Tragedy and farce in Syria

Jerusalem Post, 05/04/2012

Recent developments show that the West appears to have acquiesced to the continued rule of the Assad family dictatorship.

The supposed acceptance by the regime of Bashar Assad of UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point plan represents the latest phase of the Syrian dictator’s strategy to buy time in order to crush the uprising against his rule. According to the plan, the regime is obliged to withdraw troops and armor from Syrian urban centers by April 10th.

On Sunday, the second “Friends of Syria” conference in Istanbul issued a deadline for Assad to begin implementing the plan. Assad, the conference declared, would be judged on his “deeds, rather than his promises.”

A Norwegian major-general, described as a “veteran Middle East peacemaker” has been appointed to lead the UN support team that will soon depart for Syria. UN press releases have not yet clarified to which areas of the Middle East Major-General Robert Mood has actually brought peace in the course of his career. In any case, he and his team are to evaluate the situation on the ground and hold talks with both sides in order to assess the prospects for the deployment of a team of unarmed observers in Syria.

Having accepted Annan’s plan, the regime is now ramping up its attacks on centers of the uprising. The army is continuing its rampage through defiant Idleb Province and the Deraa area.

On the day following the regime’s announcement of its latest acceptance of Annan’s proposals, 60 Syrian civilians were killed by Assad’s forces.

Assad wants to achieve the maximum level of pacification before offering whatever gesture he chooses to make toward implementing the Annan plan. There is no reason at all to think that Assad’s notional acceptance of the UN envoy’s proposals will have any serious effect on the bloody counterattack currently being conducted by the Assad regime.

THE PATTERN is familiar. In November, the regime proclaimed acceptance of an Arab League plan. The blood-letting, however, continued apace.

A team of hapless Arab League spectators, led by a suspected Sudanese war criminal, General Mustafa al-Dabi, were dispatched to the country.

These men spent a few weeks watching Assad’s forces butcher Syrian civilians before being quietly withdrawn. The regime has also twice before announced its acceptance of proposals by Annan – to no noticeable effect.

The current plan envisages the commencement of an “inclusive, Syrian-led political process” that will follow a “cease-fire including the withdrawal of troops and heavy weapons from inside and around populated areas.”

These are the key elements of the Annan proposal, which also calls for the release of “arbitrarily detained persons,” free movement across Syria for journalists, provision of humanitarian aid via a UN mechanism and respect for “freedom of association” and the right to peacefully demonstrate.

The most immediately notable aspect of these proposals is their somewhat otherwordly quality.

They envisage no timetable for a transition of power and do not even call for the dictator to step down. Rather, Assad is supposed to begin an openended process of dialogue with the opposition.

The Assad regime has taken the trouble over the last year to develop tame opposition elements, with which it will be happy to continue talking and to broadcast the talks via its official media outlets to the world. The regime can then claim that it is complying with the demands of the international community. A small percentage of the very large volume of Syrian citizens rounded up and detained without charge by the regime over the last year may be released. At the same time, the slaughter of the real opposition, mobilized by local coordinating committees and by the Free Syrian Army, will continue.

The regime will proclaim that while it accepts Annan’s plan, it cannot be expected not to take action against “armed gangs.” A few carefully marshalled international journalists may be permitted to enter, as took place after the acceptance of the Arab League plan.

These journalists will be encouraged to film scenes of normality in Damascus.

Assad’s allies in Russia and China will be pleased with the turn of events and will make encouraging noises. It is possible that the UN Security Council may even succeed in passing a watered-down resolution setting out a timetable for further progress in Syria. None of this will have the slightest effect on the civil war already under way in the country.

All of this is quite obvious, and is disputed by hardly anyone among serious observers of events in Syria. It is therefore difficult not to conclude that there is simply no real interest on the part of the West to help bring about the end of the Assad dictatorship.

Assad has benefited throughout from a de facto international coalition that supports him. Iran and Hezbollah provide the assistance on the ground. Russia and China are responsible for the diplomatic cover.

Either opposing international efforts will be made to help the Syrian rebels transform themselves into a real, physical threat to the dictatorship, or the dictatorship is likely to survive.

This reality is quite clear, and has been clear throughout the uprising. Arms and training for the Free Syrian Army and moves toward a buffer zone in the north, or acquiescence to the continued rule of the Assad family dictatorship. Currently the West is choosing the latter course.

Karl Marx, in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, famously asserted that “great world-historic facts and personages appear twice. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Marx, however, did not foresee the current international response to the situation in Syria. This manages, uniquely, to combine the essential qualities of tragedy and farce into a single picture.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Lecture in Berlin on Syria, 8/11.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Taking note of Yemen

Jerusalem Post, 29/03/2012

The US is waking up to Iran’s support for Shi’ite rebels and its attempts to gain influence through proxy warfare.

In a notable shift in the US public stance, Washington’s Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein this week accused Iran of supporting Shi’ite Houthi rebels in north Yemen and separatist elements in the south of the country. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have long maintained that north Yemen constitutes an additional front in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s region-wide attempt to build regional influence through aiding proxy forces. Until now the US had remained agnostic on this point.

The Houthi insurgency has been under way in north Yemen since 2004. The Houthi clan, based in the Saada province of north Yemen, are Zaidis, an offshoot of Shia Islam. The rebels are Islamist. Their stated aim is the establishment of an “Imamate” in Yemen, to replace what they regard as the illegitimate regime of of president Ali Abdullah Saleh and his successors.

They number tens of thousands of fighters, and in 2009 fought a bloody and inconclusive series of battles with Saudi forces who sought and failed to destroy the insurgency.

US officials until now had been wont to say that while it was theoretically possible that Tehran might support the Shia Houthi insurgents battling the Sana’a government, no actual evidence had emerged to establish that this was the case. They are not saying this anymore. What has shifted?

First of all, it is worth noting that Feierstein’s public remarks this week are not the first indication of a changing American view with regard to Iranian support for the Houthis. On March 15, The New York Times quoted an un-named senior US official (probably Feierstein himself) on this matter.

The nameless official specifically accused the Iranians of dispatching a special unit of the Revolutionary Guards Corps to aid the Houthis. This force, according to the official, was using small boats to smuggle assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades to the rebels.

In an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Hayat this week, Ambassador Feierstein broadened and clarified the US position. He asserted that Washington possesses “evidence that the Iranians provide military assistance and training” both to the Shia Houthi rebels in the north and to a separatist insurgency in the south of the country. The Iranians, Feierstein suggested, seek to prevent an orderly transition of power following Saleh’s resignation.

More broadly, said the US ambassador, Teheran wants to build “influence and impact on the developments in Yemen through gaining influence internally or in the wider region by establishing a foothold in Arabia, a matter that is normally seen as a security threat to Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries.”

