After months of little movement in the ongoing conflict between Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad and opposition forces, we’re starting to see some shifting, partially triggered by military action from Israel.
Last week news broke of an airstrike supposedly by the Israelis against what was initially reported to be a convoy headed for Lebanon. Israel remained mum on the the strike, but initial reports indicated that the attack was located on the border between the two countries, creating some ambiguity as to whether Israel had in fact struck within Syria. Later details have surfaced that the attack was actually much closer to Damascus, targeting a military compound that housed surface-to-air missiles and chemical weapons.
On Sunday, Israel’s Defense Minster Ehud Barak tacitly acknowledged that the country had launched the attack, the first official affirmative comment. Barak called the strike “another proof that when we say something we mean it.
“We say that we don’t think that it should be allowable to bring advanced weapon systems into Lebanon, the Hezbollah from Syria, when Assad falls,” Barak said.
Syria has yet to retaliate, but experts don’t anticipate any major movement. However, one source said that this could be the prelude to a larger NATO activity. The greatest issue behind a NATO campaign similar to what occurred in Libya is that Syria possesses an advanced air defense network. If Israel steps in, and disrupts that network, it would reduce the risk of loosing aircraft for NATO forces.
But the stated reason for the strike also makes sense, given reports of increased quantities of Syrian military equipment headed to Lebanon. The fact that the flow has increased serves as something of an acknowledgement by Assad that he can’t hold onto power forever, and as such he’s moving weapons while he can.
That determination may be connected to the reduction in support the country has been receiving from the Russians. While Russia is still refusing to permit a variety of U.N. moves, the country has begun to evacuate some of its citizens. One expert I talked to said that the reason for this shift is that Assad’s funds overseas have been frozen, making it more difficult for him to buy large volumes of Russian military equipment. Without the flow of money, Russian support has waned.
All-together the changes suggest that the current limbo won’t last. Opposition forces still lack the military equipment to conquer the totality of the country, and without outside military intervention, little is likely to change. But we’re seeing indications that outside assistance might be starting to coalesce.
U.S. policy to only supply non-lethal aid remains, although an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday suggested a healthy internal debate on the topic.
As the times reported:
Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately withDavid H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance.
The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed.
I talked to a source familiar with the internal discussions who said that this description suggests a little bit of historical revision. The source said that while the events described are correct, the conviction with which Clinton advocated for supplying weapons was less than absolute.
Sources continue to insist that there is some small flow of weapons through the intelligence community. But without larger supply efforts, those activities are unlikely to swing the balance.
The most likely outcome remains that Assad, recognizing his limited options, decides to take his massive bank roll and retire elsewhere. There haven’t been any indications that such a move would happen yet, but if his allies slowly abandon him, and his opponents begin to get greater support from Israel and NATO, it may not be long.
