surur and others used the ideas of Qutb to reinvigorate traditional ideas into a broader ideology that is not strictly political. After the Arab uprisings of 2011, he told the London-based newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi that his movement turned Salafism upside down. In another instance, he praised his own foresight regarding today’s Shia-Sunni divide in a book he wrote after the 1979 revolution in Iran.

In the introduction to the 10th edition of his book Now Is the Turn of the Magi, a reference to Iranian revolutions in 1979, he attacked fellow Sunnis for buying into the pan-Islamic rhetoric of the Khomeinis.

In the book, he was one of the earliest advocates of the now prevalent sectarian rhetoric that Iranian Shia were not true Muslims. Instead, he claimed Iranian Shia wanted the revival of the empire that ended at the hands of Muslims. That claim is another of his contributions to the problems sweeping the Middle East today. Surur’s legacy lives on today throughout the region.

His ideas set a trend in which revolutionary and traditional ideas are combined in one form or another, but that does not mean that his ideas are identical to those of ISIL and Al Qaeda.

On the contrary, his current is often used by ISIL as a slur against Salafists who do not agree with its violent methods. His legacy is a bridging ideology that opposes both traditional Salafism and political Islam. His writings take aim at both, a fact that could be the reason why many misunderstand or overlook his contributions.
...
Obit on the very influential former head of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. It's important to understand Salafi are a rather diverse lot.
 

A little light borrowing from the LAF. Rather a lot of HA armour on display here. This is not what "terrorist groups" used to look like.
 
In TSO 'The Walls of Fear' Return, Armed, to Damascus
...
Power cuts have increased, whether in the green zone, which includes the wealthy districts and the homes of officials and official institutions, in addition to the increase of the prices of the main materials as a result of the weakening of the value of the Syrian pound against the US dollar (500 pounds to a dollar) and imposing strict measures on how to withdraw savings from public and private banks.

This has contributed to the spread of “war commanders” and the occurrence of a coup in social segments to the benefit of the emerging “new guard” of nouveaux riche businessmen who have built up enormous wealth in recent years. They now believe their interests lie in the perpetuation of the war, in addition to the spread of those benefiting from bribes by delaying young men’s compulsory military service. A visitor to Damascus spoke about the spread of the phenomenon of bribes at the inspection checkpoints. One of them is called the “Two Million Checkpoint” — crossing through it costs a high toll because it leads to the main consumer market. Another is called the “1,000 checkpoint” because it leads to the nightclubs. The phenomenon of kidnapping has meanwhile returned and the crime rates have risen in the streets of Damascus and other areas, and has turned into a sort of trade and a source of wealth.

Experts talk about the entanglement between the new guard of businessmen and the army and security, in addition to the emergences of a new center of power. One of them said: “The regime is still the main force, but there are other domestic and imported centers in Damascus and the areas of useful Syria.” What is also notable is the overlap or incompatibility of relations between regime forces and Iranian power centers and the operations room and the following daily supply to Damascus airport which is monitored by the Iranian side.

In addition, some leaders of the National Defense Forces in Tartous and Lattakia have begun to weave relationships and interests with leaders of the Russian military base in Hemeimeem in Lattakia. It is possible to notice the increase of Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in Damascus and its countryside from the Damascus airport to the Lebanese border, compared with the growing Russian presence in Tartous and Lattakia toward Aleppo.
...
An ever more intrusive and greedy security sector some of which is in private hands and not accountable to the state. Useful Syria rotting down to something more and more useless.
 
Last edited:
On Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi's blog Dar al-Qada statement in Jabal al-Summaq: Translation & Analysis
...
There is of course also a degree of discrimination here in that the inhabitants of Jabal al-Summaq are treated on the same footing as "the must'amina sects like the Christians" rather than as the rest of the Muslims, despite being recognized as Muslims on account of the conversions. For context on the term must'amin, it is a category of person distinguished from the dhimmi (a Christian or Jew with permanent residence in Islamic lands under a dhimma pact and thus paying jizya tax to an Islamic government of some sort) and a mu'ahid (a disbeliever who has a non-aggression pact- 'ahd- with the Muslims). A short posting explains here:

"As for the must'amin, it is the one who has neither a dhimma nor 'ahd with us, but rather we have given him security in a defined time, like a man from Dar al-Harb [non-Muslim lands] who has come to us in security for business or the like.."

In other words, must'amin means a non-Muslim considered to be residing in Islamic lands on a temporary basis with security guarantee while not paying jizya. There is disagreement among the schools of jurisprudence about how long the security guarantee lasts, beyond which jizya may have to be paid. It is most likely that the Dar al-Qada is using the term must'amin for Christians because there is not yet a formal Islamic government/state in the form of an emirate or caliphate to set up a dhimmi pact and terms of permanent residence. One should also note that most if not all Christians have fled Idlib province anyway on account of the rebel conquests.
...
On AQ's court ('Abode of Judges') operating mainly in the North Idlib countryside. I guess that's their version of extreme vetting.
 