Asked whether the Iranians provide this support to the Yemeni insurgencies directly or via proxies, Feierstein replied that “available evidence” confirmed that both Hezbollah and Hamas support the Iranian “role and effort.” He particularly noted the presence of southern Yemenis in Beirut who act as a conduit for Iranian support to the separatist insurgency in the south.

Feierstein’s interview was significant on a number of levels. Firstly, US ambassadors do not simply take it upon themselves to suddenly announce to the media a significant shift in the American understanding of events. The increasingly public US acknowledgement of the Iranian- Saudi cold war in the region, and more broadly of Iranian attempts to build political influence through the activation of proxies, is part of the more generally hardening US stance toward Iran.

It represents a growing awareness on the part of the US administration that its allies in this region – Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates – were not simply engaging in paranoid fantasy when they sought to warn US emissaries of the dangers of Iranian political and proxy warfare to the regional order.

Feierstein in public this week sounded like the Saudi and Israeli officials whose private talks with their US counterparts were revealed by Wikileaks. The awareness of and concern at Iran’s adroit use of proxy forces to stir the regional cauldron and build power and influence was the point of commonality.

Whether this growing awareness will produce a corresponding shift in the administration’s currently somewhat rudderless regional policy remains to be seen.

Secondly, the remarks reflect real and justified US worry regarding the chaotic situation in Yemen. Even prior to the political unrest of 2011, the country was reeling under the impact of three separate insurgent movements (the Houthis, the southern separatists and Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP). In addition, Yemen faced a serious water crisis, growing lawlessness, tribal defiance of the central authorities outside of Sana’a and dwindling oil supplies.

This situation has now been vastly complicated by Saleh’s departure and moves toward political reform. In Yemen, as elsewhere, the departure of the military dictator has not brought a smooth transition to a new political order. Rather, Islamist forces have moved to exploit the vacuum.

As Saleh’s forces sought to maintain control of the capital last year, the Houthis, who professed support for the anti-government uprising, expanded their area of control from Saada to al-Jawf and parts of Hajjah governates.

Some Yemeni officials believe that the goal of the Houthis is to take the Midi seaport in the Hajja governate. If this fell into their hands, it would open up the possibility of a permanent Red Sea route for the transport of Iranian heavy weapons to the insurgents. This, in turn, would make feasible a Houthi push toward the capital, Sana’a. It may well be that this prospect has served to attract the attention of the US administration and induce a sudden clarity.

From an Israeli (and Saudi) point of view, the claim that no evidence existed linking Iran to the Houthis was always a strange and tenuous one. Indications to the contrary have been accumulating in recent years. In October 2009, the Yemeni authorities reported that they had intercepted an Iranian arms carrying vessel on its way to Midi. The Saudi al-Arabiya news network noted a visit by the former South Yemeni president to Beirut, where he petitioned Hezbollah for support for the Houthis and for South Yemeni independence. The Houthis, meanwhile, claim that Saudi Arabia is itself arming Salafi Islamist elements in north Yemen as a means of pressuring them.

North Yemen today constitutes a largely ignored but important arena for the wider regional cold war between Iranian- and Westernaligned blocs. This contest has survived the Arab upheavals of 2011 and is continuing. Ambassador Feierstein’s remarks, meanwhile, show that this reality is becoming harder to deny. Even for those who in the past have found denial of this sort to be a preferred approach to regional policy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Clip of an interview on Syria

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Islamic Jihad attacks, Hamas’s dilemmas

In by far the sharpest escalation since late 2008, scores of rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel during recent days following Israel’s killing of the Gaza-based leader of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) Zuhair al-Qaisi and one of his lieutenants. Al-Qaisi was in the last stages of planning a major terror attack when he was killed.

The rocket attacks, creating a dilemma for Gaza’s Hamas rulers, are mainly being carried out by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad with involvement from the smaller PRC.

From Hamas’ standpoint the escalation comes at an unwelcome time. The movement is in the midst of a tricky political process whereby it is seeking to extricate itself from the regional bloc led by Iran and to realign with the Sunni rulers of Egypt and Qatar. This move comes as a result of both problems and opportunities opened up by political upheavals in the Arab world — especially the largely Islamist revolution in Egypt — and by Iran’s backing for the Syrian government’s assault on the largely Sunni Arab population in the civil war there.

This already difficult transformation is further complicated by the fact that Hamas is now in the midst of an internal power struggle. The rulers of Gaza are pursuing a policy opposed by the official Hamas leadership of Khaled Mashaal, who rules over nothing at all. The battle is over whether Egypt or Iran is to be Hamas’ patron.

In the midst of this complex situation the escalation and rocket fire has erupted.

The dilemma from Hamas’ point of view is as follows: until now, the impressive performance of Israel’s Iron Dome system has minimized Israeli casualties and thus enabled Israel to calibrate its response accordingly. But if Israeli civilians are killed, the government may well opt for a significant ground invasion. Consequently, if Gaza’s rulers continue to let Islamic Jihad and the PRC escalate the situation, at a certain point an Israeli ground incursion will become inevitable.

This will then potentially place the survival of the Hamas regime in jeopardy at a time when the Gaza rulers perceive a historic opportunity to achieve dominance within their movement, including control over the West Bank. Moreover, Hamas would also prefer to wait until a time when the Muslim Brotherhood has more control over Egypt and can offer it stronger backing.

So Hamas doesn’t want to see a major IDF operation into Gaza right now.

However, if Hamas appears too eager to secure a renewed ceasefire with Israel, Gaza’s leaders risk being presented by their rivals as a client regime of America and Israel in exactly the same way that Hamas has historically used to excoriate the PA. Islamic Jihad, once a marginal group, is now emerging as a major force in Gaza. This movement, unlike Hamas, has no problem working with Iran and getting money, guns, and orders from Tehran.

It is quite possible, though one doesn’t know for sure, that Iran is involved in some way in the Islamic Jihad decision to escalate. This would constitute a shrewd message to Hamas regarding the potential cost of leaving its patronage. And it could also be taken as an Iranian response to threats from Israel, and the United States as well, about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. The message: Iran has resources for striking back against Israel.

So Hamas needs to make a decision with no easy options.

From Israel’s viewpoint, the disruption caused to a million Israeli citizens’ lives in the south of the country is intolerable. Israel is aware of Hamas’ dilemma, but has no reason to do the movement any favors. So Israel’s message is clear and uncompromising: for as long as the rocket fire continues, Israel will continue to retaliate. If the Hamas regime wants to engineer a return to the de facto ceasefire, then it better go ahead and do so before it’s too late.

