Middle East

Syrian Revolution in Focus

– The Assad regime technically finished many months ago. It was on the brink of collapse at multiple times during the past 12 months, when clashes reached the surroundings of key points in Damascus like the Presidential palace.

– When America saw that the Assad regime could no longer stand on its feet, it halted its inevitable collapse by ordering that Iran deploys the resources and numbers needed to stop the regime from collapsing, and allowed Russia to supply arms to the regime.

– The armed brigades are fighting Iran and its followers in Lebanon and Iraq directly, and America and Russia indirectly. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah said “when we saw that the armed brigades are about to declare victory in Damascus we intervened”. Today, tens of thousands of Hezbollah’s well-trained troops are in Damascus, Homs and parts of Aleppo; taking a leading role on the frontlines.

– Due to the reality of the Assad regime and the nature of the revolution in general, and the brigades specifically, adding to that the geopolitical reality of Syria; America was never going to stand by idly by as the armed brigades topple the regime. In fact it would do its best to contain the outcome of the revolution.

– Thus America has always called for a political solution as an ideal solution for the revolution, whereby a transitional government would be formed from members of the Assad regime and the opposition figures whom America has propped up.

– America had to deal with the militant dilemma: the armed brigades who number over 150,000. In order to have a viable political solution, the increasing force of the overwhelming number of the armed brigades who are sincere must be weakened then contained. At the same time, the Supreme Military Council would be given funding, weapons, and training, in order to weaken and marginalise the armed brigades internally.

– In the latest “friends of Syria” summit held in Qatar last week, Senator Kerry said clearly that any arming of the armed brigades should only be to,

(a) achieve balance of power that would pave the way for

(b) a political solution to the struggle.

– The political solution is now seen as the only acceptable solution by the west as a whole.

William Hague, the British Foreign Minister said:

“At the end, there is only a political solution for the conflict”

John Kerry, the American Foreign Minister said:

“We believe that the best solution is a political solution”

– On a side note, the western leaders promised to arm the brigades numerous times, however so little has this progressed beyond empty words, and if it did, it would be to the Supreme Council which takes its orders from the west. Such policy is known in politics as the “carrot” whereby the desperate need for material support would push some brigades to leave aside any Islamic ambitions.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said:

“As far as weapons go, there is no question of delivering weapons in conditions that we aren’t sure about and that means we won’t deliver weapons so that they are turned against us”

– by creating a balance of power between the regime and its allies on one hand, and the armed brigades on the other hand; America would,

(a) ensure that the regime is not toppled unexpectedly,

(b) ensure maximum destruction of Syria and its infrastructure is achieved,

(c) lead to a stalemate situation; and

(d) give it more time to prepare the future leadership of Syria

– America has, to an extent, successfully pushed the struggle into a stalemate situation, whereby no major advances are made on both sides for many months.

– this reality would as America hopes, push the armed brigades to realize that there is no way they would achieve victory or topple the regime without compromising. Recently some Islamic brigades responded to the invitation of Salim Idris – leader of supreme army council – for a meeting that was held in turkey in order to receive the much needed conditional arms support, the message was clear:

a) Carry the call for a civil and democratic state after the fall of the regime

b) Accept to be under the leadership of Salim Idris and his western backed body

c) Fight the Islamic goal of establishing the Khilafah and those who call for it

d) Accept the political solution between the regime and the opposition, and as such any military act would be aimed at achieving this

e) Maintain the regimes political and military institutions after the fall of the regime

f) Return all weapons to the newly formed state army after the fall of the regime

– Therefore, any arming of brigades is only to pave the way for the political solution.

John Kerry stated that “the united states and other nations are not backing the rebels to seek a military victory in Syria. We do so to … find a political settlement”.

– It should be evident by now that what the west fears is the establishment of the Khilafah in Syria. Lakhdar Brahimi – the UN convoy to Syria, said in explicit terms that the “international community will accept what the Syrian people accept, except if they choose an extremist regime”.

– just as the Syrian revolution brought to the open the strong call for Khilafah, as tens of thousands demanded its establishment, it had also resurrected the long-buried dark point of modern history; the agreement of Sykes-Picot, which divided the 1 Islamic state into 50+ nation states.

– While Noam Chomsky stated that “the Sykes-picot agreement is falling apart” when asked about the consequences of the Syrian revolution, the foreign minister for Assad’s regime – Walid Almuallem – could not have made it any clearer when he stated on a televised press conference on Friday 21/06/13:’

“Those who demand the establishment of the Islamic Khilafah state will not stop at the borders of Syria; so what we are currently doing is even defending Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey”.

– America is fully aware about the implication of a Khilafah state being established in Syria, and is dealing with this with seriousness and preparation. General Martin Dempsey, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff – indicated the level of alertness and preparation that America has exercised:

“We’ve made a recommendation that as we look at the challenges faced by the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a re-emerging al-Qaida in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work with them to help them build additional capability,”

– The Geneva conference 2 is anticipated by the west to be an important milestone at which the political solution would commence. However, no date has been set for the conference, as that would be determined once,

(a) a balance of power is achieved and further reinforced on the ground, and

(b) the armed brigades succumb to the pressure of the reality and realize there would be no military victory achieved in sight.

“There won’t be any peace conference in Geneva without balance being restored on the ground; the opposition won’t agree to take part in it. And yet there must be a political solution.” Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister.

Thus, America is working actively on multiple fronts to ensure that a “political vacuum” does not occur, a vacuum that the western leaders have been warning against one after the other, because they know very well who will fill the vacuum.

“Assad goes today, a political vacuum emerges – who will fill it? Maybe these terrorist organizations” Putin – Russian president

It should also be clear by now that America and Russia are in the exact same camp with regards to Syria. The push for the Geneva conference to be the medium to a political solution that would prevent the establishment of Khilafah in Syria is shared by both America and Russia.

“Russia and the US will encourage both, the Syrian government and the opposition groups to find a political solution. We have agreed upon the need to convene an international conference, arranged as a continuation of last June’s Geneva meeting, as soon as possible, probably at the end of this month,” Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said at the press conference following a meeting with the US secretary of state John Kerry, 8 May 2013.

“The secretary reaffirmed that the United States continues to work aggressively for a political solution with the goal of a second Geneva meeting” US state department, 15 June 2013

“It is to force all the conflicting sides to come to Geneva…and sit at the negotiating table, stop the violence, and find acceptable forms for the future structure of their state and the provision of security for all ethnic and religious groups.” Putin – Russian President

America is using the carrot and stick policy in dealing with the armed brigades:

(a) The carrot being the conditional and limited supply of weapons to the Islamic brigades. Such supply would come at the back of countless statements by US officials stating that they are either ‘thinking’ or ‘planning’ to arm the brigades; all to exhaust the brigades mentally and leave them waiting for something that may never arrive

(b) The stick being working on multiple fronts to subjugate the armed brigades. Firstly by giving their agent Bashar Assad the green light to kill and use all sorts of weapons, and secondly by allowing Russia to arm the Syrian regime with heavy weapons that would inflict maximum damage upon the armed brigades.

For the west, all roads must lead to a political solution, whereby the secular system would be maintained and the wests, and ‘Israel’s’ interests would be ensured.

For the Syrian Revolution: all roads lead to the establishment of the Khilafah – the promise of Allah and the prophecy of his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم – if it stays on the path of persistence, patience, and reliance on Allah alone.

Anas Alwahwah

28 June 2013