On Syria Direct Joshua Landis on Syria and Trump’s election: ‘America has prolonged the civil war, only destabilized the region’
...
You have to have a hard talk with Turkey to find out what they are willing to accept. You have to sit down with the Russians and the Iranians as well. And you have to meet with the Iraqis because the Iraqi Popular Forces are not going to want a Sunni Arab state sitting between them and Aleppo. They are going to see that as a potential irredentist state. The Iraqi forces have said that they are going to follow the Islamic State into Syria once they’ve taken it out of Iraq. We’ve turned them into quite a competent fighting force, and so are the Iranians.

The Iraqis and the Iranians are not going to stand by with their hands in their pockets as America tries to turn rebels into a government in northeastern Syria that would become dependent on Turkey. Turkey wants a sphere of influence that would stretch also to Turkmen parts of Iraq.

To what extent does a Turkish sphere of influence over northern Syria and parts of Iraq help America? Do we want to help the Iraqi government re-conquer all of these territories and not let Turkey meddle in there? It’s so hard to know.

You need to figure out where you can make a deal and what can you do with the least amount of violence. If we get it wrong, you’re just going to perpetuate the war. America hasn’t wanted to make any decisions on these questions: partition, Kurdish autonomy, the Turks taking a hunk of Syria as their zone of influence with Sunni rebels or possibly re-legitimizing Assad at some point with the Russians.

But America has been moving towards a partition of Syria with a Kurdistan and trying to get the Turks to agree to some kind of Kurdistan, with the PYD is independent from the PKK. It’s not the same thing and they can live with them in Syria. We’re allied with the Kurds to a certain degree and I think we owe it to the Kurds to see that through.

When it comes to the rebels, I think the emergence of Nusra as a major force in the Idlib region and increasingly in Aleppo is a danger for the United States. Look at the curriculum in their schools and what they’re teaching their kids about Osama Bin Laden as a hero and that bombing the World Trade Center was a great thing. I don’t think America should be helping these people to continue that kind of education. We’ve tried to separate the moderate rebels from this kind of jihadi Salafist wing of the rebel movement but without any success. It’s possible that Turkey can do it, and that’s where America needs to sit down with its Turkish ally to discuss some kind of partition of Syria, I suppose.

We’re not going to overthrow Damascus, Russia and Iran. The United States must take responsibility for turning Iraq into a Shiite-dominated country that is backed by Iran. This changed the balance of power in the region. We tried to destroy Hezbollah and failed.
...
Landis long skeptical of the Lister tendency.

For the US hawks gathering around Trump Syria is really a matter of how do you poke Iran in the eye without having a problem with Russia. That is if they see the latter as a bad thing. Building the pile of Syrian skulls is a cost of doing business. For their boss his policy direction is barely thought through and changeable. Trump probably cares about the optics and he's a skinflint. US support to the rebels is unpopular with GOP voters but other powers may even escalate it. An anti-terrorists pact with Russia might just be an empty Open Season pass on the rebels but would play well. There won't be a deliberate big US investment in Syria. He'd likely run with the PKK and then discard them as its the quickest way to take Raqqa and he'll want that in the bag for the mid-terms. If he sticks to Russki hugging line he'll not be as swayed by concerns over Turkey and its role in a NATO alliance he thinks obsolete. Given his policy team he may take the Israeli view that Russia in Syria at least might limit Iran's influence. But Russian policy in Syria is very dependent on IRGC backed man power and actually there's bugger all sign that Moscow has gained much leverage. In some ways the Russians are just dumb muscle in an Iranian revolutionary project. I suspect we'll see an awful lot of division over what to do in Syria within Trump's team and the Pentagon.
 
On AlJaz Turkish jets hit al-Bab in push to take ISIL's Raqqa
Turkish jets hit 15 "targets" in the al-Bab area of northern Syria on Sunday in an operation with Syrian rebels that could foreshadow a push on ISIL's de facto capital Raqqa, the Turkish military said.

Ten defensive positions, command centres and an ammunition store used by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group were destroyed in the raids, the army said in a statement.

Nine Syrian rebels were killed and 52 wounded during clashes in the area, it added.

According to Al Jazeera's Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Gaziantep on the Turkish-Syrian border, the attack on al-Bab "started a few days ago when the Turkish military resumed air strikes on the area".

"Since then, [the Turkish-backed] FSA fighters have come much closer to retaking al-Bab", he said, using an acronym to refer to the Free Syrian Army.
...
 