So which course will Hamas choose? The indications are that Hamas, fearing a major Israeli attack more than the potential political loss of face of a renewed ceasefire, is hurrying to secure a return to the shaky and partial calm that preceded the current escalation. The Hamas rulers have rushed to the authorities in Cairo to ask them to broker a renewed ceasefire.

Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu stated March 10 that “all Palestinian factions” wanted a renewed truce but that Israel must stop firing first. Hamas is also currently insisting that Israel commit to avoid targeted killings in Gaza in the future — a condition entirely unacceptable to Jerusalem. Islamic Jihad spokesman Daud Shihab, however, denied that the organization was involved in any contacts to end the clashes.

The political game in which each group tries to claim the mantle of greater militancy against Israel is once again in play. But the words of the Hamas spokesman suggested that the stage of bargaining had begun. So this round is likely to end in the coming days — barring unforeseen developments — with a return to an uneasy de facto ceasefire.

If this happens, the Israel defense establishment will be able to register an achievement. It will have showed it can act decisively to ensure the security of Israeli citizens, and then use sophisticated techniques to minimize the damage of the response from Gaza and force a return to quiet.

Meanwhile, the Hamas authorities in Gaza remain in an uncomfortable dilemma, caught between their desire to keep control of Gaza and the lure of militant violence against Israel. For its part, Islamic Jihad will have proved its worth as an asset for Iran to remind everyone in the locality of its continued presence and possibly of what might happen if Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities.

A bigger issue is how changes in Egypt — including the projected turnover of power from the military to an elected president — will affect the Gaza Strip and the situation on Israel’s southern border. If Cairo turns toward greater Islamist militancy, the chance for a major confrontation being sparked in Gaza would exponentially increase. For now, though, efforts have begun to end this current round of fighting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Confusion in the Ranks

This week, leading Gaza- Hamas activist Salah al-Bardawil told The Guardian newspaper that in the event of a war between Iran and Israel, Hamas would not back Teheran. Hamas Foreign Minister in Gaza Mahmoud Zahar later appeared to refute Bardawil’s stance, saying that Hamas would respond “with utmost power” to any “Zionist war on Iran.”

These statements reflect confusion and divisions in the main Palestinian- Islamist movement. The confusion derives from the variety of options which the Arab upheavals of 2011 have placed before Hamas.

The divisions also reflect the resultant opening of separate and competing power structures in the movement, with the leaders of the Gaza statelet opposing the overall leadership, and also quarreling among themselves.

The Teheran-led “resistance axis,” with which Hamas was aligned, is one of the main victims of the Arab upheavals of the last year. Meanwhile, the clear winner from the upheavals so far is the ideological trend of which Hamas is a representative – namely, Sunni Islamism.

Revolt in Iran-aligned Syria has left the Iranians exposed as a narrow, sectarian force. Their claim to represent a general Muslim interest against the West and Israel is in disarray. In Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, Sunni Islamist elements are moving to benefit from the fall of authoritarian leaders.

Hamas’s close relationship with Iran is of long standing, dating back to the mid 1990s. Iranian help formed a vital factor in turning the Palestinian Islamist movement into a formidable terrorist force in the second intifada of 2000-2004. Following Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Iranian aid increased in both volume and importance for Hamas.

Yet with all this, the alliance between Iran and Hamas always had the nature of a marriage of convenience. Unlike Hezbollah, the Sunni Hamas was not a creation of the Iranians, and did not subscribe to the Shiaderived Iranian-ruling ideology of Wilayat al-Faqih (leadership of the jurisprudent).

Hamas still has a deep connection to Palestinian politics. It emerged from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and inherited the extensive social and educational network and the ideological outlook of the Brotherhood.

There are also those within the movement – particularly within its armed wing – who adhere to the radically anti-Shia Salafi trend within Sunni Islamism.

Hamas’s relationship with Iran derived from the somewhat binary nature of regional politics prior to 2011. The US-led and Iran-led regional blocs were facing off against one another. As Hamas PLC member Musehir al-Masri put it in 2007, Hamas and Iran had their differences, yet alliance with Iran was “a thousand times more preferable than relying on the Americans and Zionists.”

Implicitly, there were only two choices, and Hamas’s preference was obvious. As a result of the events of 2011, there are no longer only two choices. Hamas is split regarding which path to take.

The situation in Syria was the immediate spark for Hamas’s move away from the “resistance axis.” The movement was placed in an impossible situation, in which its host, the Assad regime, was engaged in the wholesale slaughter of a largely Sunni-Arab uprising.

The signs of discomfort have been apparent for months.

Hamas’s Damascus offices are empty and Khaled Masha’al left the Syrian capital for Doha. The movement’s key leaders are now in Qatar, Cairo, or its Gaza fiefdom.

The move has left Mashaal weakened. A power struggle is consequently under way between the Gaza-based leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud. Zahar, on the one hand, and Masha’al and the formerly Damascus-based element, on the other. Attitudes toward Iran are one of the elements in this disagreement.

The distancing from Iran appears to imply a move away from a focus on military methods and toward an emphasis on anti- Israel propaganda and popular agitation. But there is no overall agreement regarding the extent of the shift, and attitudes toward it have become enveloped in the larger power struggle under way.

Important elements among the Gaza leadership do not wish to stray too far from the Iranians. Hamas, to maintain its Gaza fiefdom, still needs Iran’s expertise and its weaponry. There is no obvious Qatari or Saudi substitute for this.

The latest reports suggest that a new terrorist body, the “Aqsa Defenders” is emerging from within Hamas in Gaza. Like Fatah’s Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, this body may be used for deniable paramilitary activity, even as Hamas pursues other avenues of activity.

Haniyeh’s visit to Iran and Zahar’s latest statement suggest that in the period ahead, Hamas will seek to maintain some level of Iranian support, while at the same time developing relations with the authorities in Egypt and Qatar. Being in the midst of an internal contest, Hamas lacks the consensus necessary for a hard “either-or” decision with regard to its alliances.

Therefore Hamas’s move away from the resistance axis should not be seen in terms of a clean break, and a clean break with political violence is equally unlikely.

Still, the distancing by Hamas from the Iran-led bloc, and its move back in the direction of the Sunni-Arabs, is reason for some quiet satisfaction in Israel. It represents a considerable setback for the regional alliance, which still constitutes by far the most serious strategic threat to Jerusalem.

A Hamas aligned more closely with Qatar would be equally politically intransigent, and if the Qatar and Egypt-sponsored reconciliation with Fatah succeeds, this will end any realistic hopes for a diplomatic process between Israelis and Palestinians in the foreseeable future. Nor will Hamas entirely eschew violence.

