Did Hagel and Kerry scotch the Syrian regime change operation?

[ucrdem]

If so that was some fast footwork. Translated from French:

John Kerry’s murky game
by Thierry Meyssan
Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 10 March 2013

While the Syrian Arab army has lost Rakka, leaving de facto a northern part of the country under Turkish control, the United States has been sending contradictory signals. Have they have chosen to continue the war by proxy or are they gearing up to impose on their allies the peace agreement they have negotiated with the Russians?

(snip)


At a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart, John Kerry twice repeated the US commitment to a "peaceful solution" in Syria. But two minutes later, he approved the sending of Saudi Arabian arms to the Syrian "moderate" opposition. Kerry reiterated these contradictions during his visit to Qatar.

(snip)

Ehud Barak was received at the Pentagon by his U.S. counterpart, Chuck Hagel, with whom he has developed a good relationship in the past. The Israeli obtained that U.S. aid (about $ 3 billion annually) not be affected by budget cuts. In return, he ceded over Syria. In the Department of Defense press release, it is clear that the two sides discussed issues of common security "including the need for the Syrian regime to maintain its control over its chemical and biological weapons; the leaders committed to continue planning emergency measures to counter this potential threat. "

In other words, Washington and Tel Aviv are no longer considering "regime change" in Damascus, and agreed to help the Syrian Arab army maintain control of its chemical and biological weapons in the event of jihadists attacks.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article177839.html

[Scootaloo]

1. I hope that conclusion is the correct one.

Assad actually is better than the alternative that has presented itself.

[leveymg]

2. That's my understanding. Syria will be carved up into a Big Beirut.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

The most likely outcome appears to be Balkanization, or perhaps more accurately, one Big Beirut.

Here's what it's likely to look like: the "moderate" western-approved FSA will essentially serve as a militia and border police for the Israelis and Jordanians, like the Druze and South Lebanon Army factions. Meanwhile, the Saudi-backed Sunnis can be expected to continue to occupy much of the northern and eastern border areas along Turkey and as a "buffer" with Iraq. The Alawite may remain in much of what's left of Damascus and area north bordering Beirut and their historical enclaves along the coast. Expect sporatic flair-ups of fighting and civil war among and within these factions, along with a shit load of terrorism, for the next few decades.

That appears to be the end-game for Free Syria that's been created.

[ucrdem]

3. Could be.

Not a pretty picture and doesn't bode well for post-conflict Syria which has already been devastated. But I wonder if it's going to happen. Judging from Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and of course Iraq that was more or less the plan all along.

But in those cases the decapitation was successful, whereas Assad has managed to survive his own funeral, and with a functioning head of state Syria might not be as unstable as all that. In other words won't Assad keep trying to expel the jihadis and reclaim their territories, and if he's made it this far, aren't his chance of success pretty high?

[leveymg]

10. Removing Assad, personally, isn't the point for the U.S. or Israel. He's a convenient boogey-man

but considered no better or worse than any of his regime circle. The strategic goal all along, I conclude, was to turn or neutralize Iran's major ally in the region. That much has been, to a very great degree, already accomplished, but in the process the fires of the Sunni-Shi'ia divide and Salafi terrorism are raging out of control across MENA, and the US and NATO are in no position to stop it. That would take the cooperation of KSA/GCC, but the Saudis and Emirs are the major sponsors of Sunni radicalism and the Gulf Arabs are reaping enormous prestige rewards from their financial backing of this stage of Jihad. Ultimately, that puts them in direct conflict with the U.S. and the west, as well as Iran and the Shi'ia, and to a lesser degree with Russia and China.

I see this situation of shifting alliances, covert warfare, and secret treaties is as perilous as that in Europe just before World War One.

[ucrdem]

13. I think that's a fair assessment.

And I agree that outside parties including NATO are playing with fire by launching destabilization schemes in pursuit of profits for resource extractors and investors. But I wonder if long-term regional conflict -- WWIII -- isn't unintended. War is a major profit center for oil companies and the countries that supply them. The US Army is the world's largest single oil consumer for example and its vendors prosper no matter what the eventual outcome.

