The Game Changer in Syria: Enter the Russians

The Syrian battlefield has changed dramatically with the entry of the Russian forces and its airstrikes in support of the Bashar al Assad government. The Americans and its NATO allies are now condemning the Russian support to “butcher” Assad, with of course, no problem in their supporting and even participating, in a far more brutal and one-sided campaign of their close ally Saudi Arabia against Yemen. Or even “remembering” their various regime change wars -- from Afghanistan to Libya, which has ravaged not only West Asia, but also much of North Africa. Bashar al Assad regime's survival is crucial, if the brutal onslaught of the Salafist-takfiri gang is to be halted in the region. And this gang is headed by Saudi Arabia, whose brand of Wahabi Islam is no different from the Islamic State (IS), al Qaeda and their various avatars.

The game changing politics in Syria started with the Turkish-US agreement for the use of Incirlik airbase by the US airforce, allegedly for bombing the IS bases in Syria and Iraq. This agreement appeared to have a hidden corollary – it gave the Turks a free-hand to attack the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq. The second was the refugee influx into Europe, which suddenly became a huge international media event, even though it's only a small fraction of the people who have been displaced by the various regime change wars in West Asia. Was it a show staged by Turkey and international media to build a case for a NATO intervention to remove Assad? The last, and this is what is making international news right now, is Russia entering the Syrian civil war and bombing the forces that are attacking the Syrian government. Hezbollah and Iran are also reportedly deploying their ground troops in support of the Syrian government. Are they isolated events connected only by a common timeline, or are we seeing the Russians intervene to forestall a concerted attack by Turkey, NATO and the Gulf monarchies in tandem with various takfiri-jihadi forces, against the Syrian government?

Before the entry of the Russians, the Bashar al Assad's forces were clearly on the defensive. They appeared to have been exhausted by the 4-year long civil war, and were facing an array of forces armed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other Gulf monarchies, as well as the US. They were facing attacks from across the Iraqi, the Turkish, the Jordanian and finally, the Israel borders. Israel even acted as the air force for the Jabhat al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, providing it air cover.

It was public knowledge that various forces fighting with Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra, such as Ahrar al Sham, and other splinter groups, are being directly aided by Turkey. What is less reported in the mainstream media, is that the so-called “moderate” rebels touted by the US and its western allies, are all a part of the Jabhat al Nusra led front. The US is supporting forces in Syria that are in alliance with al Qaeda, its avowed enemy in the “war against terror”.

The Syrian forces are facing attacks from US-backed rebel forces entering from Jordan; the CIA is even running a control room for them there. With Jabhat al Nusra and the rebel forces backed by the US, combining together, there was a serious danger of Damascus losing control of the roads to Latakia and the Syrian coast, which is still now firmly under Syrian government control. The Jubahat al Nusra front, backed by the Turks in the north, have also virtually severed the link between Damascus and Aleppo. While IS is attacking the Syrian government forces from the east (Iraq), it is the southern and the northern fronts facing Damascus and Aleppo that are more of an immediate threat. And here, the US was happy to make common cause with al Qaeda, in order to destroy Bashar al Assad's government.

It is also clear that there is a tacit alliance on the ground between IS, al Qaeda and the US backed rebel forces. On the other side, are the Syrian government forces and Hezbollah. The Kurds have been fighting the IS, and were at one stage being backed by the US, while disassociating themselves from the Bashar al Assad's government. After being sacrificed to the Turks on the agreement over the Ircilik airbase, they seemed to have gone back to their original stance of no alliance with Bashar al Assad, but a tacit understanding with it against the common enemies – the IS and Jabhat al Nusra. No wonder, YPG, the military arm of the Kurdish formations in Syria, have welcomed the Russian intervention and have expressed willingness to work with it.

The US has cried foul after the Russian airforce bombed the IS and the al Nusra alliance. It has claimed that the Russians should only bomb the IS, and not the rebels it has armed, even if they are in alliance with al Qaeda, supposedly its main enemy in the “war against terror”. The US has been talking, first about the “secular” Free Syrian Army, and after its collapse, “moderate” Syrian rebel forces. They have been training a large number these forces in various CIA camps in Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and supplying them with sophisticated anti tank missiles, machine guns, cannons and of course a huge amount of small arms. The US has spent an estimated $1 billion a year (1/15th of the annual CIA budget) in arming these Syrian rebels. Even the mainstream media – New York Times and Washington Post – admit that these so-called moderate forces are a part of the al Nusra led front, and share arms and ammunition with them. The farce of Division 30, recently trained by the US Armed Forces (distinct from the CIA effort), has also ended, with the US spokespersons conceding that they have either defected to, or been captured by al Nusra.

The US has also tried to suggest that there is a tacit alliance between IS and Bashar al Assad, that is why Syrian government forces are attacking largely the al Nusra alliance. This is also the charge against the Russians. The facts are otherwise. The US, though on paper, has flown a number of sorties, 75% of its aircraft returned without firing even one weapons or dropping one bomb. The Russians sorties have been far more effective, as they have Syrian boots on the ground. They have struck against all rebel forces including IS. In Raqqa, the IS stronghold and the seat of their “caliphate”, there have been dozens of casualties of IS fighters in the Russian attack. The IS has now cancelled any gathering in Raqqa, fearing such attacks, something it never did earlier, when the US forces were bombing them.