The Qataris and their ilk deal in a politics of gesture and propaganda vis-a-vis Israel, but remain dependent on the West for protection against the real menace of Iran. They lack the genuine ideological fervor, seriousness and readiness for real war of the Iran-led regional alliance.

Hamas’s move in the direction of Doha and Cairo, and subsequent internal squabbling, means the weakening of the most important alliance arrayed against Israel – and the beginning of a period of flux and division for the main Palestinian Islamist movement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The West should help Syrian rebels

The Australian, 1/3/12

In recent days the world has witnessed the Assad regime in Syria pretending to inquire as to its citizens’ opinion in a referendum on constitutional reform, while enthusiastically slaughtering the opposition with advanced artillery.

About 100 civilians were shot or blown up by the security forces in the 48-hour period during which the vote was conducted.

This simultaneous referendum and bloodbath was a uniquely Assad-type production. It combined the clunky, very 20th-century and transparent propaganda methods of the regime with the relentless willingness for savage violence against opponents that has characterised the Assad family dictatorship throughout its existence.

These methods may appear old-fashioned. President Bashar al-Assad is determined to prove his government is sufficiently strong to hold back the wave of change that began last year with the Arab Spring uprisings.

A united and anti-Western international coalition stands behind Assad. The rebels, as I saw on a recent trip into northern Syria, are determined and brave, but under-equipped, badly organised and lacking real external help.

Which means that unless the West sharply changes its approach to the crisis in Syria, Assad may well succeed and survive.

However, no change in the Western approach looks to be on the horizon.

The pro-Assad international coalition consists of Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. The actions of its components in supporting the Syrian regime effectively complement one another.

Russia and China have succeeded in preventing any meaningful diplomatic response to the Syrian crisis through the exercise of their veto power in the UN Security Council.

State-of-the-art Russian weaponry is being employed against the Syrian rebels; T-72 tanks, the M240 mortar system, all have been used in recent days in the brutal suppression of the rebel forces in Homs.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army has been shelling the rebel strongholds of Idleb city, Binnish and Sarmin.

More weaponry is arriving by sea. Russian and Iranian ships, laden with weapons, have docked at Syria’s Mediterranean port of Tartous. Iranian and Hezbollah personnel are in Syria on the ground, and have been there since the start of the uprising.

Two weeks ago I interviewed an officer of the rebel Free Syrian Army in the town of Sarmin, in Idleb province. He told me of non-Arabic speaking advisers who accompanied his airborne unit into Deraa in the first weeks of the uprising.

He described the execution of one of his brother officers who refused to fire on the crowds of demonstrators. It was this that made him end his seven-year career as an officer in the Syrian paratroops and go over to the rebels.

In Binnish, I spoke to a young civilian opposition activist who described the entry of the army and paramilitaries in force, accompanied by men with Lebanese accents. The latter were Hezbollah men, he said.

These witness accounts of Iranian and Hezbollah involvement are amply confirmed by official but insufficiently publicised reports. Iran, well versed in the practice of internal repression, has been happy to share its knowledge with its Syrian allies.

For example, the US Treasury Department last year imposed sanctions against Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and the senior Quds Force officer in charge of operations and training, Mohsen Chizari, citing their involvement in the repression of the Syrian uprising.

The US sanctions list described the Quds Force as a “conduit for providing material support to the GID”, the Syrian intelligence service.

So it is not in doubt that a determined, focused coalition is doing all it can to ensure that Assad survives. From his point of view, this coalition is testimony to the wisdom of his decision not to be tempted away from the pro-Iranian regional bloc by the inducements offered to him by current and previous US administrations to get him to switch sides.

The Iran-led regional bloc has a keen understanding of power politics and its obligations. Unfortunately for the Syrian rebels, the West has no such clarity of vision.

The US administration wants above all to avoid getting entangled into another Middle Eastern conflict. Such a desire is entirely understandable, but its consequences are likely to be disastrous for Western interests.

Western and US hesitancy was on full display at the “Friends of Syria” gathering in Tunisia recently. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued various excuses as to why no real assistance would be made available to the rebels: they are supported by Hamas and al-Qa’ida, they failed to help their beleaguered comrades in Homs, and so on.

The Syrian rebels are indeed supported by Sunni Islamist elements. Some of them (although not all, or even a majority) are radical Sunni Islamists themselves, as I saw when I was there. They are also a divided force, unable to achieve Syria-wide mobilisation in any kind of unison.

But to achieve unity, and indeed to avoid Sunni Islamist domination, the rebels urgently need more help from the West. If this is not forthcoming, as was made clear in Tunisia, the Saudis and the Qataris will move to extend their assistance. In that eventuality, it is likely Syria’s armed opposition forces will indeed become dominated by the Sunni jihadists.

If this happens, the available outcomes for the West will then all be disastrous: victory for the Assad regime, and therefore the Iran-led regional bloc, victory for the Sunni Islamists; or a prolonged and bloody sectarian civil war.

To avoid this, what is needed is a clear program of support for the Syrian rebels from the West, led by the US, bypassing the UN. This would include the establishment of safe zones in Syria, guaranteed by Western air power, and the provision of arms and military expertise to the rebels.

It is highly unlikely any of this will happen.

The current leadership of the West doesn’t think in terms of power politics. Regarding Syria, it thinks in terms of avoiding trouble. In which case, Assad, Iran and Russia will win, or the victors will be the Sunni jihadists.

In which case, either way, the losers will be the people of Syria, and of course the West and its remaining Middle Eastern allies.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Among the Insurgents

Last Thursday afternoon, in the town square of Bini’ish in Idleb Province, northwest Syria, a small group gathered to protest against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. It was drizzling, and the protesters, about 200 of them, were mostly schoolchildren. A group of young men in kaffiyehs soon arrived on the scene. They were carrying a large yellow-and-green flag—the flag of Hezbollah [1]. One of the protesters opened his motorcycle’s gas cap, and seconds later the flag was in flames. The youngsters gathered around the burning flag, whooping, cheering, and chanting slogans against the regime.

The flag burning in the main square in Bini’ish distilled in a single moment much of what I saw and experienced in Syria: The men fighting against the regime lack uniforms, a chain of command, and they have little by way of a unifying ideology. But they are fiercely united against Assad and his chief ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Several days before the flag-burning incident, on a black night with heavy rain, I had crossed into Syria. I had come to report on the Free Syrian Army, which has emerged as the most significant organization in the Syrian revolution—though it isn’t really an organization at all. It consists of a series of local armed initiatives centered around strongmen of various political orientations. These militias operate according to their own perceived needs, mainly seeing their job as protecting the precarious autonomous zones carved out from the Assad regime in Idleb, Homs, and other areas in the course of the uprising.

