Flash! Threat from Rebel Syria Becomes Clear
By Barry Rubin, PJ MEDIA
While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.
Let’s begin with Syria. As U.S. officials became increasingly worried about the visible Islamist domination of the Syrian opposition—which their own policies had helped promote—they have realized the horrible situation of creating still another radical Islamist regime. (Note: This column has been warning of this very point for years.)
So the response is to try to do two things. The first is to train, with Jordanian cooperation, a more moderate force of Free Syrian Army (FSA) units. The idea is to help the non-Islamists compete more effectively with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and especially al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra group) affiliated units.
The second is to create a buffer zone along Syria’s borders with Jordan and perhaps later Israel and even Iraq in order to avoid the conflict spilling over—i.e., cross-border jihad terror attacks—to those countries.
According to the Washington Post:
“The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”
Someone has also figured out that it isn’t a great idea to have a border with Iraq controlled by Syrian Sunni Muslim terrorist Islamists allied with the Sunni terrorists in Iraq who killed so many Americans.
Well, might someone not have thought about that a year or two ago? Because, while nothing could have been more obvious there was no step taken to avoid this situation happening.
I should point out an important distinction. The problem is not merely al-Qaeda gaining a foothold but also other Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood doing so. That, however, is not how the Obama administration thinks. For it, al-Qaeda is evil; the other Salafists somewhat bad; and the Muslim Brotherhood good.
What are the problems here? As so often happens with Western-formulated clever ideas to deal with the Middle East, there are lots of them.
–The United States has stood aside or even helped arm the Islamists through Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So now the Islamist forces are far stronger than the non-Islamists. That cannot be reversed at this point.
–The idea of border areas will create a Syria that is divided under the control of different forces. What will happen when, through elections or other means, the Muslim Brotherhood takes political power and wants its militia to control everything?
–Might this be laying the basis for a second Syrian civil war in which the Islamists band together against the FSA? In other words, here is this buffer zone that is backed by the West (imperialism!) to “protect” Israel (the Zionists!), Jordan (traitorous Muslims!), and Iraq (Shia heretics!)
–The training is limited and the FSA is badly divided among different commanders, defected Syrian army officers, and local warlords. The Brotherhood militia is united and disciplined. The result: worse than Afghanistan because the Islamists would have both the government and the stronger military forces.
–These buffer zones would not receive Western air support or international forces.
–Israel has the experience of maintaining a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for years by supporting a militia group. It succeeded for a long time by sending in Israeli troops covertly and taking casualties. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the effort was given up. Now Hizballah—the equivalent though not the friend of the Syrian Salafists—is sitting on the border and already one war has been fought. It should be noted that Israel has by far the most defensible border with Syria.
–A situation is being set up in which a future Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria can blackmail the United States. Either it will force Washington to accept whatever it does (including potential massacres) by threatening to unleash Salafist forces on its borders or it will actually create confrontations.
–Why isn’t the United States working full-time to stop the arms flows to the Islamists by pressuring the Saudis and Qataris (perhaps the point of Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip but hardly effective) and to rein in Turkey’s enthusiasm for a Syrian Islamist regime?
Speaking of Turkey, now we see the reason for the attempted Israel-Turkey rapprochement, because on top of everything else there will be a Kurdish-ruled zone not run by moderates but by the Syrian affiliate of the radical PKK, which is at war with Turkey.
So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.
What does this have to do with Benghazi?
Read this paragraph from the Washington Post:
Obama administration officials have expressed repeated concern that some of about 20,000 of the weapons, called MANPADS, have made their way from the arsenals of former Libyan dictator Moammar (sic) Gaddafi to Syria.
This weapons system might be the most technologically impressive arms ever to fall into the hands of terrorists. Once Libya’s regime fell (another U.S. foreign policy production), these weapons were grabbed by the Libyan rebels and sold to the Saudis and Qataris, who supplied them, respectively, to the Syrian Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to reliable sources, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi trying to get those MANPADS back and was negotiating with radical militias toward that goal. Stevens was doing something good—trying to take weapons out of the hands of terrorists—and not running weapons to terrorists.
