Following the Moscow meeting between Lavrov and Kerry and the announcement of an international conference on Syria it was to be expected that all parties would scramble to be in the strongest possible position to bargain. Indeed, this is exactly what happened:
1) The Syrian government launched a successful assault on the strategic town of al Qusayr.
2) The US Senate passed a resolution allowing the arming of the anti-Syrian opposition.
3) Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah warning that “Syria had friends” and that these friends would not allow the US backed Takfiris to overthrow the government.
4) The EU lifted the (largely symbolic) arms embargo on Syria.
5) Russia for the first time officially confirmed that S-300 would be given to Syria to “deter foreign intervention“.
First, let me say that the US/EU threat is largely a symbolic one. It makes the always clueless European leaders feel like they have some hair on their chest and it gives US Senators some brownie points with AIPAC. But that’s about it. Since they beginning of the war, weapons have been flowing into Syria in large quantities and the official embargo was a farce since day 1.
In contrast, the liberation of al Qusayr, the semi-official involvement of Hezbollah, Nasrallah’s pledge to stand by the Syrian government and Russia’s determination not to allow a foreign intervention are all signs of a heightened determination not to surrender Syria to the US/NATO/Israel/al-Qaeda coalition. The most important development here is, I believe, Nasrallah’s warning that Hezbollah will stand by the Syrian government.
The Russian S-300 are excellent air-defense systems indeed, but they are not some kind of magic weapon, in particular not in the absence of an integrated multi-layer air-defense system. In contrast, a “full throttle” Hezbollah intervention in the Syrian conflict would truly be a “game changer” to use Obama’s favorite expression. Why?
The truth is that Hezbollah has been reluctant to enter into this conflict. Not only does this war violate Hezbollah’s sacred principle of not shedding Arab blood, but it distracts the Resistance from its primary objective: resistance against Israel. Finally, while Hassan Nasrallah and the Syrian government are trying their utmost to prevent this conflict of becoming a sectarian one, the conflict is taking on a gradually nasty sectarian nature which is a real threat to Lebanon. To put it simply, Hezbollah does not want the war in Syria to turn Lebanon into another Iraq (where only yesterday 66 Shia were murdered in a bomb attack in Bagdad). For all these reasons Hezbollah *as an organization* did not enter into this war even though several hundred Lebanese Shia, including some affiliated with Hezbollah, did intervene to protect their relatives and fellow Shia across the border. Still, and this is crucial, even the recent Hezbollah intervention in support of government forces around al-Qusayr are nothing compared to what Hezbollah could bring into the fight if the Resistance decided to use its real power to strike hard.
This is a classical “weapons vs soldiers” issue which civilians typically fail to understand. So let me clarify what we know about this so far:
Government forces:
1) Weapons: the Syrian military is equipped with largely outdated Soviet equipment. While it has tanks, helicopters and military aircraft, these are of limited utility in urban warfare in particular in the absence of advanced communications and networking equipment. The few modern systems (such as the Tochka tactical missiles) Syria has are not sufficient to make a real difference against the insurgency (besides they are mostly targeted as Israel anyway).
2) Soldiers: after some definite difficulties at the beginning of the war, the government forces are now largely composed of very skilled soldiers with extensive urban warfare experience, finely honed tactical skills, excellent morale and popular support.
Insurgency:
1) Weapons: the insurgency is equipped with much more modern small arms, communication gear, anti-tank weapons, etc. It has few tanks, no military aircraft and, crucially, appears to have only a few MANPADS (portable surface to air missiles).
2) Soldiers: the vast majority of insurgents are minimally trained and they lack the complex skills needed in urban warfare. The main exception to this rule is the al-Nura group which while not the most numerous is by far the most effective combat force being composed of international jihadists with very real combat experience. Still, the bulk of the so-called “Syrian” insurgency is composed of foreign nationals who get killed by the government forces as fast as they are shipped in by the “Friends of Syria” network which is attempting to topple the Syrian government.
Here is the West’s dilemma: while the US/NATO cannot ship tanks, APCs or artillery systems into Syria in significant numbers, it could provide the insurgency with enough MANPADS to make a real difference for the Syrian Air Force. However, giving MANPADS to crazy jihadis is something which makes a lot of people very nervous. Also, SU-24s, SU-22s and MiG-23s are not all that easy to shoot down with MANPADS, in particular over mostly open, flat or hilly, terrain. So giving many MANPADS to al-Qaeda types in Syria might not be worth the risk. Finally, the truth is that the insurgency already has MANPADs, but that they did not yield much of an advantage.
