Said the unnamed ‘Western diplomatic source’ citing ‘intelligence reports’

Reuters deemed it newsworthy to report an ‘exclusive’ from a “Western diplomat” citing “intelligence reports”:

The equipment being transferred by both companies (Iran and Mahan Air) … ranges from communications equipment to light arms and advanced strategic weapons, some of which are being used devastatingly by Hezbollah and the Syrian regime against the Syrian people,” said the Western intelligence report.

Neither is the report or diplomatic source referenced by Reuters but somehow an unnamed source from one side of a geopolitical struggle seems authoritative to be cited regarding another. I’ve previously posted about this sudden upsurge in ‘credulity’ in covering Syria.

A growing confrontation between Qatar and Iran

It appears that Qatar is now in direct confrontation with Iran, after its strong overturn to go beyond the normalising of relations with Egypt. There is a sense that Iran is now attempting to garner strong relations with the Muslim Brotherhood to re-align itself in response to regional shifts. It also demonstrates that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, at least, is not dictated to by Qatar. The problem is Qatar’s vision of an opposing bloc to Iran and Saudi – a bloc that includes Turkey and Brotherhood led governments, with a future Syria seen as part of that.

Iran, on the other hand, wishes to not only open preferential trade agreements with Egypt but also other forms of strategic coordination, that will include both Hamas and Hezbollah. There is also a reciprocity of distrust and growing animosity, with Iranian officials also explicitly separating Qatar for special mention, as a belligerent influence in Syria and beyond. This confrontation has extended to Al-Jazeera’s (Arabic) coverage, that is now providing an Iranian angle similar to the Saudi owned Al-Arabiyya.

Hezbollah and Syria’s refugees

Hezbollah is culpable for its wrong-headed and debased alignment with the Syrian regime – nothing justifies this position; whatever the make-up of many of Syria’s sectarian and imperialist backed opposition factions. However, little has been reported (for clear and obvious reasons) on their work in providing support and shelter for Syria’s refugees. This article, with some expected quips, is an exception. There is nothing new here and it is consistent with their position that  supporting and sheltering Syrian refugees should be considered a humanitarian issue.

The onus is on the regime

Jonathan Steele puts forward some good ideas in this article on Syria. However, an arms blockade on both sides will make little or no difference, other than assisting regime brutality – there has never been an issue with regime supply of weapons and insistent talk on Russia and Iran ‘arming’ the regime has largely been propaganda. There never was any symmetry between both sides (it was never a question of arms but logistics and strategy of countering a fragmented guerilla war waged against the regime) and there is no moral equivalence either. Nevertheless, pressure on the Syrian regime to end the militarised crackdown would be more effective, as the regime has benefited from Russia’s geopolitical manoeuvring.  Importantly the onus is largely on the regime, more than anything, and it not only bears full responsibility for the armed conflict, with its consequences, but also it is only a seismic shift in its policy with some acknowledgement that the uprising, in its inception, was a popular one against over forty years of Mukhabaraat rule. Once this or at least some bearing of responsibility is acknowledged (not likely) then whatever led to a militarising of the revolt would be placed in its correct context. There would be no ceasefire, as it is for the regime to make a decision that it is caught in a spiral of brutality that will lead Syria to many years of a pointless and destructive conflict.  This means, in the parlance of Syria’s domestic opposition, the end of the ‘security solution’. To put it another way, ending the ‘security solution’ will de facto provide a breakthrough and some pressure can be placed in that direction. Considering the aforementioned a-symmetry, it makes no sense to call for a ceasefire and an arms embargo on both sides.   

Participating the Assad regime in a political transition

The Obama regime seem to be pushing for a negotiated solution between itself and Russia and other regional powers. While the House of Saud view the Syrian crisis as a proxy war for it to curtail Iran’s influence and vainly hope for an article seven intervention at the Security Council, the US is more pragmatic and recognises that a solution that maintains it regional hegemony and sense of control is far more important at the moment. Hillary Clinton tellingly stated the Obama regime’s priority to end the conflict includes the Assad regime making the decision to participate in a political solution:

The United States and other countries would discuss at a meeting of the Friends of Syria group in Marrakech next week what more they could do to try to bring the Syrian conflict to an end, she said.

“But that will require the Assad regime making the decision to participate in a political transition (and) ending the violence against its own people … We hope that they do so because we believe … that their fall is inevitable. It is just a question of how many people will die until that date occurs,” she said.

Differences within and between armed groups

There is much being said regarding a joint statement by a number of armed groups in Aleppo. The statement mentioned the establishment of an Islamic state and denounced the ‘National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces’ as part of a conspiracy. Expectantly Jabhat al-Nusra was one of the armed groups supporting the statement but more surprisingly the At-Tawhid Division were also initially supportive. The former is a Salafi Jihadi group, while the latter is an umbrella group consisting of many smaller armed factions. Leaders of At-Tawhid Division do not display a strong Salafi Jihadi ideology, though some of its constituent factions may be more inclined to this trend.  Further and significantly, the organisation’s emblem also features the colours of Syria’s independence flag.