The Turkish record against IS is even worse. In the first two weeks of “entering” the war against IS, it had flown 150 sorties against the Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria against only a solitaryone against the IS in Syria.

The Russian entry in Syria makes two significant changes. It means that the open sky that the US, Turkey and Israel had enjoyed in Syria, is now at an end. If the US, and its allies attack IS, the Syrian government and Russian forces would probably not object. But the threat of a no-fly zone over northern Syria, the demand of Erdogan, the Turkish President, and under active consideration of the US, is now over. A no-fly zone over northern Syria, to be enforced by the US, would now mean a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers in Syrian skies, a course the US is unlikely to follow.

Image Courtesy: flickr.com

The other significant change is Israel's freely attacking Syrian forces from the air and providing fire cover to al Nusra. It is the artillery fire from Golan Heights, under occupation by Israel, and aerial attack on Syrian forces that has led to al Nusra capturing the Syrian territory adjoining Golan heights. This has allowed Israel not only to supply al Nusra with arms and ammunition, but also providing rest, recreation and even hospital facilities toinjured al Nusra combatants. Israel treating Syrian skies as a part of its fiefdom is now over. Russia will not hesitate to take down Israeli aircraft, if they intrude into Syrian airspace, as it could endanger their installations on the ground.

Syria needs to regain control of its territory bordering Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon in the south and near the Turkish border on the north. These regions are close to Damascus and Aleppo, and along with the Syrian coast to the west, contain the bulk of Syria's population. These are the immediate targets for Syrian government forces and Hezbollah. The loss of a part of this territory, particularly in the south, means Hezbollah can be attacked, not only by Israel, but also by al Nusra, who are fighting Hezbollah in alliance with similar forces within Lebanon. Regaining this territory means stopping the pipeline of the CIA-backed forces, who are using Jordan to transfer arms, ammunition and other strategic help. In the coming days, it is the southern front and the roads to Aleppo that are likely to see immediate action.

Geo-strageically, for the US and its key ally in the region, Israel, the main opposition is from the resistance axis of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. If Israel and the US can take out Syria, then Iran's link to Hezbollah gets broken. Militarily, Hezbollah is the only force in the region that has defeated Israel. It forced Israel to vacate its occupation of southern Lebanon, and in 2006, did not let Israel advance more than a few kilometres across the Lebanese border. If Syria is knocked out of the equation, Hezbollah's supply line would be snapped, weakening them in any future confrontation.

IS is another story. IS has been backed by Saudi intelligence services. As we now know, the US had not simply overlooked the formation of IS, it had actively sought the creation of a “Salafist” entity in the contiguous region spanning Iraq and Syria. Even today, the IS is seen to be a lesser evil than Iran and therefore a de facto ally, as long as it does not directly threaten US and Saudi interests. David Petraus and other neocon figures openly advocate an alliance with IS against Iran. The US also sees in the IS and similar Salafist forces, a dagger that it can thrust through Caucasus into the Muslim majority autonomous regions in Russia. It would therefore like to contain IS, but not destroy it. Its air attacks are more to pass this message to IS instead of destroying it.

If IS has to be fought in Syria, Russia has to draw Iraq into this fight as well. IS controls territory covering contiguous areas in Iraq and Syria. Fighting in Syria without a simultaneous push from Iraq, will only allow IS to withdraw into Iraq and come back again once Russia leaves. The key to defeating IS is not aerial bombing, but ground forces. And only Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria can provide ground forces.

If the US is serious about fighting IS, it has very little option but to work with Iran and Syrian government forces. If it does not, Russia can step into this space and help a combined Iraq, Iran and Syria ground offensive.

Turkey tried hard to build a case for regime change in Syria through the refugee story. The sudden influx from Syria and Kurdish areas had Turkey as their origin. Was it just a tipping point being reached, with Turkey attacking Kurdish areas? Or was it Turkey's way of telling the US and its European allies that if they did not fall in line with Turkey's aims in Syria, this is what would lie in store for them?

Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict has effectively scotched any such move: a NATO war of regime change or even no-fly zones for Syrian airforce is now not on the cards. Will Turkey now back off? Or will its aim of snuffing out the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria overrun its good sense?

The US has pushed itself into a corner. Having backed the Salafist forces in Syria, divided Iraq on ethnic and sectarian lines, aligned with monarchies and letting Saudi Arabia and Turkey front for their policies, gives the US very little wiggle room today.

The US campaign over Russia attacking its moderate rebel allies – read “our” terrorists -- in Syria and indiscriminate bombing of civilians ring hollow, particularly after its airforce bombed the MSF Hospital in Kunduz, and Saudi Arabia, its ally, bombing a wedding party in Yemen killing 140. All of it has the smell of a policy gone bad, leaving the US and its allies – Cameron and Hollande -- spouting incoherent nonsense. They also have left very little leverage for themselves, having backed Russia into a corner on Ukraine. What else can they do now – impose further sanctions on Russia beyond what they already have done? The sane course is for the west to give up the neocon goal of remaking the region to its liking, and recognise the failure of its policies – from Afghanistan to Libya. That may be a bitter pill to swallow. But do they have any other option? The only other option is to back Saudi Arabia and Turkey to take on the Russians in Syria. Even the Saudis may not be stupid enough for that, not withstanding this piece in a CNN op-ed by a Saudi mouthpiece.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Newsclick