Yet that doesn’t mitigate the mess unleashed by the administration’s policy. At any rate, Stevens and these efforts failed. The money was too good for the Libyan insurgents to pass up, not to mention helping fellow Islamists and anti-Americans. And now thousands of advanced, easily launched anti-aircraft systems are in the hands of anti-Jordanian, anti-Iraqi, anti-Israeli, and possibly anti-Turkish terrorists.
yamit82 Said:
I would not be surprised if the Sauds/qataris/GCC realize this. The Israel card always played in the past has been appropriated by the Iranians and Turks and has reduced Sunni and Gulf influence and hegemony and strengthened the Persians and Shiites. The Persians Shias have been already destabilizing the monarchs. They are in the difficult position of realizing, as did the Jordanian monarchs, that Israel is much less of a threat than the Persians and the Turks. I would not be surprised if they are thinking of their future as families and individuals as opposed to rulers. They are familiar with how rulers fall and what to do afterwards. I am sure they are well integrated into the West if they had to have a future without their states. It must also cross their minds that it is dangerous to have strong enemies to your front and your rear.
On another note: what do you think of the idea of Israel issuing iran an ultimatum of one week to dismantle the WMD and stop threatening and if they refuse then Israel sends a missile with a small nuclear bomb to a relatively unpopulated desert area with the threat that their military, infrastructure and cities are next. I know it sounds crazy but if Israel has the ability and guts it could change the whole picture and send the entire world a message regarding both Israel and the diaspora attacks. Israel has made bold dramatic successful moves before. I think it has to be demonstrated globally that the anti Israel and anti jew attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated..
Felix Quigley Said:
You may or my not be correct in whole or in part but you still have not answered my main question. Why should Israel expend blood, lives, treasure to attack the rebels who are jew killers in order to defend the Assad/Iran/hezbullah axis which are also jew killers. Are you saying that the answer is that it is in the interest of global politics rather than in the interest of Israel? I think you dont get it becuase you are involved in ideological global struggles whereas Israel struggles for her daily existence. It is a simple concept: 2 existential enemies are fighting each other therefore the best situation is that they continue to weaken themselves so that if Israel must ultimatley fight them they are more likely to be weaker. Certainly it is absurd to expend to strengthen one against the other. Furthermore, if it is part of a greater plan to weaken Iran and hezbullah then this is good for Israel. Iran, Syria and hezbullah are allies against Israel. This is not to say that Israels problems will be solved but it is nice to see the enemies in chaos, don’t you agree?
Comment in moderation
Felix Quigley Said:
How many times do I need to repeat to you that Mubarak was a dead man walking. He was old and very ill some say terminally. Within a short time without the American push for his removal he would have been a goner in any event and the Egyptian rejected his efforts to install his son as successor. Elections would have been held and the MB would have won no matter what unless the Egyptian Military had taken over power. In such a scenario you must accept that the Egyptian Army made up of mostly conscripts were sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and the MB would have in essence controlled Egypt through the Army in either eventuality the MB would have attained power.
You never explain what you think Israel could have done to keep Mubarak in power even if it wanted to short of attacking and invading Egypt.
Less than that overt public support by Israel for Mubarak once the Mobs started to demonstrate, would of incited the anti Mubarak Mobs to even greater anti Israel sentiments and turned the movement into a mainly anti Israel one. It matters little today in Israel who rules Egypt as long as they honor the Camp David Accords. In that regard, Israel pressured America who as guarantor of the peace agreement with Egypt to insure that the MB honors the agreement. America has leverage, Israel none with Egypt.
Again smart commie that you are what did you expect Israel or suggest could or should have done any differently?
I can make a similar case re: Syria. A few years ago Israel was seriously prepared to cede the Golan to Assad just to break the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah axis. If Assad finally falls for all intents and purposes that objective will be met without ceding the Golan. The Sunni Arabs in Syria and Lebanon with begin to massacre the Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon, The Alawites in Syria and the christians as well.
Let them do their thing. If they attack our border or cities respond with Massive disproportionate force. There is no Syrian Army left of consequence to worry about anymore and the probability of a canton divided Syria is a serious possibility. Radical Islamists taking over parts of Syria can’t last as they won’t be able to meet the basic needs of the people like food water and shelter. Basically I thinks as they always have they will turn on each other and destroy any viability that’s left. So Israel faces the welcome prospect of Two implacable enemies being reduced if not totally eradicated with the fall from power of Assad. Even where he to survive he will be so diminished in power as to render him a non threat to Israel. In both cases Israel is better off.
As to a MB crescent reviving in the ME Basin? Without oil they can’t be viable I don’t think the West is yet willing to throw the Saudis or the Emirates to the MB wolves just yet.
My opinion History is moving against the Islamic Arab world and when the global economy really blows they will be the most negatively effected.