[ProSense]

4. Where is

In other words, Washington and Tel Aviv are no longer considering "regime change" in Damascus, and agreed to help the Syrian Arab army maintain control of its chemical and biological weapons in the event of jihadists attacks.

...this information coming from? It gives the impression that the Israel is driving the decision. The commentary seems a bit conspiratorial with Israel at the center.

From the same site in February.

Everything is being done to avoid offending the Israel lobby and to facilitate Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as Defense Secretary. In the shadows, the puzzle is progressively being put together. The White House continues to repeat that Assad must go, while Vice-President Joe Biden travels to Munich to negotiate with the Muslim Brotherhood, represented by Moaz al-Khatib, and preparations for the Obama-Putin summit are underway. The sharing of the Middle East is not far off.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article177365.html

I'm not sure how the author is piecing together the assumptions made in the OP.

Here is a relevant excerpt of Kerry's comments with the Saudi Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Foreign Minister, is U.S. agreement last week in Rome to begin providing food and medicine to the Syrian fighters anything close to enough to speed an end to the war? You mentioned in your opening statement the Saudi view that the rebels should be – or the Syrian people should be able to defend themselves. Is this going to be enough to help them do that?

And for Secretary Kerry, are the arms that Saudi Arabia is already providing to the Syrian rebels at risk of falling into the wrong hands and basically being part of the problem that you have identified?

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: As to providing enough aid and security for the Syrians, Saudi Arabia will do everything within its capabilities to help in this. We do believe that what is happening in Syria is a slaughter, a slaughter of innocent people, and we just can’t bring ourselves to remain quiet in front of this carnage. Morally, we have a duty to protect them. I have never heard or seen in history or in our present time, it is the only time in a great while that a regime would use a strategic missile towards his people and he too is killing innocent children, innocent women and old men. He is hitting his cities diabolically at a time when we are concentrating either to get food or medication, he is choosing a time when there is more citizens in the area of bombardment than any other time. This cannot go on. He has lost all authority in that country. He does not have a role to play anymore. Nobody who has done that to his citizens can claim a right to lead a country.

SECRETARY KERRY: I think His Royal Highness has spoken very eloquently about the situation in Syria. And I would simply add there is no guarantee that one weapon or another might not at some point in time fall into the wrong hands. But I will tell you this, that there is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is, in fact, getting to them, and the indication is that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that. Believe me, the bad actors, regrettably, have no shortage of their ability to get weapons from Iran, from Hezbollah, from Russia, unfortunately, and that’s happening. So I think His Royal Highness has made the status of this challenge absolutely crystal clear. Bashar Assad is destroying his country and his people in the process to hold onto power that is not his anymore. The people have made it clear he’s lost his legitimacy.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/03/205584.htm

These are comments made by Kerry a few days ago.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’d like to ask you about Syria. This week, discussions are intensifying among European Union members on lifting the arms embargo. Specifically, Britain and France are pushing for lifting the arms embargo and they’re hoping that the U.S. will support them. Given that the rebels are telling us that the U.S. is already training members of the Syrian rebel military in Jordan and other places, can you say whether you support a more robust arming of the rebels to strengthen moderate – the moderate forces there, or are you already moving in that direction?

<...>

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. Well, let me say, first of all, with respect to Syria, we have consistently said, and I say again, the longer the bloodshed goes on, the greater the prospect that the institutions of the state of Syria implode, and therefore, the greater the danger is to the region and the world that chemical weapons fall into the hands of really bad actors. We do not want that to happen. We also don’t want the fragmentation and destruction of the state. Those state institutions are critical to the stability of the state, to its future, and the region.

So as long as President Assad continues to attack his own people with SCUDs, with aircraft, with tanks, there is an imbalance in this which is creating more and more refugees pouring into Jordan, pouring into Lebanon, pouring into Turkey. And that is becoming a global catastrophe.

So we do not stand – President Obama has made it clear that the United States does not stand in the way of other countries that have made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others. He believes that we need to change President Assad’s calculation. Right now, President Assad is receiving help from the Iranians, he is receiving help from al Qaida-related – some elements, he’s receiving help from Hezbollah, and obviously some help is coming in through the Russians. If he believes he can shoot it out, Syrians and the region have a problem, and the world has a problem.