Now let’s look at what can Hezbollah offer the Syrian government:
At least several thundered highly trained combatants with extensive urban warfare experience and top level morale. These soldiers could be supported by advanced electronic warfare capabilities and equipped with top of the line infantry weapons. Finally, should the tide change in favor of the insurgency, Hezbollah could provide an outstanding cadre to organize the defense of Syrian towns and villages from the insurgency. If the situation became really critical, it is a safe bet to say that both Iran and Russia, and even China, would open wide the spigots of financial and military aid to provide all the pro-government forces with whatever is needed to avoid a NATO/al-Qaeda occupation of Syria. In other words, Hezbollah can provide exactly that which Russia and China cannot: “boots on the ground“. And very very skilled “boots” indeed, as capable as anything the Russians our Chinese could send in themselves.
For centuries the Shia have resisted oppression and persecution, often by formidable enemies, by repeating the dramatic words of words of Imam Husayn Kullu Yamin Ashura wa Kullu Arzin Karbala (Every day is the Ashura and every place is Kerbala) which can be interpreted to mean oppression and evil must be opposed at any cost, everywhere and at all times. You can be absolutely sure that Hezbollah will fight, and fight hard, to resist the combined oppression of the West, the Zionists and the Takfiris whose only “values” are greed (for the West), racism and self-worship (for the Zionists) and hatred (for the Takfiris).
Furthermore, a major war involving US, NATO, al-Qaeda, Israel on one side and Hezbollah, Russia, China and Iran on the other side could easily spill over into not only Lebanon, but also Turkey, Iraq and even the Gulf monarchies (via Iran) and CENTCOM.
Finally, it is pretty clear that Iran will never allow Hezbollah to be over-run, not by NATO, not by somebody else. As for Russia and China, they appear to be determined not to allow an overthrow of the Assad government and, even more so, not to allow a direct attack on Iran.
My conclusion is therefore simple: what the West is doing right now is posturing, waving an angry fist, promising fire and brimstone on anybody who would dare resist it. The Syrians, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia and China are simply preparing to fight.
There is a great American expression:” it is not the size of the dog in the fight which matters, it is the size of the fight in the dog“. Now let me ask you this: which dog would you fear most? The one that loudly barks and runs in circles, or the one which lowers his head, bears his fangs and takes a combat posture?
The Saker
Israel’s defence minister signals that its military is prepared to strike shipments of advanced weapons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/israel-warns-russia-against-arming-syrian-rebels
@Anonymous: LOL, the Israelis are true to themselves, always arrogant, always dumb and always making threats. Israel really cannot afford a pissing contest with Russia, and I doubt the Israeli military will go along with such lunacy. As for the Russians, all they need to do is station one SA-N-6 or SA-N-20 ship in the port of Tartus and the entire charade will be over.
Here is the key question though: would the US go to war to support Israel in case of an Israeli attack on Russian forces?
I don’t think so.
Does anybody?
The Saker
Al Akhbar reports that the Syrian Army is gearing up for Alleppo after cleaning up Qusayr. It says, however, that 20,000 insurgents could be entrenched in parts of Alleppo. This would be a very difficult, yet potentially decisive battle. If the Syrian army were to win, the insurgency would lose the last remaining base of significance.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-after-qusayr-regime-eyes-aleppo
@Anonymous: This is a very delicate issue. If the Syrians besiege Aleppo or Homs, the Anglo propaganda machine will speak of an “barbaric siege” with government snipers shooting a hungry civilians (that is the “Sarajevo” variant). If the Syrian actually enter and liberate Aleppo or Homs, the Anglo propaganda machine will speak of a genocide (this is the “Srebrenica” variant). Needless to say, if the Syrians just let these cities in he hands of the Takfiris, then this creates a safe heaven for the insurgency, and a wonderful place to ship, stock and deploy weapons.
The best variant would be what I would call a “Grozny II” variant. Surround the city form all sides, then deliberately create a “weak” corridor in the cordon surrounding the city, then use a “corrupt officer” to “sell” this information for a big sum of money to the insurgents, and then have the entire force walk straight into a huge minefield, surrounded by carefully prepare fire positions and just turned then all into minced meat. But I am afraid that there are enough Chechens in the insurgency not to be caught a second time in such a scheme. Too bad, really…
A compromise might be to push them out in the direction of Turkey, but that is probably not going to happen. The crazies will probably fight to the end, which means that the Syrians will have to go house to house to flush the insurgents out of their fortification, house by house, room by room, basement by basement. Hezbollah fighters could be very helpful in such a situation, but let’s be realistic here: there is no “clean” way to do that. If the insurgents make their last stand in these cities, it is going to be a bloodbath.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/05/28/mccain-syria-graham-twitter/2365979/
see McCain’s daugther tweets. It’s like she is tweeting from the cinema about a movie where her dad is a cool guy kicking some bad ones, last badass damnit.
Armed rebels attacked a village in Syria’s Western province of Homs and slaughtered all its Christian residents on Monday. Will the Syrian army be blamed for this ? http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=423524 … Fra
@Anonymous 17:02: yes, probably. Either that, or it is going to be ignored by everybody and be blamed on some “rogue elements”
Other than being a strategic advantage of destabilising Syria that it is the weakest element in the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah/Lebanon axis and it would cut supply links to Hezbollah if a war against Iran was launched and pipelines deals from Iran and Iraq with Hezbollah forces on the ground with Iranian support it is basically a live exercise on how a war against Iran might unfold.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Syria does not have a sizable force under a commander like Kadyrov in Chechnya to help with the situation inside Syria itself or anyone with much clout who wants to be affiliated with the Assad regime even if they don’t like the rebels plus it would be harder to box them in as they have sea access and numerous routes in which they can smuggle weapons/supplies and launch attacks, unlimited supply of arms and money and like with Israeli jets bombing Syria even air support plus it is a much bigger population area and region.
@jack:Syria does not have a sizable force under a commander like Kadyrov in Chechnya to help with the situation inside Syria itself or anyone with much clout who wants to be affiliated with the Assad regime
Maybe so. But what do you base this opinion on? What are your sources? On what grounds do you say that Assad is not an acceptable commander?!
@VINEYARDSAKER:
“Maybe so. But what do you base this opinion on? What are your sources? On what grounds do you say that Assad is not an acceptable commander?!”
The situation and circumstances of Syria in relation to Chechnya is different. Chechnya was a rather complex issue simplified by western mass media of a nationalist independent movement fighting Russian imperialism created by a void of a system at the end at the end of the USSR and was being manipulated and used by factions inside the Kremlin for there own objectives.
I think it was Alan Hart a former BBC Mid East reporter during the Libyan crisis and Egyptian revolution to RT that Assad himself does not really have any major influence and the power like Egypt lies in the hands of the military.
Syria is more like Libya where people don’t want to live under the same stagnant/oppressive Assad regime that has ruled for decades that has broken into factional conflict like the Balkans.
I actually checked out the website in the videos of the Chechens in Syria videos I posted but it is only in Russian but looks pretty interesting.
fisyria.com
@Jack: Syria is not Chechnia. Agreed. Nor is it Libya or Egypt. Ok. And the Baathist regime sucks. I agree on all points. But,
There is no denying that its under Bashar Assad that the Syrian military succeeded in adapting to a war it was not at all prepared for, and then it successfully pushed back the insurgency. Are you saying that this was not *in spite* of Assad? Because there is only that much that any military can do “in spite” of its commander in chief. My personal suspicion is that Assad mismanaged the beginning of the war, that he got some VERY “frank exchanges of views” with the Iranians and the Russians, but that he at least did listen and he did adapt. The man is, by call accounts, not stupid, and he is most definitely not a clown or a buffoon like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. His father was a truly nasty, cynical and ruthless dictator, and my feeling is that Assad Jr does not want to go down that road. Why do I say that? Because it is clear to me that had Assad wanted to he could have dealt with the insurgency in a much more ruthless way, like his dad had with the ikhwan.
Please get me right – I have a strong anti-Assad bias myself, but I cannot let that blind me to the facts and what I see is that so far is doing pretty decent job in an extremely difficult situation.
You disagree?
Excellent analysis, Saker.
Just a quick word on Bashar, who I feel is obviously still misunderstood (deliberately?) in a lot of circles, & if you want to get a handle on him you need to read what was written about him before the ‘rebellion’ & the vast propaganda blitz happened.
My view of him is that he started out something like Medvedev – bright, well-meaning, western orientated, & naive.
Bashar was ofcourse never meant to be the leader – he was the second son catapulted into the position when his brother died.
He started out with some good programs relating to modernisation & education, tried to reign in the worst excesses of the security establishment & followed the western playbook on economic reform. The economic reform unsurprisingly turned out to be a disaster & lost him a lot of support among the grass-roots base. The overtures to the west also backfired badly as the decision to overthrow the Syrian regime had been made back at the start of the Bush regime & it has never wavered – and this destroyed his attempts at reforming the security establishment, who hit back strongly as Syria was steadily isolated by the west.
However, unlike Medvedev with Putin around to do the heavy lifting, he has had to wise-up fast & to his credit he seems to have matured into a strong, patriotic leader – although still lacking in experience.
If he is able to articulate a strong vision of what a post-‘revolution’ Syria might look like that contains the elements that most Syrians support (ie. strong social network, inclusive but strong leadership, modernisation, rebuilding, etc) he could grow into one of the important world leaders as more people look for new major ‘resistance’ figures, especially in the middle-east.
@KenM: I understand what you are saying and I cannot disagree. But I would like to note two facts which show, I believe, a strong capability for duplicity in Bashar Assad:
1) Imad Mughniyeh could not have been murdered without the regime’s green light. In fact, Mughniyeh’s widow, who now lives in Iran, accused the regime of murdering her husband.
2) Let’s not forget that Bashar also tortured “detainees” which had been “rendered” to him by the US CIA.
What do these facts say about his character? His morality? His integrity?
The Saker
Saker,
Can you elaborate on how the s300 has to be integrated with a multi-layered air defense system? what would this entail?
@Anonymous10:59: Sure. The S-300 is an army-level air defense system which, in the Russian military doctrine, has to work within a multi-layered air defense network ranging from man-portable missiles like the SA-16 Igla (similar to the US Stinger), to regimental, divisional and army level long range systems. Furthermore, the Russian doctrine foresees a “front” size (small country or bigger) radar network, working in different frequencies, and with AWACS aircraft in the air, supported by MiG-31 interceptors. All of the above systems would fuse their data to give air defense and national commanders a clear realtime picture of what is going on. Thus, this also requires secure datalinks and survivable command and control centers.
Now, the S-300 *can* most definitely work in an autonomous way, there is no doubt about that, each battery has a mix of advanced radars, but it cannot my itself substitute for an advanced multi-layered (multi-component) *system*.
I strongly suspect that the Syrian Pantsyr-S1, S-300, Buk-M2 and possible even the old SA-6 can possibly exchange data, but I don’t know that for a fact. So far, the Syrians were totally unable to engage the Israelis, and I wonder what that tell us.
Did I reply to your question adequately?
Kind regards,
The Saker
Yes, thanks.
My thoughts were the same: why were the Israelis able to strike at will, with no challenge from any air defense mechanisms?
Also, has there been any talk of Russia selling Iskander missiles to Syria?
And, if Russia has sold the s300 to Syria, why not Iran? Will it do so now?
@Anonymous:why were the Israelis able to strike at will, with no challenge from any air defense mechanisms?
There could be many reasons to that, including the possibility that the government did not want to use its SAMs at this point in time or that they were deployed in protection of other, more important, sites. It is impossible to know. All I know is that even if the Israelis did effectively jam the Syrian radars this Syrian could still have tried to shoot them down, which they did not even try, at least as far as I know.
Also, has there been any talk of Russia selling Iskander missiles to Syria?
I did hear one Russian military analyst saying that following the Israeli attack Russia did decide to sell Iskanders to Syria, but I have not seen any other reports, and maybe he meant Tochkas. I really don’t know anything else.
And, if Russia has sold the s300 to Syria, why not Iran? Will it do so now?
Well, there is a UNSC arms embaro on Iran which, alas, Russia under Medvedev did agree to. There is no such resolution on Syria so technically speaking the Russians have the right to sell anything they want. As for the legality of selling S-300s to Iran under the current sactions regime, its very disputable.
This being said, if the US/NATO attack Syria, I would be that the Russians would deliver a lot of hardware to Iran, not only S-300 but even many more systems.
Cheers,
The Saker
@KenM
Good point on the post-war period although like Milosevic and Yugoslavia there will be continued sanctions and
I suspect that when Assad came to power a mix between the ethnic make-up of the country deliberately created by Britain and France and the security and business apparatus of the country aligned with allies of his father and keeping rival Sunni countries and Israel from undermining its sovereignty made any real meaningful reforms impossible.
The post war period might actually good in the long term as it breaks up the previous monopolies, start reforms and opening up of state enterprises and from people other than friends of his dad and close family members and friends in regions with people aligned with the Syrian government or those opposed to the rebels.
Perhaps Assad should grant the Kurdish region big autonomy and subsidise it like with Chechnya to undermine Turkish influence although that might bring Syria in conflict with Iran.