To understand the scope of the complexity of the Syrian conflict, some of the views of Jamil Sawda, a specialist on Syria, are examined in his August 29, 2013 interview with ABC News. [1] Who supports whom and what comes next for the country. His views as an expert on the subject are quite similar to mine and are used to express and strengthen my views.

Foreign countries, particularly some in the Gulf area, to compete for influence, are backing their own militant or political groups. At the same time, the insurgents have increasingly relied on foreign-sponsored support for their logistics that only foreign governments, not jihadist extremists, can provide. In this process, anxious to maintain their own financial support, they end up making offers from other countries that make the prospect of a unified opposition extremely difficult.

Until now, the reason for the prominence and success of the hard-line insurgents in 2012 and part of 2013 has been the superiority of their material resources. Major hardline forces such as Ahrar al-Sham, a leading member of the Syrian Islamic Front, and the Free Syrian Army, an umbrella of various groups, have had a growing presence on the ground and on the front lines of most offensive attacks. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is undoubtedly poised to come back and become a major player, mainly because the secular opposition groups are highly divided, while the Islamists are highly organized.

The Muslim Brotherhood is most likely to support the rebel groups, which have their own militia assembled under the Shields of the Revolution and the Committee for the Protection of Civilians. The complexity is further developed by the deep division within the opposing forces themselves, each vying for dominance.

Advances in favor of the government

According to Dr. Christof Lehmann, an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution, a successful subversion of the Syrian government with militants is becoming increasingly unlikely. [2]. Their views are supported if we realize that the military forces have inflicted heavy losses on NATO and GCC-backed insurgents. Furthermore, a direct military intervention by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel or any of the NATO member states becomes increasingly unlikely, while Russia and China continue to prevent another Libya-style intervention. Meanwhile, Russia, Syria and Iran seem successful in conveying that a military aggression against Syria would have catastrophic regional and potentially global consequences. At the same time, the government has not only been very active, but has been very successful in molding the reform movements of opposition parties, as well as religious and ethnic groups, into a coherent and constructive alliance for peace, reconciliation and reform.

The government’s strategy of inclusion and amnesty on the one hand, and the fight against terrorism and armed subversion on the other, continues to bear fruit of peace. The question is how long it will take and how many lives will be lost or injured on both sides before international diplomacy begins constructive negotiations on the core issues that caused the crisis.

The national reconciliation process is starting to gain momentum as Minister of National Reconciliation Ali Haidar tours the Syrian provinces to push for the implementation of the political program that has been recently approved by the government and representatives of opposition parties, communities religious, reformist and youth movements. , tribal and ethnic group agents, and others involved in carrying out the program.

A new government initiative focuses on repatriating those who went abroad to join foreign-backed subversion attempts. The Syrian Interior Minister, Lieutenant General Mohammad al-Shaar, has stated that the border centers will offer all necessary facilities and guarantees to all opposition forces entering the country to participate in the national dialogue.

The latest initiative is the continuation of a successful strategy, which the government has used consistently since the start of the crisis some two years ago. Several general amnesties have borne fruit, giving those who were initially deceived or dragged into the facts by the force of the situation, the possibility of returning to national life and actively participating in the process of reform and reconciliation. The blanket amnesties have especially provided the opportunity for those who initially took up arms, but became increasingly concerned about the influx of Salafist terrorist organizations, to realign themselves with the peaceful reform process and the Syrian armed forces.

So far, the armed forces have continued their crackdown on terrorist groups in Daraya, Douma, al-Husseineih, al-Bahdalieh and al-Dhivabieh in the Damascus metropolitan region. The army has also clashed with insurgents in al-Fashoukh farms west of the city of Daraya. The insurgents here have had substantial losses.

Clashes also broke out on the road from Darab al-Hidad to the National Hospital and in Shreida Square, where the military clashed with remnants of terrorist cells, and in several other places in the country, including the Aleppo region and Idlib, where a insurgent attack on the central prison has been repelled in Hama and Daraa.

Speaking in Damascus in mid-August, Assad hailed the recent achievements of his military forces across the country, saying “war is the only way to end terrorism.” “Syria can end the insurgency in a few months if the people fight with the army through a people’s war.” Unity between the army and the people will end terrorism, he said.

“Terrorism and politics are complete opposites,” said Assad, who considers all rebel groups and many opposition figures fighting for his ouster “terrorists.” “There can be no political action and progress on the political track while terrorism strikes everywhere.” He told prominent members of Syria’s clergy, business and arts community who gathered for an “iftar” to break the fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. “No solution can be found with terror except by hitting it with an iron fist,” he has said.

At the same time, the presence of foreign fighters has grown among rebel ranks and al Qaeda-linked groups have seized control of some opposition-held territory, worrying opposition supporters in the West and Middle East. [3]

Israel wants to keep Assad in power

An informed investigation of the crisis in the region clearly points to the deep problems facing Israel surrounded by enemy states, except Syria. Its leaders are deeply concerned about developments and express their worrying views.

According to Jerusalem (AFP) May 22, 2013 – Middle East, Israel’s air force chief has indicated that unrest in the region increases the chances that Israel will be drawn into a surprise war. There are signs that Israel wants to keep Bashar al-Assad in power, but conveniently weakened because an Islamist regime taking power in Damascus would be too dangerous.

Although Israel has not formally acknowledged mounting the airstrikes, there is little doubt which country in the Middle East could have carried them out. The targets were all Russian surface-to-air missiles or Iranian surface-to-surface missiles. The Israelis say they were to be handed over to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite movement whose forces are fighting by the thousands alongside Assad’s troops.

According to Abdul Qader Saleh, commander of the rebel al-Tawhid Brigade, the Syrian opposition came close to seizing Assad’s weapons caches, which is why Israel attacked Syria. The assault was in support of Assad. He added that Israel is cooperating with Iran and Hezbollah, its two most dangerous enemies, to prevent the fall of Assad, who has defended Israel’s borders for more than 40 years.

Efraim Halevy, the former director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, lent some weight to the claim that Israel does not want Assad gone. “Israel’s most important strategic goal with regard to Syria has always been a stable peace, which is not something that the current civil war has changed,” he wrote in the May issue of Foreign Affairs.

“Israel knows one thing about the Assads, for the past 40 years they have managed to preserve some kind of calm along the border…Indeed, even as Israeli and Syrian forces were briefly engaged in fierce combat in 1982 during the civil war in Lebanon, the border remained quiet.

However, it seems that a much deeper train of thought regarding strategic self-interest occupies the Israeli mind. Keeping Assad in power means that Iran, which Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu considers Israel’s greatest enemy, will be tied down by keeping its only Arab ally in power and its only gateway to Lebanon. Thanassis Combsnis of the Century Foundation think tank expresses the same sort of interpretation in the Journal of Foreign Policy: “The conflict shows no signs of ending, and as foreign aid to the rebels increases, Iran will have to invest more and more resources just to maintain a deadlock. ]4]

In conclusion, at this moment, Iran, Lebanon and Russia are allies of Assad and help him in his battle against the terrorists, which also includes the insurgents. Israel strongly supports keeping Assad in power but somehow on the weekend. Assad’s army is gaining ground almost everywhere, and his amnesty and reconciliation programs and allowing some provincial reforms put him in a dominant position. There seems to be no reasonable or easy solution to the crisis. The acceptance of foreign control to solve the chemical weapons problem as proposed and mediated by Russia gave Assad the opportunity to remain in power for quite some time. Some countries in the region and opposition or foreign groups inside Syria must choose the lesser of two evils, Assad or the extremist Islamists. The choice seems obvious.

Dr. Reza Rezazadeh (BSME, LL.B., JD, LL.M., Ph.D., SJD)

————————————————– ————————————————– ——————-

References:

[1] Jamil Sawda previously worked at the UN Iraq Office in New York. He has a bachelor’s degree from Macquarie University, a master’s degree in Middle Eastern and Central Asian studies, a master’s degree in diplomacy, and a postgraduate diploma in strategic affairs from the Australian National University. He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Canberra focusing on diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria.

]2]Dr. Christof Lehmann is the founder and publisher of nsnbc. He is a psychologist and independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and a wide range of other political issues. His work with traumatized victims of the conflict has led him to also work as a political consultant. He has been a lifelong activist for peace and justice, human rights, Palestinian rights for self-determination in Palestine. He is also working on establishing international institutions for the prosecution of all war crimes, including those committed by privileged nations. In 2011 he started his blog nsnbc and in 2013 he turned nsnbc into an international independent daily online newspaper at [email protected]

[3] Reuters Report, “Syria’s Assad: War Is Only Way To End Terrorism.” Voice of America, August 5, 2013.

[4] See Space Warfare Report, ITT Technical Institute, “Israel Wants to Keep Assad in Power.” Beirut, Lebanon (UPI) May 22, 2013.