Later At-Tawhid Division published another video statement dissociating themselves from their previous statement (both statements are still carried on their website), this time announcing their support of the ‘National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces’ and a civil state, with an Islamic reference point. It is plausible, considering the organisation is the largest armed coalition in Aleppo, that they came under intense pressure to renounce the initial statement, after worries that it could affect funding and supply of weapons.

That Jabhat al-Nusrah were part of the initial statement is telling. The group is more centralised and with a clear and strict Salafi Jihadi world-view. For example its emblem is (exclusively) a black banner with an Islamic testimony of faith inscribed.  This is with the purpose – the group established and set itself apart from other more nationalist groups, with the idea of ‘clarity of banner’ (وضوح الراية). Clarity of banner is that any armed struggle should be for the sake of raising the word of God and to establish Islamic law. For this purpose it refuses to join groups such as the At-Tawhid Division, due to this lack of clarity.

Most of the groups mentioned in the video declaring the formation of an ‘Islamic state’ are Jihadi Salafi, while it is the name of the At-Tawhid division that stands out. That the division would renounce the statement indicates there may be friction within the organisation (understandable, considering that over one hundred armed factions operate under its name) and this also points to significant differences between and within  different armed groups in the future. With arms already stringent in supply and channelled to certain groups vouched by the ‘National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces’ (one of the main pressing reasons for the formation of the coalition) and differences in political vision before and after the regime’s fall, then eventual confrontations between anti-regime groups could be a possibility.

Events in Gaza and managing the Syrian uprising

This article is a good overview of events in the Middle-East region, with focus on the recent Israeli onslaught on Gaza. It is the case that events in Syria should be placed in this regional and global context, which the article does very well:

All this while Cameron and the kings posed as champions of democracy in Libya and Syria. The nauseating hypocrisy is summed up by Britain’s William Hague. Six days into the assault on Gaza, which as a great friend of Likud he backs above and beyond the call of his office, he proclaimed that the British government would now recognise the latest umbrella group of the Syrian opposition. It’s the one which the West – Britain and France above all – has with Gulf allies spent months ensuring is safely politically aligned. If they get their way, the fruit of the appalling fighting in Syria will be a government still more amenable to the West. We expect the Western media and politicians to fall silent about their double standards. The movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people and with the mass of Arabs cannot.

Mouath al-Khatib’s changing rhetoric

Below is a translation (translation via ‘The Arabist‘) of of an article by Haitham al-Man’a (written in As-Safir). It is an important article as it highlights the shift in rhetoric by Mou’ath al-Khateeb (head of the recently formed opposition coalition). Darbuna is the website of Mou’ath al-Khatib and features some of his previous articles and sermons:

Doha and Its Sisters

Haitham Manaa, as-Safir,

For more than two months, and all those who passed through the Syrian National Council, from founders, resigners, members, associates, and missionaries for membership headed to Doha to rescue this body from intensive care — which the doctor, Eric Chevallier, failed to do on his own. Neither the group photo with President Hollande, nor the injection of funding and diplomatic support was enough.

The American pragmatic mentality was more subtle when it took some of the ideas proposed by Riad Seif and reformulated them in a way consistent with a radical departure from the National Council story. Hilary Clinton announced that the product had expired, and it was now necessary for an induced birth and Caesarian section to take place for a newborn heir to succeed a brother that did not take advantage of the oath of allegiance he received from the Gulf, Turkey and the West, who did not win people over, and who did not develop a political discourse befitting the destructive violence that the country is suffering from.

Perhaps the first weak point of the old National Council was in its blind support for one idea: getting armed and importing arms for military groups. This idea failed due to its single mindedness or by making its political horizon too short-sighted and immediate.

Ahmad Mouaz al-Khatib’s words were taken as auspicious, as he talked about politics and religion and did not talk about violence and weapons. However, it was not long before we received really frightening information and testimonies as a clear article in the Syrian National Coalition confirms. Mr. al-Khatib is rectifying what he forgot in this inauguration speech, saying that he wants European recognition and financial support for the coalition, and going on to add that when political recognition takes place, this will make the coalition act like a government and then it will acquire weapons and this will solve the problems.

In a second message published two days ago, Mr. al-Khatib reveals his opposition to the National Charter approved in Cairo, affirming that “the Cairo document was not adopted in any way. I was among many of our brothers who rejected it and issued a statement that I will be the first person to withdraw when there is an item that contradicts the creed of the enduring Umma.”

Of course, here he is talking about the desacralization of public action by considering human beings to be responsible for their actions and affirming equal citizenship between all Syrians, as both of those items are rejected by some Islamists.

