The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday.

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” White House deputy national security adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes said.

Rhodes declined to provide an “inventory” or timetable for any military equipment to be sent, but said the assistance would be “responsive to the needs” expressed by the rebel command. He said the president had “not made any decision to pursue a military option such as a no-fly zone.”

Syria’s outgunned rebels have issued urgent appeals this week for anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry to counter a government offensive that is backed by Hezbollah and Iranian forces.

“Suffice it to say this is going to be different in both scope and scale,” Rhodes said of the new assistance.

Until now the United States has limited its assistance to nonlethal supplies and aid such as communications gear, food and medical supplies. In a conference call with reporters, Rhodes declined to detail the types of “military support” that would be provided. He added that the United States will continue to seek a negotiated peace settlement even while more broadly joining the Syrian fight.

Rhodes said Obama would consult allies about the specifics of the new shipments at next week’s Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland. The sessions will also be attended by Russia, the Syrian government’s main international ally and arms supplier.

Rhodes said U.S. officials had briefed Russia on what U.S. intelligence agencies said was a “high confidence” assessment that chemical weapons had been used the nerve gas sarin “in small quantities” on at least four occasions this year.

There is no reliable evidence that Western-backed rebels in Syria have used chemical agents, as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims, the White House said in a statement.

“There is an urgency to the situation. There has been an urgency to the situation for two years,” Rhodes said. “It’s particularly urgent right now in terms of the situation on the ground, in some respect, because we have seen Hezbollah and Iran increase their own involvement in the conflict.”

The announcement came after an interim determination in April that chemical weapons were likely used in Syria. Obama said he wanted further evidence before deciding what to do next, in part because of the lesson of Iraq, where inaccurate U.S. intelligence indicated Saddam Hussein’s government had developed weapons of mass destruction.

“Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year,” a White House statement said.

Between 100 and 150 people are estimated to have died as a result of chemical weapons, the White House said, although it added that the casualty data is probably incomplete.

The United Nations estimated Thursday that more than 90,000 people have died in more than two years of fighting.

“The president has been clear that the use of chemical weapons – or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups – is a red line for the United States,” the White Hose statement said.

The announcement follows similar determinations from close U.S. allies Britain and France
http://www.weyab.com/2013/06/syrian-government-forces-punched-obama.html

It is tough when you draw a line in the sand. The smarter approach is to never draw the line. When you do and don't take action you look weak and your words mean nothing. That said, I am not in favor of America getting involved in the Syrian conflict. Can they even afford to? Maybe they can only send arms to the rebels, not more than that. But i hope it will not turn back to hunt them just like what happened in Libya.

Silly propaganda that will drag the west into another avoidable war. Before embarking on another silly kinetic adventure - how about think about the end-game and the blowback? Military intervention is out of the calculus with Russia around. So the best the west can do is to send the rebels stinger missiles and anti-tank missiles. However, that isn't enough with Iraqi, Iran, and Hizbollah militias with vast experience in urban warfare now involved.

The best the rebels will achieve in the present scenario is a stalemate. But Syria will be destroyed and another "Somalia"/"Afghanistan" will be born in the ME. Anyway, a weakened and distabilised Syria is what Israel wants. However, what about the Syrian people?

Also giving arms to the rebel will be counter-productive in the long run and it's only a matter of before another blowback a la Libya happens in that axis.

I'm honestly tired of all these unnecessary wars - can we all get along for the sake of humanity? The only people benefiting are the arms dealers in the west and Russia. Over 100,000 Syrians have been killed yet we want to pour more arms into that country. Posterity will never forgive the west and karma is definitely lurking.


"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." - Winston Churchill

ShyM-X:
Silly propaganda that will drag the west into another avoidable war. Military intervention is out of the calculus with Russia around. The best the rebels will achieve in the present scenario is a stalement. But Syria will be destroyed and another "Somalia"/"Afghanistan" will be born in the ME. Anyway, a weakened and distabilised Syria is what Israel wants. However, what about the Syrian people? Over 100,000 Syrians have been killed yet we want to pour more arms into that country.

The greatest winner of this new policy drive is Israel. A stalemate would destroy Syria and Weaken Hezbollah. A direct victory strengthens both Assad and Hezbollah.

Prof Corruption:

The greatest winner of this new policy drive is Israel. A stalemate would destroy Syria and Weaken Hezbollah. A direct victory strengthens both Assad and Hezbollah.