I came by way of the mountains on the Turkish-Syrian border, in the company of a group of Syrian smugglers whose assistance I had paid for. We rode horses laden with contraband in sealed boxes. For parts of the journey, stymied by rough trail, we had to lead the horses by rope. The smugglers moved at lightning speed, almost sprinting up the rocky ascents, and I was worried that I’d fall behind. But we reached Syria safely after a trek of an hour or so.

At a small stone house on the mountains just over the border, I met with a contact from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who was due to take me down into Idleb Province, a deeply religious, conservative, Sunni Muslim region where I would spend the following week in the company of the FSA. The man, in his late 20s, was bespectacled, bearded, and polite, but reserved. His appearance and behavior were familiar to me: This young fighter was obviously a Salafi Islamist. I had heard that there were Salafis—radical Sunnis—among the FSA fighters but was surprised to meet one so soon.

An hour or so after, he and I arrived at one of the “liberated zones” of Idleb Province—one of the towns in this part of northern Syria where signs of the Assad regime have disappeared. The flag of the uprising [2], which is the flag of the pre-Baath Syrian republic, flies over the town. In the course of my time there, I met not a single fighter or officer who considered Col. Riyad Asaad, the nominal head of the FSA who is based in Antakya, Turkey, to constitute the real directing hand of the movement.

Instead, it is very clear that there is, in fact, no real leader. Armed resistance against the Assad regime has emerged out of the very basic need to protect the Syrian civilian population from their murderous dictator. A united, countrywide armed resistance movement does not yet exist in Syria. Nor do the rebels possess a single, uniting political idea, beyond bringing down the dictatorship. They seemed to be united by something more fundamental: They have all witnessed suffering caused by the regime. A good number of the fighters I spoke with were asked to carry out the violence themselves. The armed men of the FSA and the local civilian leadership of the uprising maintain law and order in the liberated zones of Idleb. It proved a good place from which to observe the Syria that may emerge when—or if—the Assad dictatorship falls.

***

Many of the FSA fighters are army deserters with similar stories. Mohammed, for example, a tall, brown-haired FSA fighter from Bini’ish, was formerly a soldier in the Syrian Army’s 9th Brigade. Sent to the southern town of Dera’a to suppress demonstrations in mid-2011, he decided to desert after being ordered to fire live ammunition at protesters. He found his way to the FSA in Dera’a and later returned home to Idleb Province. The reason, he told me, was simple: “I took an oath when I joined the army to protect the people. The people—not the regime. And that’s what I’m doing.”

Bilal Khabir, the formidable commander of the FSA in the town of Sarmeen in Idleb, abandoned his seven-year career as a member of Assad’s air force to join the insurgency. “The FSA is the real Syrian army,” he told me. “Law and justice is with our side, and we will fight to the end.” Khabir, like Mohammed, chose to desert after witnessing the suppression of demonstrations in Dera’a, where the uprising began. In his case, the precipitating incident for joining the FSA was when Iranian officers executed one of his friends when the friend refused to fire on demonstrators. (The presence of Iranian officers alongside Assad’s forces is one of the most noteworthy elements of the regime’s attempt to suppress the Syrian revolution, and it is a matter of particular anger to the insurgents.)

Not all the FSA fighters I met were army deserters. Some were local, relatively apolitical young men who had decided to join the FSA as part of a more general commitment to bring down the regime. Salafi Islamists, too, formed a recognizable sub-group within the broader ranks of the movement, though I saw no evidence that they dominated or set the tone. The Salafis I spoke to tended not to stress religious or ideological goals. Rather, like the others, they spoke of the cruelty of the regime and the need to destroy it.

But the overwhelming characteristic of the FSA is that it is Sunni. There is an unmistakable and strong sectarian element in the revolt against the Assad regime, even though this is something that FSA fighters and opposition activists prefer not to emphasize in front of visitors. They do not wish to be seen as a sectarian militia, but rather as an organization battling a dictatorship.

Yet the fact that the Assad regime now rests almost entirely on the support of the country’s 12 percent Alawi minority is not lost on the Sunni fighters of Idleb. “This is war between the clans, between the Sunni and the Shia and the Alawis,” a middle-aged civilian opposition activist said to me one evening as we sat drinking tea in his home. But then, a moment later, he corrected himself. “But the Sunnis reject the possibility of civil war between the clans. We don’t want it.”

***

The FSA fighters may lack a unified political ideology, but they do have a very clear set of shared tactical demands. As Bilal Khabir, commander of the FSA in Sarmeen, told me: “A buffer zone, a no-fly zone, and supply of weapons are the way to victory.” It was a sentence I’d hear again and again from FSA men and opposition activists. The FSA fighters know that unless international help comes in the form of a safe zone, the situation and the carnage could drag on for months or years. At the moment, the FSA has AK-47s, RPG-7s, heavy machine guns, and some mortars. They will need more than this to face down an assault from Assad’s Russian-supplied, modern weaponry.

The people I met were also acutely aware that an existing de facto international coalition is the single most important factor ensuring the dictator’s current survival. “Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and China are against us,” a black-bearded Salafi fighter told me, shortly after he had returned from an attack on an army checkpoint outside Idleb City. When I asked Bilal Khabir to list the elements that had so far prevented Assad’s fall, he answered, “Iran and Hezbollah.” Ayham al-Kurdi claimed that FSA fighters had captured five Iranians in Hama.

Again and again, I heard stories of Lebanese Hezbollah men operating on the ground with Assad’s forces and of non-Arab-speaking advisers, likely Iranians, deployed with the government forces.

So, while FSA fighters may have little coherent idea of what they are for, they have a very clear and detailed conception of what they are against. And if what they are against is first and foremost the Assad regime itself, they are no less clearly and passionately opposed to the regional and international alliance that supports the dictator.

Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah are constantly cited as enemies of the Syrian revolution. Ayham al-Kurdi was clear that “if the revolution succeeds, we will neither depend on, nor have relations with, nor take weapons from Russia.” He also stressed that the Syrian revolution had come to “break the dream” of Iranian domination of the region—and more specifically, Tehran’s strategic ambition to create a contiguous line of pro-Iranian states stretching from Iran’s western borders to the Mediterranean Sea.

This all sounds like good news for Israel. But while the FSA may be resolute foes of the Iran-led regional bloc, there is little reason to think that the rebels and the broader opposition depart significantly from the usual Arab attitudes toward Israel and Jews. One older activist in Antakya said to me that a plan was under way to divide Syria into ethnic enclaves and that the opposition needed to be aware of this and counteract it. Who was responsible for this plan? Israel, he told me. “Zionism’s project is to divide the Arab world,” he said.