Despite the ambiguous relationship between the Council and the Coalition, the vagaries of the relationship between the Arab League and what the new project accumulated, despite the fact that the Council took the lion’s share (38 of the Council members, five of whom resigned) at the expense of the rest of the present and absent factions of the opposition, despite the absence of [Lakhdar] Brahimi’s mission, and the absence of the Geneva meeting, most Arab countries were silent about this in the Cairo meeting and tried to keep up appearances. However, as one attendee said, “They said what they had to say and ignored us, and we said what we had to say in a way that didn’t compel anyone.”

France is providing another example of the cacophony that it is directed toward Syria. The Defense Minister ruled out direct recognition, in Cairo the Foreign Ministry delegation contented itself with offering support without recognition, and President Francois Hollande offered recognition in a caricatural form, saying: “Today I declare that France recognizes the Syrian National Council [sic — here the author surely means the Coalition, not the SNC] as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and as the future government of a democratic Syria, allowing it to bring an end to Bashar al-Assad’s regime.” There is no printing error here, Hollande is recognizing the Council after it removes al-Assad, giving proof of his meticulous and profound observation of the Syrian issue!

The ambiguities of the Doha text are many, and rejecting dialogue and negotiation was not in need of a political body. That is a task for warriors. The problem is that there are those who want to dictate to the Syrians what to do and force them to do what they want and turn them into yes-men, as Issam al-Attar said.

Before the conference, al-Khatib said that negotiation is a religious and political duty. After Qatari generosity, the imam discovered that his fatwa was mistaken, since he has one merit, but Ford and Chevallier have two.

An opposition that can be vouched for

The idea behind a new coalition led by Riyad al-Seif, bypassing the Syrian National Council, has been something proposed by Western diplomats for some time. Muhammad al-Abdallah bitterly describes ongoing attempts by Robert Ford and other diplomats to implement a plan that sidelines the SNC, with both Basma al-Qadmani and Riyad al-Seif being key figures in this initiative. He also makes the claim that the US were agitating for a body willing to dialogue with the regime. Muhammad al-Abdullah was not the only disgruntled member of the SNC, others in the SNC voiced their anger that Hillary Clinton should so strongly condemn the SNC and select its own leaders to bypass the organisation. Muhammad al-Balout, writing in Al-Safir, reaffirms some aspects of Muhammad al-Abdullah’s claims. He too spoke to different opposition figures that similarly confirm that it was indeed Basma al-Qadmani that initially prepared and developed the initiative.  The selection of Basma al-Qadmani and Riyad al-Seif is no coincidence. The former is a pro-US Syrian liberal (believing in the civilizing role of US power) and the latter, a leading figure in the Damascus Declaration, was a confidante of the US embassy in Damascus advising on the Syrian opposition for many years (this according to classified Wiki-leaks documents).

The US views this as a matter of urgency, fearful of Al-Qaeda groups establishing a foothold and any possible threat to its regional hegemony, leading it to lose  patience with the SNC and what it can actually deliver. I don’t believe the Obama regime is averse to a negotiated solution but for the moment it is more concerned with a manageable, and less chaotic, landscape. One of the main ideas adopted by the ‘National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces’ was the importance of a centralised command for military operations in Syria. While both Qatar and Saudi wish to push things through article seven, at the security council, there is no signals that such a proposal is of immediate urgency for Western backers of the coalition.  For now the issue is to have a more effective opposition coalition and centralised military command.

Already Jordan is allowing its territory to be used as a transit for Qatari and Saudi funded weapons to be delivered to what is perceived as “trustworthy elements of the Syrian opposition”. It doesn’t matter that those receiving the weapons are actually able to overturn the regime, what does matter is that Salafi groups are marginalised and more trustworthy groups are able to better organise themselves to be channelled with weapons, even if this may lead to an armed confrontation between Salafi groups and other factions aligned to the coalition. A brokered deal, via negotiations, or a future military interventions are not discounted by Western powers but there needs to be institutional arrangements that can be vouched for, whatever policy is adopted.

Reporting Hezbollah in Syria

Sky News (Arabic) and the S’ad  al-Harriri owned Al-Mustaqbal report the death of a Hezbollah commander named ‘Basel Hemada’ in Homs (obviously reiterating the ongoing sectarian agitation, that ‘Shi’ite’ cells or Israel’s ‘auld enemy’ are operative in the violent repression). The problem with the story is that the person identified resides in Lebanon, is not a member of Hezbollah, or any political party, and is alive and well! Surprised of stories of his demise, it is not surprising that Basel Hemada decided to sue Al-Mustaqbal for libel. The same story was also carried by an array of March 14 news outlets, including The Times of Israel.

This is not the first time similar news items are carried (usually from March 14 sources or a Syrian opposition faction) by established media such as France 24, Washington Times, The Guardian (also here), BBC, CBC News,  etc.  Sometimes journalists are genuinely ignorant of their sources or ideologically inclined to accept these stories and report them. It is akin to covering Barack Obama’s views with reference to right wing Tea Party sources.