I think the Iran/Syria/Hizbollah axis understands this, and their "joker" will be to get Israel involved by opening another front via Golan against Israel. Once Israel gets involved, it'll turn into a regional war - with all Arabs fighting against Israel.

ShyM-X:


I think the Iran/Syria/Hizbollah axis understands this, and their "joker" will be to get Israel involved by opening another front via Golan against Israel. Once Israel gets involved, it'll turn into a regional war - with all Arabs fighting against Israel.

I don't think so.

1.Saudi and Qatar are the main supporters of the rebels and the weapons are being smuggled via Lebanon and Turkey. They are the ones funding the rebels and are quite desirous of removing Assad. The only lifeline left for Assad is Russia.

2.There's no absolute guarantee that S-300 promised by Russia won't be bested. Russia knows it. There's one in Cyprus which I believed the West would have learnt quite a lot from it. S-300 wont be delivered, not to a country that would put it to test immediately. The loss in monetary terms (contracts with China and so many countries desirous of having the toy) and huge propaganda machine built around it would be lost. Infact, it would cast great aspersion on the credibility and reliability of other Russia's arsenals. It won't be supplied to Syria. The main hype about it is the fact that it has never been used in a real war situation, not invincibility.

3.An escalation with Israel would remove Assad from power. The surest way to remove Assad is risk an escalation with Israel. Assad knows this and that's why despite Israel's destruction of some weapons bound for Hezbollah, he did not authorize retaliation. Opening another front against a formidable opponent is silly. Assad won't do it.

4.The rebels, for now, have their eyes on the main target: remove Assad. They can't risk a war with Israel. It's more like fighting an armed policeman wielding Ak 47 with bare hands. They won't do it.

5.There're great divisions in ME and this Shiite/Sunni thing is for real. A stalemate in Syria is bad news for Lebanon (a defeated Hezbollah would alter the political calculus in Lebanon), Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and perhaps Iraq because Iraq too is joining the Iran/Hezbollah/Syria alliance. This is already playing itself out as violence escalates along sectarian lines in Iraq. It's good news for Israel.

What can change the aforementioned points is direct involvement of Russians which would guarantee swift victory for Assad, strengthen Hezbollah and create a nightmare for Israel. Since there won't be international backing for such move, I don't think Russia would risk such an escalation knowing the type of relationship that exists between Israel and Western powers. Israel is not just another country.

The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

I think your last line hit the nail on the head.

Libya will not be quickly forgotten by the policy-makers in Washington - despite Mr. "Bmb Bmb" Iran - aka McCain.
I think the Middle East is headed towards Somalia. Since US forces left that country it has not known peace - they have fought each other for 20+ years with half-hearted interventions by the powers that be. The US stepped in to stop the slaughter that Ghaddafi promised to conduct on his people, hoping to help the cause of people-rule, but many in the ME complained vehemently. Add to that the killing of the US ambassador in Libya and you have a US that will not step into another internally generated ME crisis for the foreseeable future - except when it involves Israel.

Heck some of the underground hawks might even be hoping for an all out Sunnis/Shites war in the ME so the extremists can kill each other off - while standing ready to protect Israel and perhaps make Iran a collateral damage along the way.

So, look for the Obama administration to supply some weapons, but nothing that will be a game changer any time soon.

Prof Corruption:
The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

Prof Corruption:

The greatest winner of this new policy drive is Israel. A stalemate would destroy Syria and Weaken Hezbollah. A direct victory strengthens both Assad and Hezbollah.

Don't think you understand international politics and permutation.

Most of the opposition and free syrian army are hard core jihadist and fundamentalist.
That explains the reluctance of the US Govt to arm them as they can easily divert And aim the weapon over to isreal.
With the US not doing anything in the face of rising civilian death which to me is the right action to take,
They will loose their moral high ground.
If the syrian govt wins in the conflict,iran and hezbollah will be bolstered and their next port of call will be isreal.
In all scenarios, isreal and USA govts are in a quagmire and dilemma.
This syrian conflict is an albatross and will forever define middle east politics.
This is just the beginning.
We ain't see nothing yet.

Prof Corruption:
I don't think so.

1.Saudi and Qatar are the main supporters of the rebels and the weapons are being smuggled via Lebanon and Turkey. They are the ones funding the rebels and are quite desirous of removing Assad. The only lifeline left for Assad is Russia.

This has more to do with the power struggle with Tehran and the regional tussle between Shiites and Sunnis. However, once Israel gets involved - the oil Sheikhs in the gulf won't have any other choice than to go for muslim/arab solidarity against their number one enemy. Else they will face the wrath of their people. Israel knows this hence why it has been saying that it doesn't want to get involved in the war directly.

2.There's no absolute guarantee that S-300 promised by Russia won't be bested. Russia knows it. There's one in Cyprus which I believed the West would have learnt quite a lot from it. S-300 wont be delivered, not to a country that would put it to test immediately. The loss in monetary terms (contracts with China and so many countries desirous of having the toy) and huge propaganda machine built around it would be lost. Infact, it would cast great aspersion on the credibility and reliability of other Russia's arsenals. It won't be supplied to Syria. The main hype about it is the fact that it has never been used in a real war situation, not invincibility.

The crux of the matter is that it's more effective than anything Israel has, and/or, the patriot missiles. Also, S300s has 3 variants and the ones the Russians sold to Cyprus is different from the ones in Algeria. Who knows the variants they're planning to give Syria(or is in Syria). Another thing is that; Syria already has the most robust air defense system in ME - and adding the s300s will be a game changer. Especially with Russian technicians and experts operating it.

3.An escalation with Israel would remove Assad from power. The surest way to remove Assad is risk an escalation with Israel. Assad knows this and that's why despite Israel's destruction of some weapons bound for Hezbollah, he did not authorize retaliation. Opening another front against a formidable opponent is silly. Assad won't do it.

The Hizbollah/Syria/Iran(and now Iraqi shiite) axis knows that Assad won't last beyond 2014 elections; all they want to do is consolidate on their position in Syria so as to get someone in the "clique" to replace Assad. Assad is already a gonner and he knows this as well.

What can change the aforementioned points is direct involvement of Russians which would guarantee swift victory for Assad, strengthen Hezbollah and create a nightmare for Israel. Since there won't be international backing for such move, I don't think Russia would risk such an escalation knowing the type of relationship that exists between Israel and Western powers. Israel is not just another country.

The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

I don't think the Russians will get involved the war directly except if Israel oversteps its boundary and attacks the Russians in Syria. The Russians are just there to keep the western hawks out the equation; and let the proxies fight it out. I see Iran getting more involved in the after the election - the Iranians just can't afford to lose Syria. And this might be the perfect opportunity for Iranian QoD brigade to go face-to-face with Israeli soldiers. And Iraqi shiites will go anywhere Iran goes.

Everything just looks scary, to be honest.

the US nd propaganda self, d media is always biased in reporting events, how do we know if d rebels are nt also using same,the way dey report self like dey expect d syrian govt to look while dey are being killed by some blood thirsty rebel terrorists, US u will surely be punished someday for ur evil acts

The thing people forget about Obama, is that above all, he is a strategist.He has proven this time and time again, starting with the innovative way he beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Obama has an end game in mind, and he was waiting for the pieces on the board to be in position before he started moving. He has never been an impulsive person.

Now lets see how this plays out.

pistol:


Don't think you understand international politics and permutation.

Most of the opposition and free syrian army are hard core jihadist and fundamentalist.
That explains the reluctance of the US Govt to arm them as they can easily divert And aim the weapon over to isreal.
With the US not doing anything in the face of rising civilian death which to me is the right action to take,
They will loose their moral high ground.
If the syrian govt wins in the conflict,iran and hezbollah will be bolstered and their next port of call will be isreal.
In all scenarios, isreal and USA govts are in a quagmire and dilemma.
This syrian conflict is an albatross and will forever define middle east politics.
This is just the beginning.
We ain't see nothing yet.

1.See, Assad is not and has never been a threat to Israel. Israel actually prefers Assad as the devil we know being better than an unknown angel. If Israel is against Assad in strict terms, it would have aided the rebels to topple him. It's not about Assad or any syria-Hezbollah being a threat. When Syria was very strong, it didn't attack Israel, would it now do so when its army is fatigued? Even with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel flies over the country like it's no man's land? Hezbollah is no match for an effective Israeli military machine.

2.Iran is spending millions of dollars every month sustaining Assad in power. The US recently tightened the lose by adding more sanctions to Iran's basket of miseries. Meaning: Iran can't sustain Syria for a long time without risking domestic backlash. As the sanctions bite more and more, and Iran's drawn into an "unwinnable" war, it becomes more vulnerable.

3.A stalemate is in the interest of US, Israel and Western powers. The greatest loser is Syria with a devastated infrastructure, fragmented society and a weakened military (if Assad survives or not). It is a Syria that would never threaten Israel in a foreseeable future. The next loser would be Hezbollah. A defeat would harm its standing in Lebanon and might lead to change in Lebanon's political equation thus relegating Hezbollah from a dominant player to a struggling partner. That Hezbollah would not pose a threat to Israel in a foreseeable future. Iran is obviously the next loser with millions of dollars spent to foot Assad's bills, excruciating sanctions and no domestic threat to Israel unilateral move to strike it (since neighbors have decimated their military powers).


It's not an American war. If US hates Assad so much and wants him removed, there are copious reasons to justify invasion. America has nothing to lose in Syria's getting burnt.

Am not commenting! ;-\

Am not commenting!

Prof Corruption:

1.See, Assad is not and has never been a threat to Israel. Israel actually prefers Assad as the devil we know being better than an unknown angel. If Israel is against Assad in strict terms, it would have aided the rebels to topple him. It's not about Assad or any syria-Hezbollah being a threat. When Syria was very strong, it didn't attack Israel, would it now do so when its army is fatigued? Even with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel flies over the country like it's no man's land? Hezbollah is no match for an effective Israeli military machine.

2.Iran is spending millions of dollars every month sustaining Assad in power. The US recently tightened the lose by adding more sanctions to Iran's basket of miseries. Meaning: Iran can't sustain Syria for a long time without risking domestic backlash. As the sanctions bite more and more, and Iran's drawn into an "unwinnable" war, it becomes more vulnerable.

3.A stalemate is in the interest of US, Israel and Western powers. The greatest loser is Syria with a devastated infrastructure, fragmented society and a weakened military (if Assad survives or not). It is a Syria that would never threaten Israel in a foreseeable future. The next loser would be Hezbollah. A defeat would harm its standing in Lebanon and might lead to change in Lebanon's political equation thus relegating Hezbollah from a dominant player to a struggling partner. That Hezbollah would not pose a threat to Israel in a foreseeable future. Iran is obviously the next loser with millions of dollars spent to foot Assad's bills, excruciating sanctions and no domestic threat to Israel unilateral move to strike it (since neighbors have decimated their military powers).


It's not an American war. If US hates Assad so much and wants him removed, there are copious reasons to justify invasion. America has nothing to lose in Syria's getting burnt.

This thing cannot go on for ever so remove a stalemate out of the equation.
American govt is about arming the rebels.
What does that tell u?

pistol:






This thing cannot go on for ever so remove a stalemate out of the equation.
American govt is about arming the rebels.
What does that tell u?

Without arming the rebels, Assad would win the war in two months time or maximum three months time. He has already launched an offensive on Aleppo which is Syria's biggest city. Once that's taken, the civil war is over. With US arms, rebels would counter attack and bolster their positions making the war "unwinnable" for either side. That's the stalemate we are discussing.

With more Russian/Iranian support for Assad on one hand and US/France/Britain for rebels on another hand, the vicious cycles would just continue. Do that for the next eighteen months, it doesn't matter the side that eventually triumph, Syria is doomed.

I just found this interesting piece:

[size=14pt]The Syria-Soviet Alliance[/size]

The First Syria-Soviet Ties

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two strongest world powers that competed covertly and overtly for influence around the globe. The Middle East, a vital source of oil, was of strategic importance to both camps.

In 1955, Moscow invited Syria, along with Egypt, to join a pro-Soviet pact. Turkey, a U.S. ally, mobilized troops along its southern border in an attempt to dissuade Syria from joining this pact. Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov threatened Turkey not to use force against Syria, prompting Ankara to back down. The Syria-Soviet relationship was soon cemented. From 1955 to 1960, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev provided Syria with more than $200 million in military aid to solidify the alliance and to counter U.S. influence in the region.

Soviet support to Syria was part of a greater regional strategic battle playing out in the Middle East. The Kremlin supported likeminded Arab nationalist and socialist governments including Egypt, Libya, and Iraq. The pro-Western governments of Israel, Iran (prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution), Jordan, and Saudi Arabia comprised the U.S. bloc.

In May 1967, Syrian and Egyptian provocations against Israel brought the Middle East to the brink of war. However, the Soviets never came to the aid of their clients when Israel launched a two-pronged, blitzkrieg pre-emptive strike. In just six days in June 1967, Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. In the aftermath of the Arab's military debacle, the Soviet Union pledged $2.5 billion in military aid to Syria from July 1967 until December 1968, and severed ties with Israel to defy the West.

Assad's Alliance

In 1971, when Air Force Commander Hafez al-Assad became President of Syria by way of a coup, he elected to maintain a strategic policy of close cooperation with the Soviet Union. In February 1972, Syria signed a peace and security pact with the Soviet Union as a means to strengthen its defense capability. During that year, Moscow delivered more than $135 million in Soviet arms to Damascus.

In October 1973, Syria and Egypt simultaneously launched another war against Israel. Initially taken by surprise, the Israelis battled back and even crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt. When Israel gained the upper hand, the Soviets panicked. Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened to send Soviet troops into the theater of war. A Soviet naval vessel allegedly baring nuclear arms awaited his instructions in the Egyptian port of Alexandria. In response, U.S. President Richard Nixon reportedly increased the national security warning to DEFCON 3 and placed the U.S. Navy's Sixth Fleet on high alert in the Mediterranean Sea.

With U.S. assistance, Israel emerged victorious. To maintain leverage in the region, Moscow agreed to compensate Syria (and Egypt), replacing destroyed armor and weapons with long-range missiles and high-tech aircraft. In exchange for this aid, Syria pledged not to turn to the U.S. for assistance.

The Lebanese Divide

In April 1975, civil war erupted in Lebanon, pitting Christian, Sunni, Druze, Shiite, and Palestinian against one another. In June 1976, Assad ordered 30,000 Syrian troops into Lebanon to protect the Christians. The move revealed fissures in the Syria-Soviet alliance. The Soviets, who supported the PLO and other leftist Muslim groups, openly criticized Syria's intervention. The Soviet newspaper Pravda stated that Syria harmed the Palestinian and Lebanese "national patriotic forces" and demanded that Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev told Assad that his reckless, unilateral behavior could compromise Syrian-Soviet relations. He believed that a leftist Muslim victory could transform capitalist Beirut into a communist-friendly state.

Syria was unmoved, however. As political scientist Rajan Menon noted, "That the Syrian army was equipped with Soviet weapons did little to deter Assad or enhance Moscow's influence."

Syria's intervention in Lebanon became a lasting occupation that irked Moscow to no end. In September 1982, during a meeting of the Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee, Moscow condemned Damascus for undermining Lebanese sovereignty and creating divisions within the Arab world. A Soviet statement announced, "Syrian troops on Lebanese territory harms not only the Lebanese people, but the entire struggle of the Arab peoples."

The Gorbachev Era

The rise of Mikhail Gorbachev as the next Soviet premier in November 1985 marked a radical departure in Syrian-Soviet relations. Gorbachev openly denounced Assad for his adventurism in Lebanon and called for a significant reduction in economic and military aid. He also perceived Syria's obsession with fighting Israel as a liability.

During their first meeting, Gorbachev told Assad that the Soviet Union would not support Syria's efforts to achieve military parity with Israel. Gorbachev, who sought a diplomatic solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, also scolded Assad for intervening in Lebanese and Palestinian affairs. In April 1987, at a state dinner in Moscow, Gorbachev chided Assad for fanning the flames of the Arab-Israeli conflict, calling the Syrian leader's approach "completely discredited."

Gorbachev's frustration with Syria had an immediate impact on the patron-client relationship. Soviet arms shipments to Syria dropped off dramatically. Indeed, Gorbachev reduced Soviet arms shipments to Damascus from $2.4 billion annually from 1980-1984 to $1.3 billion annually from 1985-1989. The number of Soviet advisors in Syria was also reduced to 1,800 from 4,000 in 1986. Finally, the Soviets began demanding that Syria pay for arms with cash.

For nearly four decades, Syria had been the greatest Middle East recipient of Soviet economic, military, and political support. By the late 1980s, that relationship was effectively finished.

U.S. Diplomacy

Gorbachev's downgrading of ties with Damascus prompted Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Diyaullah al-Fattal to reach out to the United States. "Our economic links in the region are with the West. We are not allies of the East," he stated.

Sensing opportunity, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz proposed a new Middle East peace initiative in 1988 based on the principles of U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, calling for Israel to withdraw from territories captured during the 1967 war in exchange for Arab-Israeli peace and security. Assad, however, rejected the offer, claiming Shultz's plan did not meet the collective interests of the Arabs and benefited only Israel. Echoing his Soviet strategy, Assad further insisted that Syria's ability to maintain military parity with Israel was critical to achieving regional peace. Assad also told U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in February 1988 that Syria would be willing to enter negotiations if Israel withdrew from the Golan Heights.

With his demands made public via Syria's state-run media, Assad stated, "If Schultz wants a peace, the door is well known and he can enter it peacefully."

With the end of the Cold War in 1989, the Soviet Union began to unravel. Warmer ties between Moscow and Washington eventually led to warmer ties between Russia and Israel. In September 1990, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy met at the U.N. Full diplomatic relations between Israel and the Soviet Union were restored in October 1991. This effectively drove the final wedge between Damascus and Moscow.

Epilogue

In December 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved and became known as the Commonwealth of Independent States. With only one super power remaining, Syria had no choice but to turn to the United States for an alliance. That relationship, however, would never come to fruition. Syrian support for terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad prevented Damascus-Washington rapprochement throughout the 1990s.

Although a Syrian-Israeli peace deal was a priority during the presidency of Bill Clinton (1992-2000), Syria never compromised. Indeed, in 2000, after years of Washington-brokered peace overtures, Assad snubbed Clinton at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, when he flatly refused to engage in further Israeli-Syrian peace talks. This exacerbated tensions with Washington.

After Clinton left office, Syria's missteps continued. Damascus' support for the Iraqi insurgency, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers have been killed or maimed, coupled with its warm alliance with Iran, a state determined to acquire nuclear weapons for regional domination, has further derailed realistic chances of mending U.S.-Syria ties.

Learning From History

Learning the lessons of history, dating back to 1955, Syria has consistently demonstrated that it is not a friend of the United States.

Throughout the Cold War, Syria chose to ally with the Soviet Union. From the rise of Khrushchev through the Brezhnev years, Syria played a role in the Soviet strategy to undermine U.S. interests in the region. Even during the Gorbachev years, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Syria failed to grasp a golden opportunity to broaden ties with Washington. During the heyday of Washington-brokered peace deals of the 1990s, Syria failed yet again to mend relations. Today, Syria's dangerous policies continue to demonstrate that it is a duplicitous regime.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/833/the-syria-soviet-alliance

Honestly, I think the West isn't planning to win the Syrian war(they can't even if they waste all their resources - the Russians will never allow that to happen). The strategy and realpolitik being played out is to tie Iran and Hizbollah down into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. And it seems they have achieved that in the last two years or so. However, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and the destruction of Syria. They can never allow Iran/Hizbollah win this war. A win for that axis will put their interests in the MENA at risk.

Also, it might be payback time for Syria and Iran for what they did to the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran supplied all the brutal and effective weapons used the Shiite militias used in the insurgency that killed thousands of US soldiers.

ShyM-X:
Honestly, I think the West isn't planning to win the Syrian war(they can't even if they waste all their resources - the Russians will never allow that to happen). The strategy and realpolitik being played out is to tie Iran and Hizbollah down into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. And it seems they have achieved that in the last two years or so. However, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and the destruction of Syria. They can never allow Iran/Hizbollah win this war. A win for that axis will put their interests in the MENA at risk.

Also, it might be payback time for Syria and Iran for what they did to the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran supplied all the brutal and effective weapons used the Shiite militias used in the insurgency that killed thousands of US soldiers.

Russia is a developing economy. They have no say in anything. they are only allowed to do what the US allows them to do.

Prof Corruption:

I don't think so.

1.Saudi and Qatar are the main supporters of the rebels and the weapons are being smuggled via Lebanon and Turkey. They are the ones funding the rebels and are quite desirous of removing Assad. The only lifeline left for Assad is Russia.

2.There's no absolute guarantee that S-300 promised by Russia won't be bested. Russia knows it. There's one in Cyprus which I believed the West would have learnt quite a lot from it. S-300 wont be delivered, not to a country that would put it to test immediately. The loss in monetary terms (contracts with China and so many countries desirous of having the toy) and huge propaganda machine built around it would be lost. Infact, it would cast great aspersion on the credibility and reliability of other Russia's arsenals. It won't be supplied to Syria. The main hype about it is the fact that it has never been used in a real war situation, not invincibility.

3.An escalation with Israel would remove Assad from power. The surest way to remove Assad is risk an escalation with Israel. Assad knows this and that's why despite Israel's destruction of some weapons bound for Hezbollah, he did not authorize retaliation. Opening another front against a formidable opponent is silly. Assad won't do it.

4.The rebels, for now, have their eyes on the main target: remove Assad. They can't risk a war with Israel. It's more like fighting an armed policeman wielding Ak 47 with bare hands. They won't do it.

5.There're great divisions in ME and this Shiite/Sunni thing is for real. A stalemate in Syria is bad news for Lebanon (a defeated Hezbollah would alter the political calculus in Lebanon), Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and perhaps Iraq because Iraq too is joining the Iran/Hezbollah/Syria alliance. This is already playing itself out as violence escalates along sectarian lines in Iraq. It's good news for Israel.

What can change the aforementioned points is direct involvement of Russians which would guarantee swift victory for Assad, strengthen Hezbollah and create a nightmare for Israel. Since there won't be international backing for such move, I don't think Russia would risk such an escalation knowing the type of relationship that exists between Israel and Western powers. Israel is not just another country.

The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

good analysis

bobthebuilder99:

Russia is a developing economy. They have no say in anything. they are only allowed to do what the US allows them to do.

This is a really naive assessment.

Prof Corruption:

2.There's no absolute guarantee that S-300 promised by Russia won't be bested. Russia knows it. There's one in Cyprus which I believed the West would have learnt quite a lot from it. S-300 wont be delivered, not to a country that would put it to test immediately. The loss in monetary terms (contracts with China and so many countries desirous of having the toy) and huge propaganda machine built around it would be lost. Infact, it would cast great aspersion on the credibility and reliability of other Russia's arsenals. It won't be supplied to Syria. The main hype about it is the fact that it has never been used in a real war situation, not invincibility.

I think the threat of delivery - not the actual delivery - is the bargaining chip the Russians will prefer to hold on to.

Prof Corruption:


3.An escalation with Israel would remove Assad from power. The surest way to remove Assad is risk an escalation with Israel. Assad knows this and that's why despite Israel's destruction of some weapons bound for Hezbollah, he did not authorize retaliation. Opening another front against a formidable opponent is silly. Assad won't do it.

I think this assessment is a bit of miscalculation. Assad has more to gain by risking an escalation with Israel than he has to lose by not doing so and I am betting he will definitely be willing to do so if Israel strikes Syria again in the future. An escalation with Israel will win Assad the sympathy and the backing of major Muslim states in the region. Israel will become a common enemy and all currently warring sides will quickly unite. As an example, during the Gulf war, Iraqi government fired scud missiles at Israel with the hope of provoking a military response from Israel. The Bush administration prevented Israel from retaliating because if Israel had done so, Arab countries will withdraw their forces from the US led coalition and will probably even join Iraqi forces.

Additionally, what more does Assad have to lose? If Damascus gets hit by Israeli missiles, and Tel Aviv gets hit by Syrian missiles, guess who wins? Assad of course! It's like getting into a fight with someone who has already been sentenced to death, if you win, you lose, if you lose, well you lose more!

bookface:

I think this assessment is a bit of miscalculation. Assad has more to gain by risking an escalation with Israel than he has to lose by not doing so and I am betting he will definitely be willing to do so if Israel strikes Syria again in the future. An escalation with Israel will win Assad the sympathy and the backing of major Muslim states in the region. Israel will become a common enemy and all currently warring sides will quickly unite. As an example, during the Gulf war, Iraqi government fired scud missiles at Israel with the hope of provoking a military response from Israel. The Bush administration prevented Israel from retaliating because if Israel had done so, Arab countries will withdraw their forces from the US led coalition and will probably even join Iraqi forces.

Additionally, what more does Assad have to lose? If Damascus gets hit by Israeli missiles, and Tel Aviv gets hit by Syrian missiles, guess who wins? Assad of course! It's like getting into a fight with someone who has already been sentenced to death, if you win, you lose, if you lose, well you lose more!

If the highlighted were to be true, Assad would have retaliated against Israel long ago.

Prof Corruption:


5.There're great divisions in ME and this Shiite/Sunni thing is for real. A stalemate in Syria is bad news for Lebanon (a defeated Hezbollah would alter the political calculus in Lebanon), Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and perhaps Iraq because Iraq too is joining the Iran/Hezbollah/Syria alliance. This is already playing itself out as violence escalates along sectarian lines in Iraq. It's good news for Israel.

What can change the aforementioned points is direct involvement of Russians which would guarantee swift victory for Assad, strengthen Hezbollah and create a nightmare for Israel. Since there won't be international backing for such move, I don't think Russia would risk such an escalation knowing the type of relationship that exists between Israel and Western powers. Israel is not just another country.

The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

I think one thing to understand here is that Assad, by not losing the war, is actually winning the war and one thing he has going for him is that unlike Lybia, the Syrian resistance is not well coordinated.

It is also important to understand that the longer this plays out, the stronger the Russian/Iran/Syrian alliance will grow. A stronger alliance between Russia and Iran is bad news for Israel and the West. Additionally, for Russia, this is not only about winning, it is also about sending out a very strong message - That Putin's Russia, will stick with commitments to its partners regardless of what may happen -

I think unfortunately that the proxy war will continue for a really long time. Syria will never be the same again.

Prof Corruption:

If the highlighted were to be true, Assad would have retaliated against Israel long ago.

My guess is an explanation for that will be down to Moscow's influence. Obviously a retaliatory strike from Syria is a slippery slope to a much bigger conflict that could easily draw in Superpowers. From Moscow's angle, there's no point going down that route for now especially when you can make Israeli leaders quake in their boots by threatning to supply Syria with S300s. Did you see how Bibi ran to Moscow to plead with the Boss?

so to push this work to front page they hard all this MOD....well this is not about tonto na

chaloner: so to push this work to front page they hard all this MOD....well this is not about tonto na

Why would a thread about Obama and Syria make it to the front page of Nairaland?

bookface:

This is a really naive assessment.

Ask the Soviet Union what it means to challenge the US.

They'll tell you.

Unnecessary war, avoidable loss of lives.But will the leaders of the so-called modern Democracies listen to the voice of their people? the answer is No.

Prof Corruption:

I don't think so.

1.Saudi and Qatar are the main supporters of the rebels and the weapons are being smuggled via Lebanon and Turkey. They are the ones funding the rebels and are quite desirous of removing Assad. The only lifeline left for Assad is Russia.

2.There's no absolute guarantee that S-300 promised by Russia won't be bested. Russia knows it. There's one in Cyprus which I believed the West would have learnt quite a lot from it. S-300 wont be delivered, not to a country that would put it to test immediately. The loss in monetary terms (contracts with China and so many countries desirous of having the toy) and huge propaganda machine built around it would be lost. Infact, it would cast great aspersion on the credibility and reliability of other Russia's arsenals. It won't be supplied to Syria. The main hype about it is the fact that it has never been used in a real war situation, not invincibility.

3.An escalation with Israel would remove Assad from power. The surest way to remove Assad is risk an escalation with Israel. Assad knows this and that's why despite Israel's destruction of some weapons bound for Hezbollah, he did not authorize retaliation. Opening another front against a formidable opponent is silly. Assad won't do it.

4.The rebels, for now, have their eyes on the main target: remove Assad. They can't risk a war with Israel. It's more like fighting an armed policeman wielding Ak 47 with bare hands. They won't do it.

5.There're great divisions in ME and this Shiite/Sunni thing is for real. A stalemate in Syria is bad news for Lebanon (a defeated Hezbollah would alter the political calculus in Lebanon), Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and perhaps Iraq because Iraq too is joining the Iran/Hezbollah/Syria alliance. This is already playing itself out as violence escalates along sectarian lines in Iraq. It's good news for Israel.

What can change the aforementioned points is direct involvement of Russians which would guarantee swift victory for Assad, strengthen Hezbollah and create a nightmare for Israel. Since there won't be international backing for such move, I don't think Russia would risk such an escalation knowing the type of relationship that exists between Israel and Western powers. Israel is not just another country.

The most plausible scenario is continuation of proxy wars with destruction of Syria.

Error. S-300 for China? Research enough buddy.