Egypt already imports 50% of is basic food and energy commodities and with a growing population of over 2 million new mouths to feed and employ each year they are going to hell on a fast track and will take most of their Arab brothers with them.
Felix Quigley Said:
Flash from the past Felix.
And here you claim to be student of history? 😀
I think I have given both, although in general terms.
The basis of my thought is that there is a deep world economic crisis, that social revolution is threatened, that this drives the countries of US and EU towards Fascist forms of rule, and in these new conditions it is likely that they will rule in the world along with the Muslim Brotherhood.
It looks as if the left movement has been totally infiltrated by the forces of the state and are no longer left. Ideologically also the left is pro Islam which is again the death of the left.
Surely those two things spell out dictatorship.
Then there are the plans afoot to muzzle the anti Jihad movement as explained well by Geller, Spencer and Gates of Vienna.
Israel is not an island, cannot be an island, Jews must take this changing situation on board.
See article on Israpundit today which is detailing the extent of collaboration between Mubarak and Israel against Muslim Brotherhood especially in he years before Obama.
Obama instrumental in destroying that.
Those who did not defend Mubarak were facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood who now have a free rein. Position of the Copts is tragic this morning.
Position of people like Yamit82 are not only NOT a guide to the world but are very destructive to the future of Jews. I wish to cut through the slick trick of using the name of Yamit82.
Finally have you read what I suggested, the positions taken by Francisco Gil White on the Alliance between US and Iran? He was absolutely right in every detail.
Felix Quigley Said:
what is your reasoning for why they are all in it together agianst syria now, at this time? I do ot beleive in any of the “on the side of freedom” reasons. I beleive that they are likely defanging or weaning away Irans proxies: Hamas has been weaned from Iran and is now supervised by Qatar/Egypt/MB who is working with the Sauds/Turks/US/EU/nato who are using paid foreign/jihadi/salafi/Qaeda mercenaries to accomplish the goal. The US is vetting jihadis with the saudis, training jihadis in Jordan, helping Sauds make massive arms purchases in croatia and funneling arms and from Libya through turkey. I believe that the Turkey “apology” is related to these events and that last weeks cessation of the kurds rebellion in turkey with ocalan is another strong indication. A good sign as to whether this is happening will be what happens next.
If the next arena is the weakening or de-fanging of hezbullah then it will indicate to me that the there will also follow moves to destabilize Iran through various means using the external and internal kurds refocused to Iran, using the sunni foreign jihadis with sunni Iranians, reactivating internal iranian dissent, cyberwarfare, etc. If this is the plan of the west vs Iran then the unfolding events would be portrayed to Israel as part of the plan which concludes in bringing down the Iranian mullahs. If this scenario is true then it also relates to the gaza ceasefire, the pal faux state declaration, the talk of a confed with Jordan, the invite to Jordan to join the GCC, the immediate visits of Qatar and Jordan to PA after faux state declaration,etc.
The problem with this scenario is that the usual “economic” reasons are unaccounted for in Syria but there is the russian med base.
In libya there are economic reason but how does it all relate to the other arenas? Libya supplies europes oil(note the euro enthusiasm for the libyan invasion), the rumor of ghadaffi leaving the US dollar for oil sales, the rumor of ghadaffi making a huge forward deal with China, etc.
One possibility tying all the events together involves the possibility of a grand deal whereby the islamic forces are allowed to ascend to government, in whole or part. The US has experienced decades of stability in its deal making, oil supplies, foreign jihadi adventures(80’s afghan + current syria/libya). Saudi rule is based on a compact between the monarchy and the wahhabi sect of islam(the most fundamentalist sect giving rise to taliban). If this relationship of this islamic country with the west has been so successful perhaps it is being extended to other muslim countries by agreement. Perhaps such an arrangement has been sold to the west by the sauds/Qatar who are both wahabbi islam nations and are both rich allies of the west. I can only surmise a quid pro quo for the west being: reliable deal making re oil, gas,etc., possible reduction of global terror(we give you muslim countries and you confine your terror and/or govt to your countries). Why would the islamists do this: they get to own their countries. Of interest in this regard is the hamas/MB/Qatar/Egypt/US/Israel gaza cease-fire which may be holding except for iranian interference. The only way that hamas can give up the Israeli card is if they can deliver an economic boom to their radicalized citizenry; perhaps this is where Qatar and Gas come in. Also interesting is that all the current conflicts are around the Mediterranean. perhaps offshore oil and gas are involved.
What’s your anlysis and your basis for your conclusions?
Yamit82
None of your lies please. This is too serious.
My comment was in 12 and it was addressing a question to somebody else, Bernard Ross…and it is the central question
monostor Said:
Ask yourself who stands to gain and lose and then gain what? You will see that American and Britain are behind most of the turbulence.
Then what is behind those governments tormenting that Chaos? Three guesses and all three may be correct.
@ Felix Quigley:
Is there a dictator past or present that Felix didn’t like and support? OK you didn’t like Stalin, but he was before your time and was anti your god trotsky, and you don’t like the religious god believing dictators either but all the other so called reactionary ones you seem to get tingling feeling up your leg when they are mentioned.
Do you think it matters to we Jews if we are attacked or killed by secular dictators or religious ones?
Historically Muslims saved more Jews from European persecution than they killed. In every conflict between Islamic and Christian forces the Jews chose to side with the Muslims. What does that tell you? Irony is that Islam is doing rather successfully what you commies hoped to achieve. Could it be that they are right and you wrong, historically????
Felix Quigley Said:
Is there a dictator past or present that Felix didn’t like and support? OK you didn’t like Stalin, but he was before your time and was anti your god trotsky, and you don’t like the religious god believing dictators either but all the other so called reactionary ones you seem to get tingling feeling up your leg when they are mentioned.
Do you think it matters to we Jews if we are attacked or killed by secular dictators or religious ones?
Historically Muslims saved more Jews from European persecution than they killed. In every conflict between Islamic and Christian forces the Jews chose to side with the Muslims. What does that tell you? Irony is that Islam is doing rather successfully what you commies hoped to achieve. Could it be that they are right and you wrong, historically????
Over the many years, American foreign policy as been such as could be described in many ways: one of those is “genavashe shtick.” Others include short-sighted, simple stupid, etc. You can add to the list; have a ball.
This is a most important point that is made here and it is affirmed by the US role in Yugoslavia, I refer to appearing to let others make the running.
Some of what Bernard Ross says is correct, all of these are together, but they are together against Assad. It is true they may also fear Iran. But the immediate threat is to Assad.
That threat is the central issue, just as in Jan 2011 it was Mubarak etc. so what is the point of overstepping this?
You have to take a position on the defence of Assad.
Or state clearly and simply you will NOT defend Assad.
See what I am getting at…One thing at a time otherwise there is NO thing at a time.
Laura Said:
this is a cover because he is doing clandestinely with the sauds and qataris. Its not about the jhadis, they are just tools of the Saudis/Qataris who are used as mercenaries. It is about neutering Irans proxies and restoring Sunni hegemony: right now syria. This is the one agenda which all the following want: US, Nato, Europe, US, Saudi, GCC, Qatar. They are all on the same page: Qatar works with egypt and the MB, Jordan provides the US camp to train the rebels, Turkey is a major entry point for rebels and arms
I am referring to obama but perhaps you were referring to rubin/ Sorry I just realized after posting but while editing.
Baloney! Stevens was there to facilitate the arms to syria through Turks and Sauds. Aaron Kliein has the best info on Bhenghazi. Rubin should not be using WAPO, they printed the IDF libel, they are unreliable MSM.
I thought the Turks just made a deal with Ocalan who called a ceasefire for the PKK.
The US has been involved clandestinely since before Libya but it cannot do these things openly, it is coordinating everybody(Turkey, Saudi,Qatar,Nato,Israel. Saudi/Qatar supply arms and jihais; US vets Jihadis and trains. Regarding the differences between the different jihadis it is a red herring as Sauds and Qatar have been working together in recent times and are on the same wavelength(read FP) I think that Rubin is out of the loop and just passing on MSM pap for the streets.
@ Andy Lewis:
Andy, when I saw Laura’s comment I figured she thought you meant Rubin when in fact it was Barry Ovomit.
Barry is the name he used when he didn’t want anyone to know he was a Muslim and anti-Semite.
He didn’t fool us.
@ Laura:
OMG, was I ever asleep at the switch. I was referring to Barry Obama. Mr. Rubin’s first name never really registered with me. Sorry for the confusion I caused (and displayed).
You know, I am flabbergasted by the philological artifacts both of the author and of the comments. I cannot make out what any of you are saying. Words are flying, names, attributes, adjectives are invented, no one talks about the truth of the matter. Strategies and tactics are mixed with politics and policies. What is the real essence of what is happening in the region? Who is fighting who? Can anyone see the tree from the forrest? You may call me stupid, but, sincerely, I am lost.
@ Andy Lewis:
No he doesn’t. In fact Barry Rubin has repeatedly warned about jihadists taking control of Syria.
I think that everything post-Iraq has been and will continue to be based on how easy it is for the US to appear to be a super power without the expenditure of treasure and troops. Libya risked being led by Qatar and Europe if the US had not contributed its military to the fray and Obama would have looked weak and isolated if he had not joined the coalition.
The media is confused and schizophrenic with regard to Syria (they have no real presence there but an army of reporters always hanging about Israel) and they downright ignore events in Egypt because they realize how wrong they were and afraid people might question mainstream media for promoting an inhumane outcome with such naivete and given all the warnings from smart bloggers.
Obama has pinned his entire foreign policy on the moderation of the Muslim Brotherhood but now that moderation is in question due to events in Egypt and Libya. Obama realizes that it is impossible to separate good Muslims from bad Muslims and that bad Muslims know how to fight with bloody determination and always come out on top with jihad and savagery.
The easy option is also what guided Obama to force an apology from Israel for a situation where, in fact, the opposite side ought to have provided an apology and where the world had come to terms with Turkey’s culpability in the matter and so the issue was at rest before Obama’s bright idea and Israel’s dumb and dangerous compliance. It was easier to appear presidential and strong during the visit by forcing an “ally,” Israel, to bow to his demands than it was to address the real hard threats like Syria and Iran. Obama, for whatever incomprehensible reasons, has an an affinity for Erdogan – perhaps the Islamic father he never knew too well.
So the US will continue to pursue a foreign policy based on ease and appearances – a facade that will not be backed by real military intervention as in the recent past in Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea might test this new policy but if push came to shove in either Korea or the Iran-Israel conflict, I believe that the US would refrain from any kind of hard intervention. Israel would be thrown under the bus and does not have a reliable ally in the Obama USA.
Rubin writes
Terrorists above is the wrong Word entirely. It should be “Muslim Brotherhood”.
One step at a time. Rubin is entirely too “Smart Ass” for his own good and the good of Jews.
I have argued all along from the very first whiff of Arab Sprig, and I have been entirely alone, even my “friends” were noticably timid, that it was necessary to take sides.
Rubin is making that same mistake again. He cannot take a side. He cannot take here the side of Assad, the relatively secular dictator and antisemite, against the Clerical Fascist Muslim Brotherhood and Antisemite.
But that is the only way to save Jewish lives in Israel.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY (Note I have never said to drop any defence against Assad. Rather the opposite I have said)
This is what was argued by Blandoatmeal on these very pages.
Sometimes it is necessary to take one step at a time. Help Assad to defeat the Fascist Muslim Brotherhood.
They are the Fascists. Assad is an Antisemite true but he is not a Fascist. There is that for Jews critical difference.
That is what needs to be argued in the Jewish movement of today. Is it timidity that holds people back? Perhaps.
Shy Guy and Andy are exactly right about the situation. It is remarkable. I refer to how far the Israeli movement has come on this issue. But without taking that extra step that is so necessary.
Rubin has been consistently right on this Arab Spring.
He made this sterling attack on Obama at the time of Gadhafi and it is very close to a full understanding of Obama. The whole gist of Rubin here is to defend Gadhafi with everything but unfortunately that is implied and not fought for openly:
Caroline Glick at the time of the fall of Mubarak was also largely correct.
In fact it was large sections of Israeli opinion which was far more prescient than anybody else in the world. Glick, Geller, Spencer came closest to a defence of Mubarak, against the Muslim Brotherhood an UNCONDITIONAL defence, BUT RARELY SADLY TOTALLY EXPLICIT.
This represents in my mind the final post war rupture of Israel with the US and with all this American propaganda.
One thing has stood in the way though of going further and that has been what Geller calls the “Enemedia”.
My point all along. It is not simply a propaganda exercise. It requires the building of an organisation.
In one respect Geller is wrong. It is not just the Media. The role of the Media is really about the inability to defeat the Media (the Enemedia) and what is needed to do so.
What this really means is the need today to make a leap in consciousness and that the old propagandist methods of work no longer suffice. Unfortunately I cannot go much further here.
How naive. An Islamist Syria is exactly what Barry wants.
Might as well be a Debka article here.
Honestly, negotiating with Muslim terrorists to give back their weapons?!?!
Thumbs down.