...
The confrontation in Azaz pitted a prominent Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebel group, the Levant Front, against factions that also fight under the FSA banner and the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, sources on both sides and a group that reports on the war said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said headquarters and checkpoints held by the Levant Front had been seized in the fighting, which a Levant Front official said had forced the group to withdraw some fighters from a battle with Islamic State in the nearby city of al-Bab.

The fighting in Azaz, some 60 km (35 miles) north of Aleppo, also prompted Turkey, which backs a number of FSA rebel groups, to close the border crossing at Oncupinar. Adjacent to Bab al-Salam in Syria, it is a major conduit for traffic between opposition-held northern Syria and Turkey.

Rebel officials described the fighting as a blow to the opposition in the Aleppo region. Many of the insurgent groups operating in the Azaz area also have a presence in eastern Aleppo, where rebel groups had also clashed on Nov 2.
...
Ahrar and Zinki promising to "cleanse" northern Syria of "gangs". Beards use criminality as a pretext for taking out FSA flagged groups. It's also often the case that a little light banditry is going on as is also true with militias and the military on the regime side. Valuable smuggling routes are a frequent sources of intra-rebel friction.
 

He has a long series of tweets explaining why that's a very bad idea even if the Israelis might like it. It would be like US cutting of aid to the Iraqi military because rather a lot of their kit ends up with Shia Hashd.
 

...
Sabri Mirza, a lawyer and member of the rival Kurdish Yekiti Party, told ARA News that under Syrian statutory law polygamy and underage marriage are allowed, as “Islamic law is the source of the constitution.” He added that he disagrees with the law and believes that “anything that promotes women rights is [fundamentally] good.”

Mirza’s maxim is not a consensus view within the NSR. Many Kurdish and Arab men are not happy with the new rules and their diminished domestic authority. They believe that the campaign for equality has gone too far and that they are now living in a matriarchy.

“Women control everything now,” half-joked Mazhar Sino, a 39-year-old Kurdish man from the tribal town of Derbesiye. “In the past, women did not receive respect from their husbands, but now they will take out their [husband’s] teeth.”

According to the social contract adopted by the local Self-Administration in 2014, anyone who marries a second wife will be arrested for one year and must pay a $1,000 fine. In addition, if the groom is a member of the administration he will be dismissed.

Speaking to ARA News, several of Derbesiye’s older residents rejected the new social contract. Hamid Hebo, a 46-year-old man, said: “[The YPJ] recruits young girls when they are 14 and 15 years old! Then what’s wrong if they marry someone underage?”

“Some parents may be afraid that their girls will join the military and that’s why they want them to get married early, to prevent that scenario,” Hebo argued. “It’s difficult to accept that girls can join the military without the permission of their family.”

Mazhar Sino, a 39-year-old resident, told ARA News that the Hebo’s argument wasn’t grounded in reality because the YPJ only accepts volunteers who are over 18-years-old. “Some of them are [marrying off their young daughters] but the percentage is very low. […] Women are not forcefully recruited,” he said.

Even some youths and women expressed misgivings. “Some women accept becoming a second wife. This is because of the old mentality and these women are ignorant but in time we will change them,” Kurdish rights activist Narin Yousef said.

Beytoul Mohammed, 21-year-old women living in the Kurdish-Christian town of Derik, told ARA News that imposed change would lead to instability. “We asked for equality but if they immediately give rights to women it will be chaos,” she said.
...
Well by our norms child marriage is a big no no and this is all very commendably progressive.

However perhaps getting officiously rather far out in front of a population that's sometimes so conservative it's sympathetic with Salafi views may be an unwise assignment of revolutionary priorities. I recall the Soviets repeatedly warned the zealous Afghan comrades not to tread so heavily with its evangelical feminism just before the Muhj rose.
...
“My fiancée is 16-years-old. I love her and she loves me and her family would give her to me, but now because of [the social contract] they delayed it for two years,” said Ismail Derbisiye, a 28-year-old man.

“We have a culture of kidnapping [our future brides]. I will do it and we’ll escape together to Europe,” he joked. “Maybe to Holland, […] the country of love.”
...
A Syrian romantic.
 

...
Iran is Assad’s closest ally in the war against Syrian rebels and provides the bulk of the ground forces confronting the anti-Assad rebellion. Assad’s army is depleted, Russia does not have troops on the ground, and it would be the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and Lebanon’s Hezbollah who would move into any areas reconquered by the regime, said Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

So, he asked, how does a Trump administration that wants to curtail Iranian influence also align itself more closely with Russia and Assad without empowering Iran?