On a few occasions, I heard plaintive assertions that Assad was “worse than Israel.” Muhya-din, a young opposition organizer in Bini’ish, was more precise in his definition. “The Israelis kill Palestinians to protect their own people,” he said. “But we are Assad’s people, and he is killing us purely to retain power.” One of his friends then said, “The Israelis do what they do in the name of their God. Assad, however, thinks that he is God.”

I can think of a number of other throwaway remarks made to me regarding a desire to seek help from anyone—“even Israel,” said one fighter, if the situation continues. But the general and very clear sense was that Israel was simply not a relevant factor. The fury and hatred was reserved for Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah; the appeals for support were and are being made to the West. From Israel’s point of view, this is probably the best that can be hoped for from Arab opposition movements at the present time.

***

I left Idleb the way I came—over the mountains. There were no horses on the way out, and we had to wade through frozen streams and fields of mud. The day after I left, Assad’s army entered Idleb City with tanks, reportedly killing a number of FSA fighters.

I remember Muhya-Din’s dismissive response when I tried to ask him about his plans for his family and the child that his wife is due to give birth to in the spring, their third. “Right now, I just can’t think about anything,” he said. “I’m just waiting for the victory. Waiting for when we end this regime. After that, I’ll think only about my family again.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Inside Free Syria

The mountains outside Antakya were wrapped in black clouds the day we crossed the border from Turkey into Syria. The smugglers said this was a good sign as the Syrian Army patrols don’t care for rain and mud, and would tend to stay in their huts, making our crossing safer. That was how it turned out. We pushed up the border fence and crawled through at around 9 p.m. There were horses heavily laden with contraband waiting for us just inside. We rode them across the mountains in the rain and arrived in Syria without being seen.

I had made contact with the smugglers in Antakya through Syrian opposition friends, some days previously. This is the only way into northern Syria for journalists at the present time. I wanted to head to Idleb Province, one of the centers of the insurgency against the Assad family dictatorship, and now one of the regime’s main targets. My purpose was to gain an impression of the Free Syrian Army, the increasingly important armed element in the revolt against Assad, from inside one of its heartland areas.

Antakya itself is buzzing with the semi-visible activities of both the Syrian regime and the opposition. The Free Syrian Army in Antakya is immensely security-conscious, particularly since the kidnapping and forced return to Syria of its founding member, Colonel Hussein Harmoush, last year. But the activities of the FSA are also severely restricted by the Turkish authorities, which watch it carefully, and whose gaze it seeks to avoid.

Antakya combines this sense of intrigue with the questionable charms of a mountain resort town in winter. Prior to crossing, I met with an FSA officer, Captain Ayham al-Kurdi, for an initial briefing.

I spoke with Kurdi in a rundown office in an apartment. A native of Hama, the 30-year-old former signals officer in a Syrian antiaircraft unit described to me how he came to the insurgency.

He was stationed near Daraa, a town close to the Jordanian border and the birthplace of the uprising, in mid-2011. He recalled his shock at witnessing the use of anti-aircraft munitions against civilian demonstrators in the area, as the Assad regime sought to murder the revolt in its cradle.

The use of these munitions was intended as a tool of terror. Their bullets kill people no more or less than regular ordnance. But from the regime’s point of view, they had the additional attraction of setting the bodies of those they hit on fire, turning the corpse into a symbol of deterrence to all who would challenge Assad’s rule. What they also did was to make Ayham al-Kurdi and others reassess their view of the government. Kurdi made his decision to desert, and help set up the beginnings of armed resistance to Assad.

Kurdi’s assessment of the strategic reality facing the Syrian revolution was grim: “If there is no international or Arab intervention,” he made clear, “this situation could continue for years.” The revolution has powerful enemies. The captain counted them on his hands, and the reasons for their enmity to the insurgency against Assad. First, Iran: “The Syrian revolution,” said Kurdi, “was a shock for the Iranian project. The Iranians want to control the region—Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Gulf. The Syrian revolution came to break this dream. So it is natural for the Iranians to help Assad.”

But together with the Iranians, there were their Lebanese clients, Hezbollah, and beyond this Russia and China, looming and impervious. “A great Arabic and international movement” is what Captain Kurdi wants to counteract this. He is not confident that it will come.

Before I left his office for the border and the smugglers, as a way of farewell, Kurdi shared with me a curious rumor—if it is a rumor—that I would hear repeated a number of times in the days ahead. It concerned the possible use of chemical warfare by Assad against protesters. The claim was made regarding the Homs area, which even more so than Idleb, is currently the main focus of the regime’s violence. Homs city is being subjected to a merciless pounding by government artillery.

In Talbisa, next to Homs city, Kurdi told me, they sprayed pesticides on demonstrators from the air. The soldiers were equipped with a new type of gas mask. “Assad said before that we were germs,” he concluded, “now we’re insects. I guess that’s progress.” He wished me luck inside.

On the highway, once in Syria, we were vulnerable to any sudden spotchecks the army cared to place. But once we entered Idleb Province, the extent of the precarious gains made by rebel fighters in recent weeks became apparent. In towns like Binnish and Sarmin, the regime of Bashar al-Assad no longer exists, at least in visible form.

The roadblock that meets you at the entry to Binnish is manned by Free Syrian Army fighters. Armed opposition activists are everywhere. A makeshift clubhouse established by Abu Steif, the big man in the opposition in this backwater town, is buzzing with armed young men going in and out until the early hours of the morning. The flag of the Syrian revolution, which is the flag of the Syrian republic before the Baath party took control in 1963, flies above the main square.

The limitations of the revolt are also immediately apparent from a perusal of the armory assembled by the Free Army fighters in their Binnish headquarters. The characterization often heard in the media of the FSA as armed only with Kalashnikovs is not quite accurate, but it’s not far from the truth. The AK-47 is indeed the main weapon of FSA fighters. In addition, I saw RPG-7s, heavy machine guns, and a mortar. Newly arrived body armor, smuggled over the mountains, was stacked up in boxes. There seemed to be no sign of first-aid kits, though, and little indication of any sophisticated communications equipment.

The weapons were the subject of much discussion, and discussion is what the Free Army members in Binnish do a lot of, in their clubhouse, drinking endless quantities of sweet tea and smoking.

The RPG-7, in particular, was an object of enthusiasm. I heard Abdo, a fighter of the FSA and a former Syrian tank corpsman, extolling its virtues to the heavily built, black-bearded Abu Steif on that first evening. “At 300 yards, Abu Steif, at 300 yards, and it can stop a tank. It can take a house down, too. You’ll see it when the time comes.” Abu Steif, a ruminative figure, a prominent local businessman before the revolt, reflected on this information before nodding and concluding, “Praise God.” Assad’s army last entered the town in force in October. No one thinks they won’t be back.

