A Second Front: The Israeli Dilemma

Rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government forces captured a border crossing between Syria and Israel in the disputed Golan Heights. While Syrian forces are attempting to recapture the crossing near Quneitra, the outlook is bleak; Syria also lost the Tabqa airbase in the country's north, the site of a gruesome mass execution of prisoners of war - a war crime from any perspective. The Nusra Front, linked to al Qaeda, participated in the Quneitra battle and represents a wakeup call for Israel as it settles the country's border.

(Source: The Times of Israel)

It is unlikely that the Israelis are interested in a two-front war, having just disengaged from 50 days of warfare in Gaza just a few days ago. This ceasefire itself may only prove to be temporary. The Israelis have fought several two-front wars in their past (1948, 1967, and 1973) and have conducted operations on multiple fronts since; however, handling two distinct conflict zones is not something that is desired.

Israel has largely stayed out of the Syrian Civil War, having only sporadically engaged across the border. However, with alert levels raised and the capture of 43 United Nations peacekeepers charged with securing the Israel-Syria border by rebel forces, reality may become necessity. Both Israel and the West may have to choose the lesser of two evils - Assad or the rebels. The US is not expected to work with Assad, but airstrikes against some of the rebel forces, namely the Islamic State, may come. This could place Israel in a precarious position of both defending itself and not being swallowed in regional conflict.

Coming Elections in Syria, Sponsored Today by: Chlorine Gas

Officials claim that Syria has handed over nearly 90% of its chemical weapons stores. Percentages are easy figures when they fail to elaborate on how those numbers are derived. Intelligence has existed for some time that suggests Syria will fail to disclose its full chemical weapons stockpiles and hold on to some instead. Moreover, easily-weaponized agents could be hidden away, particularly if they are not being sought and the world believes Syria has included those in its concessions. Such concerns over dual-use components hover over rogue states like a constant fog. As long as some internal control is maintained, it isn't so hard to imagine clandestine operations of all kinds. Syria has even threatened Israel and other spillover, something that one imagines would be difficult were the government fighting to its last man and materiel for domestic control.

If (nearly) 90% of those chemical weapons are handed over, why is Syria still employing chemical weapons, as the recent chlorine gas attack indicates? Apparently, chlorine gas is not included on the list of chemical weapons Syria is giving up, although it is banned. Who knew that the agreement in Syria allowed for such leniency and compromise as to which weapons it could keep and which it must give up? At the same time, the government continues to direct blame to the rebels, who have less incentive and even less means to launch chemical weapons strikes. It just doesn't entirely add up.

Amid the conflict, al-Assad's government has set a date for new elections -June 3, 2014. That's correct - about six weeks from now, Syrians all across the country are going to go the polls to elect their new leader. That is, except for the over 150,000 people killed and millions who have fled the country as refugees - they won't be voting, but the show must go on. The United Nations has suggested to Syria that it avoid having elections during a civil war. It is unlikely there will be any significant challenger (though a puppet challenger may be brought in). Why even go through the trouble? It is not really all that possible to gloss over this kind of electoral travesty.

Stalled Talks, Grand Confusion in Syria

Given that this story is a few days old, this post will be fairly brief.

The Syrian peace talks have not exactly been going splendidly. Neither side seems to be at the talks for the same reasons and the fighting continues all the while. The talks are practically an exercise in futility.

UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi recently blamed the al-Assad regime for hampering the talks for refusing to discuss a transition of power. This should really come as no surprise. The government came to the talks indicating that it would refuse to discuss regime change. The opposition came only for that reason. It seems as if the talks were doomed from the start. Apart from discussing Syria's future, the talks have never even been on the same page.

It will be impressive if the UN, as well as the two sides who are backed by their respective world powers, can re-energize the talks to really begin to talk about facts on the ground and move toward some sort of path toward resolution and peace, however slow that may be.

Homebrew: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Growing out of the chaos of Middle Eastern insurgencies, the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has built its presence and spread fear throughout the region. Often viewed as one of the more violent terrorist groups in the Middle East, ISIL has taken over towns in Iraq - the first time insurgents have controlled these towns since 2003 - and is contributing to infighting among opposition fighters in Syria.

ISIL fighters have been careful, focusing on political aims to establish themselves, only to later identify with more fundamental positions. When necessary, socioeconomic and political arguments are employed to attempt to garner support among the locals. Once established, their strength limits the options to opponents, both civilian and military, as is the case in Syria. In a sense, entrenched positions are difficult to change.