“I don’t see how you do it,” Tabler said. “It’s in the cauldron of contradictions in his statements that I don’t see being resolved.”
...
Trump may be planning a sneak attack on reality but them Obama's Syria policy was sown with delusions as well.
 
On Reuters Russia has long-term ambitions in the Middle East: Israeli official
...
Under President Barack Obama, the United States has largely pulled back from the Middle East, allowing Russia to exert wider influence. It remains unclear how policy will shift under Donald Trump, but the president-elect has indicated he will align U.S. policy on Syria more closely with Russia's.

Dichter said Moscow had "feelings of contempt" towards European countries that had avoided engagement in Syria, and rather than viewing the region as an area of temporary interest, Russia was making plans for the long term.

"It did not return to the Middle East with military capabilities in the air and at sea only to 'show off' and then leave," Dichter concluded. "The new neighbor did not come here only to rent an apartment, he came here to build a villa."
The nerve of the Russians; coming over here from Eastern Europe and behaving like they own the place.

Israelis security folk have mixed views on Russia in Syria. I'd say realistically it's a complication most liable to have downsides for Tel Aviv but some try to find a silver lining in it. This fella is alarmed the Russians don't share Israel's preoccupation with HA the way a Turk might be astounded by the US simply not seeing the PKK as a pressing problem.

The sense that Russia might be slipping into a Uncle Sam's shoes in the ME is common. The US "departure" does seem to be involve having a far bigger ME presence than was traditional. Actually it dwarfs Russia's relatively light footprint militarily.
 
On Al Monitor To woo Trump, will Kremlin show restraint in Syria?

Well I think the plan is to smash East Aleppo before Trump's inauguration in January next year. Trump has clearly said he regards Aleppo as a non-issue. It has already fallen in his mind. To secure Aleppo Assad must move onto Idlib but the Russians are probably planning another period of gum flapping over Syria with the US.

Though the basic problem there is it's really the Iranians who hold more influence in Damascus rather than Russia and even they could not shift Assad. The Russians really don't have a plausible Plan-B where Assad leaves or they stop being dependant on the IRGC in the ground war. The US also has very little power over the rebels. Even less than it's ability to restrain the Syrian PKK. Some rebel groups may be more willing to seek terms with East Aleppo broken but that's probably a slow incremental process between Syrians. Putin and Trump may just be using Syria as a conversation piece in a superpower detente process. If arch-neocon John Bolton is at state he won't be doing anything but shouting very loudly at the Iranians down a telephone line.
 
On Al Monitor Congress votes to box Trump in on Syria sanctions
...
One Republican aide told Al-Monitor that Democrats actually signed off on the bill's waiver language before the election, when Hillary Clinton was the runaway favorite to win. And, indeed, Engel has long been pushing for tougher penalties on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with his bill first clearing the House Foreign Affairs Committee in July.

Still, Trump's victory has caused concern on both sides of the aisle that the president-elect may be even more reluctant than Obama to turn the screws on Assad and his Russian supporters.

"I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria," Trump told The Wall Street Journal after his election. "My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting [the Islamic State (IS)], and you have to get rid of [IS]. … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”

...
And Congress really does not share Trump's apparent attitude to Russia.
 
Aren't the Turks threatening to forcibly remove them from Manbij too?


They are apparently throwing more to throw more forces into Syria for al Bab and appear to have a Russian OK to use air power. If I was the PKK it would be getting hit at Tel Abyad on the border above Raqqa that would really worry me. Some of the SDF's Arab allies look discontented and rather unreliable. That in turn will sow doubts with the Americans.

The other thing that strikes me is Rojava's real weakness is a Turkish occupied zone on the border may actually be more viable. Simply because it's friendly with a large, relatively wealthy, water rich country with a powerful military. Finally the Syrian PKK can only turn to treacherous Damascus if it doesn't have an MO with Ankara. It was dumb getting drawn into a city war in SE Turkey. That actually played into Erdogan's hands. Your only friends being your mountains isn't a sustainable strategy for anything but permanent war. Qandil has always had rocks for brains.
 

...
"As you know, we deployed a S-400 system long ago. Apart from that, we have added an S-300 system to cover the sea section practically to Cyprus. Moreover, Bastion coastal missile systems have been deployed to cover practically the entire coastline. As of now, thanks to these systems we are able to hit both sea-base and ground-based targets," the minister said, adding that the ranges of these systems are 350 kilometers at sea and up to 450 kilometers on the ground.

"Is our sea grouping safely protected by the Bastions?," the president asked to receive a positive answer. The defense minister also said that Pantsir systems had been deployed to ensure protection from low-flying targets.

According to Shoigu, in the past four months Syrian S-200 systems have been restored. Now they are used inside the country, in particular to back up the system of defense of Russian bases.
...
 
Back
Top Bottom