The fighters in Binnish are a mixed bunch. Many are army deserters, with harrowing tales similar to Ayham al-Kurdi’s. The names of the places differ. The details are largely the same: orders to shoot at civilians, a growing realization of having been lied to, and then the decision to escape. The defections are recalled in graphic detail. Sometimes they involve the deaths of friends who sought also to desert, sometimes the turning of guns on fellow Syrian soldiers or officers.

But there is another type of fighter in the ranks of the armed opposition in the town. On the first evening, away from the main opposition center, I met a group of FSA members returning from an attack on an army checkpoint outside Idleb city. Among them were representatives of a type of man immediately familiar to all observers of early 21st-century Middle East politics. A type of man very calm, often smiling, with a sort of serenity about him. Bearded, invoking the authority of holy text, though rarely in a histrionic way. Salafi Islamist fighters are prominent among the FSA men in Binnish. They tended to keep away from Abu Steif’s clubhouse and to have their own gatherings elsewhere. They were local men, though, not foreigners.

I interviewed one of the Salafis shortly after they had returned from the attack on the checkpoint. He was in his mid-30s, black-bearded, and with the attitude typical of FSA fighters, a gloomy assessment of the balance of forces combined with a kind of generalized optimism. “We have no support from any country, and we receive no weapons from anyone,” he told me. “The regime, meanwhile, has Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, and China.” How long until Assad is destroyed? I asked. “I give it,” he said, in the manner of a physician revealing a prognosis, “roughly a month.”

The activists in Idleb Province are keen to reassure you that the regime really has gone, without a trace, from the liberated zones. The reality is more complex. The creation of the free zones in Idleb, Homs Province, and elsewhere is the most significant achievement to date of the Syrian revolution. The Assad regime, it should be remembered, was until recently a synonym for the airless, locked-down Arab nationalist police state. In Idleb Province now, there is some room to breathe.

And yet, of course, the regime is still there. Its tanks and armored vehicles are deployed some distance away, in the surrounding fields. But the unseen mechanisms of the dictatorship are present far beyond the FSA roadblock meant to keep out intruders.

Each Friday, large demonstrations take place across Syria, under a single slogan chosen by the opposition. On the Friday I was in Binnish, the designated slogan was “Russia is killing us.” A British Sky TV crew had entered the town, and was doing a live broadcast from a rooftop next to the rally. All had been peaceful. But as the cameras began to roll, in the area behind them, a large brawl unaccountably erupted. Within seconds, the Sky reporter’s jaunty copy about the revolution in Idleb Province was being recited, absurdly, with a mass fistfight going on behind it.

Opposition activists stepped in, and to the fury of the crew, stopped the live broadcast. To the practiced eye, what had taken place was very apparent. This was a provocation straight out of the dog-eared East German playbook of the Baath regime. Primitive and lowtech, it may have been. But it succeeded in disrupting the only piece of live coverage coming out of Idleb Province that day and served notice that whatever flag flew above the town square, the Assad regime had not entirely left. It turned out that some members of an unruly local clan had been paid to start the fight.

That evening, Abu Steif and his activists began preparing a list of 200 families in the town who would send representatives to a new “security committee” to be formed in Binnish. It is a beginning.

Getting from Binnish to neighboring Sarmin requires venturing back onto the main highway to Damascus. We managed this without incident. In Sarmin, the armed element looks better organized, more professional than in Binnish. There is talk of around a thousand armed men in the town.

I met with one of the commanders, 25-year-old Lieutenant Bilal Khaibar, at a position prepared by the FSA at the entrance to the town. Khaibar, a seven-year veteran of Assad’s airborne forces, is impressive in the classic manner of an elite infantry officer—earnest, clipped, and precise. The outlines of his own story, and the reasons he joined the FSA, were by now familiar.

He and his unit were deployed in the south in the early months of the uprising. They were told that armed Israelis had crossed the border and that they were to engage them. On closing with the “enemy,” they discovered that it consisted of unarmed Syrian civilians. The troops were accompanied into the engagement by non-Arabic-speaking men, who Bilal later discovered were Iranians. These men were responsible for the execution of one of Bilal Khaibar’s brother officers, who refused to fire on civilians in the Daraa area. Khaibar made his way in June 2011 to the Free Syrian Army days after the killing of his friend.

Bilal Khaibar still wears his Syrian Army paratroopers’ wings on his FSA uniform, and was careful to explain to me that he does this because he regards himself as part of the legal army of Syria. “I am with the law, not against the law. The regime is fascist and criminal.” Nor does he have any illusions about what is to come. “We expect what happened in Homs to happen here. But even with our simple weapons, we are ready to fight. Either Bashar stays, or we stay.”

As for what can bring victory, again, the demands are familiar—above all, a buffer zone. A place to which refugees can flee, and from which fighters can organize. Without this, Khaibar sees no end to the situation.

And again, the curious rumor: Three times, he says, three times, in his clipped, officer’s way, the regime has used chemical weapons and pesticides against protesters in the Homs area.

“Freedom is the promise of God on earth,” Khaibar tells me. So if international help doesn’t come, he and his men will hold the Sarmin free zone for as long as they can, and afterwards fight, he says, “like peshmerga.” The regime, says Khaibar, “has the heavy weapons, but the people are with us.”

Lieutenant Bilal Khaibar of the Sarmin FSA was the most credible of the military men I met in Idleb Province. The presence of individuals of his type in the insurgency is an indication that it is real, it means business, and it will not easily be destroyed. However, without the buffer zone and the assistance that he and others repeatedly demanded, it is difficult to see how victory can come.

In October, when the army of Assad swept through Idleb Province, they began their attack on Binnish from the graveyard outside of the town. On my last day in Idleb, two young fighters of the FSA proudly recounted their own role in the bloody battle in the alleyways of the first neighborhood facing the graveyard, as the fighters sought to stop Assad’s army and irregulars from forcing their way in. “Assad wants to turn the whole of Syria into a graveyard,” one of them told me as we stood by the grave of Ahmed Abd el-Hakim, an FSA fighter killed by a sniper in the October clashes.

The Assad regime’s choice to launch the attack in a graveyard seemed particularly apt. Death and its political uses is the only currency in which this most brutal of dictatorships has ever learned to deal. It has traded in this coin, however, with vigor and skill, and it continues to do so.

Umm Maher, the mother of Ahmed Abd el-Hakim, later summed up for me what this has meant in human terms for the people of Syria.