So President Obama’s effort is to try to change that calculation, but leave the door open for the possibility of the Geneva Communique to take hold, which requires the selection of individuals acceptable to both sides, which clearly means not Assad, who will form a provisional transitional government with full executive authority. The Russians have signed onto that, the United States, the global community. That’s the road forward. But you have to have a President Assad who is willing to appoint that independent entity. And as of this moment, he is not.

So that’s the effort in Syria. It’s to try to change the calculation. And President Obama is evaluating and will continue to evaluate any additional options available in order to make that happen.

<...>

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/03/206370.htm

[ucrdem]

6. The info is from the State dept and "current and former U.S. officials"

at least according to an LAT report posted last week in LBN:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-syria-20130316,0,3989647.story

For example the State Dept declared in December that al-Nusra, a key element of the Syrian opposition, is a terrorist organization:

The State Department says one of the strongest militias, Al Nusra Front, is a terrorist organization that is indistinguishable from the group Al Qaeda in Iraq.[/div class="excerpt"]

So I think that what he's getting at. As for Israel Meyssan is not without his prejudices but I think what he's noticing is not that Israel and others (Britain, France) are driving the agenda, but that they aren't, at least with respect to regime change in Syria and elsewhere, notably Iran. If they were, we'd have stepped up our intervention months ago.

p.s. The reason I posted this piece is that it accords with my own view that Kerry is doing exactly what a good diplomat does: getting the job done (in this case, scotching the regime change) without giving allies cause to protest. Thus the "murky game." Meyssan is currently teaching at Damascus, so he's in the thick of it, and his perceptions are less mediated than in larger media, but if you feel this is not suitable for DU, please let me know and I'll delete it. I trust your judgement and I'd much rather hear it from you than a jury.

[ProSense]

8. Seems to me that this

"For example the State Dept declared in December that al-Nusra, a key element of the Syrian opposition, is a terrorist organization: "

...is part of the reason the administration rejected pressure to provide arms to the opposition. Kerry emphasized during his confirmation that they had to ensure that they weren't making the situation worse by putting arms in the wrong hands.

Still, this is all very interesting.

[Mass]

5. Careful, while Meyssan is a true reporter and political activist,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan

he has sometimes been linked to murky reporting and is also a truther , so I would consider what he says with a lot of caution.

[ucrdem]

7. Think I ought to delete?

I'm thinking maybe I should.

[leveymg]

9. Keep it. It's mostly analysis, anyway.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Point-of-view is permitted here. Even yours, and mine.

[karynnj]

11. Thank you for posting it -

I think it is good to have a wide range of articles posted here - or on DU general discussion. It is perhaps safest here because we have always put up to discuss anything related to Kerry - including things that distorted his positions - the better to defend him. That article is not like that and it is clear that it is partly conjecture as it written as such. I suspect that on most diplomatic efforts nothing is EVER 100% as it appears in public and it is only years later that we MAYBE get various accounts of what happened.

Syria is a very very difficult issue and there appear to be a huge number of very bad choices. It is less clear there are any good choices. It is also likely that the effort to improve the Middle east situation would be helped if Syria was not in chaos.

I agree with your interpretation, but would add that President Obama is known to have rejected the request of Hillary Clinton and Petraeus to arm the rebels. Kerry, throughout his nomination hearing always spoke of hoping for a diplomatic solution - most telling when given as an answer to the question of whether he would favor arming the rebels.

[ucrdem]

12. thanks karynnj

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I appreciate the support. And I'm glad there are others here who see this vital policy adjustment favorably. Of the five recent M.E. decapitations Syria's seemed to have the least justification. After a dubious PR flurry (the lesbian blogger who proved fake for example) and a brief "social-media" fueled Arab Spring, some provocateur violence was laid at Assad's feet, which he firmly disavowed, and presto, we had a new evil dictator oppressing a cadre of well-armed rebels getting political cover from the west.

As transparent as it all was, the campaign appears to have succeeded, and even here there's a faction that approves any catastrophe as long it's seen as a blow against Assad, for example the mosque bombing yesterday that killed 42 people in Damascus. So I have to marvel at the smooth sailing Kerry's gotten so far and hope it lasts.