ISIL's origins remain somewhat shrouded, and its role in the region has become unclear. Some reports suggest that ISIL is linked to Bashar al-Assad, Syria's President, as an attempt to fracture and debase the opposition. Others suggest that ISIL is little more than a concept Syria developed to change the face of its civil war. The BBC, though, has ISIL's formation pinned down to April 2013 as an independent terrorist organization. Analysts tend to tie it to insurgents previously known as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which may be best described as an evolutionary step in that organization's history. There is much information floating around, but most of it only lightly touches on why there was an outgrowth across borders. Why did the influx of fighters into the regional coalesce into much more coherent organizations than previously? Why are they more successful now? (apart from the withdrawal from Iraq, for that can't be the reason for everything)

Countries in the region continue to grow wary. Jordan has gone so far as to note that ISIL does not operate within its borders and that the terrorist group is "no threat." This is a surprising statement given ISIL's operations in two of Jordan's neighbors. Meanwhile, ISIL has threatened to attack Turkish cities over a disputed closed border crossing. It seems that ISIL's reach may yet expand.

Looking ahead, the horizon for ISIL is unclear. Expansion opens up new fronts, builds enemies, and attracts attention. Showing its face in Syria has increased its exposure and has proven of little benefit. At the same time, there is concern for a large lawless region in northwest Syria controlled by ISIL turning into another Afghanistan. Regional powers are keen to get it all under control though, and it is unlikely for a large power vacuum to redevelop, given recent history. This homegrown movement may not get much bigger, but might redouble its efforts where it already controls the land.

Syrian peace talks scheduled, peace itself delayed

Amidst the surprising news from the Middle East this week was word that peace talks have been agreed upon by the two opposing sides in the Syrian civil war. Scheduled for late January in Geneva, this positive development is most certainly clouded by its more intricate details.

The first is the purported objective: transition. The opposition has consistently refused talks unless they included Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ceding power. Assad, meanwhile, has refused to cede power under any circumstances. In many ways, this is what the civil war has become all about. Although numerous reports mention that transitional government is a clear goal of the peace talks, it is curious whether both sides see that goal similarly. Assad's camp may view transition as inclusive of current government officials, while the opposition may believe it would completely exclude those currently in power. It would be unsurprising if this would become the main sticking point during the talks, if they actually take place that is.

The second is the question of who is capable of wholly leading the opposition, and, related, whether the opposition is cohesive enough to be led. More extremist groups, such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), continue to advance and take control of swathes of territory. Even less extremist groups do not accept the full authority of the political opposition, as clearly exemplified by this quote: Opposition political delegations do not have any power or influence on the Syrian street. On the whole, the Syrian National Council has foreign backing, but limited support within the opposition itself. At the same time, fighting continues in Syria, and its prevalence over the near future will be a testament to both cohesion and preparedness to peace. All of this makes one wonder: will the talks even take place?

There is little objective change in the civil war conditions of late. In fact, the United Nations seems to be spurring the peace talks based mostly on 'hope,' as opposed to more serious developments It is doubtful whether this is the best practice approach and leads to questions over whether the two opposing sides are even in agreement over what the purpose of the peace talks is. The world will know soon enough. In the meantime, it should hope.

Disarming a nation's WMD: not as easy as first thought

Syria's "voluntary" acceptance to give up its chemical weapons arsenal in light of horrific video showing the effects of a gas attack on its own population is, by all means, an unprecedented solution. Even the United Nations admits to as much. It will take well into 2014, at best estimates, to complete the process; even though it is unclear how much WMD Syria even has. One major unknown is that both sides remain locked in a civil war, so there is a disarmament process within a country still at war. Giving up the chemical weapons is certainly a much brighter prospect than being ground zero for the next major international conflict, but in the end, does it solve the problems in Syria, or even help lead to their resolution?

Disarmament is a tricky process. Germany was, in many senses, disarmed between the world wars - that didn't end too well (World War II). The list of nations that have successfully dabbled (armed, not just researched), peaceably disarmed, and then integrated into  international community norms is short. You could make the case for South Africa, but its disarmament was tied to significant sanctions because of apartheid. It was apartheid's end that really brought South Africa within norms. You may say Libya; however, similar sanctions decimated the entire economy (and the energy industry in particular). In addition, Libya under Gaddafi still came toppling down years later. Three former Soviet states inherited WMD (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), but all returned them, having no ability to maintain them long-term and limited capacity to use them. Iraq? Well, that went south years later. No great example exists.

In many senses, Syria is a test case. What will be the effect on Assad's government? How will this affect the Syrian Civil War? What implications exist for the greater Middle East? These are all unknowns that rest on the progress of the chemical disarmament.

Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today (September 5, 2013)
• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Foreign Arms in Syria

As the civil war rages on in Syria, foreign countries continue to wade in the murky waters of arms deals to government and rebel forces.

Russia, for one, is providing advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.  Despite initial reports that the missiles had already arrived, Russian sources indicated that the missiles -- part of a 2010 arms deal -- wouldn't arrive in Syria for months.  Those same sources said, however, that delivery could be expedited based on conditions on the ground in Syria or changing positions/activities of Western governments.

On Monday, meanwhile, the EU ended its arms embargo on Syria, opening the door for countries like Britain and France to arm the rebels.  Canada's foreign minister responded to the news negatively, claiming that more arms flowing into Syria will only cause further bloodshed.

To make matters even worse, news came out Friday that the developer of Russia's MiG fighters will ink a deal to ship at least 10 fighter jets to Syria.  While details are sketchy, one can only hope that such a deal does not come to pass.

In short, while there does not appear to be any move toward direct military intervention by foreign governments, all indications seem to point to a weapons influx in the near future.  This of course brings us back to the question: who are we arming?  According to numerous accounts, the most organized and effective faction of the Syrian rebels is Jabhat al-Nusra -- a group with ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq.  The U.S. State Department designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organization in December 2012, and the UN just added the group to its sanctions blacklist.

Therefore, those states looking to arm the Syrian rebels have some issues to address:

-Providing arms to Jabhat al-Nusra would violate the UN sanctions.

-Providing arms to other Syrian groups would likely be less effective, not to mention the fact that the arms could well end up in the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra fighters.  Indeed, reports indicate that entire units of Free Syria Army soldiers have defected to Jabhat al-Nusra.

-Providing arms could provoke an arms race between Western powers and Russia to equip their respective sides.

-Providing arms could be the first step in the road to direct military intervention.

An arms escalation could further derail peace talks.  A U.S.-Russia conference planned for early June to discuss Syria, for example, will not be taking place in light of the recent arms developments.  With a weapons influx seemingly imminent, peace in Syria appears as elusive as ever.

Previous posts on Syria:

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)

To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria)

What has transpired in Syria over the past few years can only be described in two ways: both as a tragedy and as an embarrassment. A tragedy because a country pining for freedom has been devastated by war and devastation while its citizens huddle into refugee camps or are killed as collateral damage. An embarrassment because the world has stood by with covered eyes and ears, limiting any aid that may cut short the conflict, and just imagining a magical solution will help it end. And all because of politics - because Russia is still supportive of Assad, because Syria has limited natural resources, because no one wants to be performing regime change...

It seems that over the past six months or so, the conflict has crossed a broad, invisible line that will separate it from the level of medium-term resolvable (like the Balkans) to long-term potentially resolvable (like the Democratic Republic of Congo). This is also a line that separates the points where those inside the country can be trusted to where they cannot. The Syrian Civil War has arguably crossed that threshold.

Most evidently, the animosity and ferocity only continues to increase. Reports and videos circulate of (among other things) a rebel eating the heart of a government soldier, biochemical weapons use by both rebels and the government, and executions of prisoners of war, Meanwhile, the line the in sand that the United States drew regarding biochemical weapons use has turned to nothing more than a mirage, with reports as early as March, and more recent (and confirmed) reports being treated not as a reason to act now, but as a reason to investigate further. A vacuum of leadership is becoming ever more evident.

At this point, the likelihood that anyone in Syria currently on either side is a feasible post-conflict leader is questionable. Neither side can really be trusted to take charge and rule fairly and honestly. Moreover, the window that may have existed to tilt the balance may have closed long ago. Perhaps nothing short of a costly ground force, in human and physical terms, will change the current conflict path - and such an event is not likely to happen. Instead, the can is being kicked down the road, and another generation will wonder why a powder keg was allowed to ignite so easily and with such devastating consequences.

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet

Reports surfaced today of an apparent Israeli aerial incursion into Syria, destroying a convoy near Damascus. Other reports indicate a research facility of some sort (biochemical weapons is assumed) was attacked. Syria denies that the Israelis attacked a convoy headed for Lebanon and presumably Hizbullah.

Naturally, the Israelis are quiet. Surprisingly, so is most everyone else. (The US did confirm it was an Israeli strike)

Israel has been wary of the civil war in Syria for quite some time. That uneasiness has only increased as Assad's power wanes and the situation becomes ever more desperate. Many analysts worry that this strike only raises the instability in the region. Apart from all out regional war, how much more unstable the Middle East can get is really questionable.

With Syria continuing to supply weapons to Hizbullah, the Israelis are concerned that those weapons may begin to include biological and chemical agents. However, with Syrian forces engaged all across its own territory, the likelihood of counterattack in response to a strike is limited. The press release  from Syria disguised as a news article may be the most that can be spared. Therefore, the logic behind this military action can be seen clearly.

Apart from these facts, it seems more likely for Assad to take any possible weapons with him in retreat to the Alawite territory than to give it to Hizbullah. Selling the excess of what cannot be brought, however, may be a possibility, but it is unlikely that Assad has reached that stage yet. Instead, any possibility that it had, or the option to eliminate a weapons delivery of any sort, with minimal repercussions, was taken.

The most interesting non-news piece of this entire incident is how quiet everyone is. Russia called the action "unacceptable," but is also "clarifying" the incident. Little to no information from other countries can be found. It seems that Syria really has no friends left these days. Perhaps it is time for Assad to make for that exit, or retreat, whatever the wish is.