Sitting in her front room, with her daughter seated next to her holding a picture of Ahmed, she told me that, “for 40 years we’ve lived like this—no law, no rights. We live with terror. We are made to live differently from all other people in the world by this regime. So we’re proud of our son, who was trying to end this. He was brave.”

Umm Maher’s words express a simple and obvious truth regarding the desire of human beings for dignity. As for the instruments in place in Syria for achieving this, the Free Syrian Army in Idleb Province includes many courageous and capable men. Some of them are committed to Salafi Islamist ideologies. They are nearly all Sunni Arabs. There is a clear sectarian logic at work—alongside a desire to see the end of a regime that denies them the most basic and minimal of rights.

In terms of their capabilities, the Free Syrian Army remains something of a fiction. What exists on the ground is a conglomeration of locally organized militias, lacking any coherent central direction or chain of command, and with no real strategy for victory beyond the “buffer zone” constantly referred to.

For the people and the fighters of Idleb, the fight goes on. They know that once Assad is finished with Homs and Hama, and once he thinks he can get away with it, he will turn his attention back to the north. Then it will be their turn, and the dictator will exact a bloody and terrible revenge for their effrontery.

What could prevent this is an effective coalition to counter the anti-Western one (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia) that currently underwrites the dictator. This Western coalition can only happen outside the auspices of the U.N., where Russia and China have already vetoed Security Council resolutions demanding Assad step down. Part of that Western response would involve turning the FSA from a collection of ragtag militias into a more formidable force. And it would commit to the creation of a free zone in Syria more solid and guaranteed than those zones currently held, with hope and courage, by fighters armed only with AK-47s and RPG-7s.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Hizballah backs Assad – and pays the price

In early January, 2011, Hizballah and its allies took up the reins of
government in Lebanon, having ensured the collapse of the coalition
led by March 14 leader and then Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
Hizballah needed a coalition which it thought would staunchly oppose the Special
Tribunal on Lebanon, investigating the killing of former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri.

But many at the time discerned a more significant meaning in the rise
to government of the March 8 coalition. It looked like the latest
stage in the inexorable rise of the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement,
founded under the patronage of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982.
Hizballah had survived Israel’s
onslaught in 2006, and gone on to successfully intimidate its internal
opponents in the mini civil war of May, 2008.

With a reputed yearly donation of $200 million from Teheran, Hizballah
had built a state within the state. it had developed a matchless
military and security capability, independent of the organs of the
Lebanese government, and in most ways more powerful. By January,
2011, Hizballah looked set to absorb its host.

Today, however, much of this is open to question. Hizballah no longer
looks so unassailable. The movement has been one of the less remarked
upon victims of the Arab upheavals of 2011. Let’s take a look at how
this has happened.

Over the last two decades, Hizballah defined itself along a number if
parallel lines, each of which before 2011 appeared to support the
other. The movement was simultaneously a sectarian representative of
the Lebanese Shia, a regional ally of Iran and Syria, a defender of
the Lebanese against the supposed aggressive intentions of Israel, and
a leader of a more generically defined Arab and Muslim ‘resistance’
against Israel and the west.

As a result of the events of 2011, these various lines, which seemed
mutually supportive, have begun to contradict one another. This is
diminishing Hizballah’s position – though it remains physically
unassailable for as long as the Assad regime in Syria survives.

When the ‘Arab Spring’ first broke out, Hizballah was able to happily
endorse it. This is because in its first three significant
manifestations – in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain – the ‘Arab Spring’ was
directed against pro-western, anti-Iranian regimes. And in Bahrain,
even better, a Shia populace was rising up against a pro-western,
Sunni monarch.

The problems began with the outbreak of the revolt against the Assad
regime in Syria. Syria is a charter member of the pro-Iranian
regional alliance to which Hizballah also belongs. It is also a vital
strategic conduit for the organization, providing a hinterland, a
potential safe haven in the event of war with Israel, and a route for
the supply of Iranian arms. For all these, reasons, Hizballah is
determined that Assad survive. Reliable sources suggest that
Hizballah men are involved in infiltrating opposition groups in Syria
and providing
intelligence.

This investment in the survival of Assad indicates which of the four
aspects of Hizballah’s identity mentioned above are most important to
it. The link with the Iran-led alliance and maintaining the ability
to wage war against Israel are the cardinal interests. To maintain
these, Hizballah has to a great extent sacrificed its more nebulous
self-image as a leader of pan-Islamic ‘resistance.’ Syrian Sunnis
leading the uprising against Assad now count Hizballah among their
enemies. The movement’s flag has been burnt at opposition rallies.

So the uprising in Syria has served to remove the veil of ‘resistance’
from the face of Hizballah. The sectarian visage beneath has been
revealed. Hizballah has been exposed as a sectarian, iran-aligned
Shia force, backing a vicious, non-Sunni dictatorship in its war
against its own, largely Sunni people.

Polls show the resulting disappearance of the high regard in which
Hizballah was once held across the Arab world.

Of course, for as long as the Assad dictatorship survives, this has no
immediate physical implications for Hizballah. And despite the
overenthusiastic predictions of some westerners and Israelis, the
Assad regime may well be around for some considerable time to come.

But in Lebanon, there are already signs that non-Shia communities,
long chafing under the heel of Hizballah, are beginning to grow
restive. The governing coalition is no longer unified on Syria. The
perennial political weathervane, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, now
supports the Syrian dictator’s departure.

More ominously, there are signs of growing Sunni restiveness on the
ground. The sectarian nature of the conflict in Syria is spilling
across the border. Hizballah operatives have been engaged in the
arrest of Syrian oppositionists seeking refuge in Lebanon, and their
despatch back to Assad. The Lebanese government is claiming that the
border town of Arsal has become a haven for ‘al-Qaeda’ elements. In
the town of Tarshish, local residents in October physically prevented
Hizballah from extending its telecommunications networks into the
town.

Hizballah is also engaged in putting down opposition within its own
community. Two Shia clerics are set to face charges of ‘conspiring
with Israel’ later this month. The two, Sheikh Hassan Mchaymech and
Sayyed Mohammad Ali al-Hussein were known for their independent and
critical positions toward Hizballah.

None of this portends the imminent demise of Hizballah. What it does
reveal is a nervous, diminished organization, which has shed most of
the region-wide charisma it earned through its fight against Israel.

The logic of the emerging post 2011 Middle East is one of Islamism and
sectarianism. In this context, Hizballah is now exposed as a gendarme
in the Levant for Iran and the Shia Islamism it adheres to. The
movement, like its friend Bashar Assad, increasingly holds power by
force alone. This can be maintained while it is the stronger party.
For as long as Bashar is in his seat, it will be so. If he falls,
Hizballah’s enemies in Lebanon (and Syria) will be waiting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments