As former top State Department intelligence specialist Wayne White points out for Lobe Log, in the absence of a tenable ceasefire agreement, the quagmire that is the Syrian civil war will likely intensify, thereby only worsening post-Assad scenarios.

“The bottom line is that a sort of Catch-22 situation is [...]]]> via Lobe Log

As former top State Department intelligence specialist Wayne White points out for Lobe Log, in the absence of a tenable ceasefire agreement, the quagmire that is the Syrian civil war will likely intensify, thereby only worsening post-Assad scenarios.

“The bottom line is that a sort of Catch-22 situation is continuing on the diplomatic front,” wrote White last week. “[T]he side that believes it has the upper hand and will eventually prevail militarily (currently the opposition) is unlikely to accept a truce because a ceasefire would interfere with its ability to sustain intense military pressure on the other side.”

Anyone hoping for even a temporary cessation to the deadly violence would have been shattered by Bashar al-Assad’s rare speech in Damascus on Sunday, where he thanked his base for showing “the whole world that Syria is impervious to collapse and the Syrian people impervious to humiliation.” The defiant president refused to step down while claiming he was ready to talk with the opposition. But as White noted, Assad did so while urging his supporters to continue fighting against the “bunch of criminals” who oppose him.

This political gridlock makes creative diplomacy appear all the more important in bringing an end to the ongoing carnage that’s ravaging the country. Asked if the Iranians should be included in diplomatic efforts, former top CIA analyst Paul Pillar told Lobe Log that ”Any multilateral diplomatic initiative has a better chance of success if all the parties with leverage to exert are included.”

Pillar is well aware of the fact that this may be easier said than done. UN and Arab League mediator Lahkdar Brahimi remains in between a rock and a hard place — expected to please everyone while not being able to please anyone. The brutal force that the government deployed to crush what were initially peaceful protests seems to have pushed both sides beyond the point of no return. Presently, the opposition’s recent disgust with Brahimi’s choice of Russia as the venue for his recent truce initiative has been overshadowed by the regime’s accusations of Brahimi’s “bias toward sides known for conspiring against Syria and the Syrian people.”

It was in this atmosphere of hopelessness that news surfaced Wednesday of over 2,130 Syrian prisoners being released by the regime in exchange for 48 Iranians abducted during what they claimed to be a religious pilgrimage in August. (The opposition had said that the Iranians were members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which Tehran adamantly denied.) The massive exchange again raises the question of whether Iran has a role to play in bringing an end to the Syrian crisis.

This question may be more difficult to answer now than it was when the fighting first broke out over a year ago. On the one hand, the prisoner swap supports the argument that Iran holds considerable influence over Assad’s government and could help shift events toward a “peace process”. Throughout last year, Iran tried to inject itself into diplomatic processes taking place over Syria by, for example, supporting a failed United Nations-Arab League peace plan and making is own proposal in December.

“On Syria, Iran is pursuing a dual track policy of support for the Syrian Government as it faces internal instability, while pressing Damascus to take measures to reduce tensions, open the grounds for negotiations with the opposition and find a path towards national unity and conciliation,” said Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, the former spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiating team (2003 to 2005) and now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.

“Iran can play a major constructive role on the Syrian crisis,” he said.

That Iran reportedly included Syria in its five-point proposal presented during nuclear talks in Moscow last June could be an indication that it would be willing to bargain away its support for the regime — if it was provided with enough incentive. (Recall how the government of Mohammad Khatami reportedly offered to end Iran’s material support to Palestinian groups opposing Israel in a March 2003 proposal for “broad dialogue” with the US that was rejected by the Bush administration.)

On the other hand, this prisoner swap, which amounts to about 44 Syrians for every 1 Iranian, displays the extent to which Iran is tied to Assad’s repression. If the war in Syria is really about the major powers that are backing each side (Russia, Iran and China for the regime, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Western countries for the opposition), and since the fall of Assad would indeed be a “major blow” to the Iranians, can Tehran really be expected to help its foes?

For now, talks with Iran over its nuclear program are expected to resume shortly, even if they’re already off to a bad start. But as the fighting in Syria produces ongoing suffering while the Israeli-led campaign against Iran’s nuclear program continues to involve the potential of a costly military conflict, considering all options on the Syrian diplomatic table be more important now than ever.

“If the Iranians are excluded from a joint effort to do something helpful, they are only more likely to do something unhelpful, said Pillar, who advocates a more flexible US negotiating posture with Iran.

“Engagement with Iran over Syria also can reap secondary benefits in other areas, such as the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, by expanding channels of communication and bargaining space,” he said.

Photo: Feb. 23, 2012. A Free Syrian Army member prepares to fight with a tank whose crew defected from government forces in al-Qsair. Freedom House photo/Creative Commons/Flickr.  

The sheer magnitude of death and destruction from the ongoing struggle between the Assad regime and the opposition is already defining the nature of the aftermath. The longer the fighting lasts, the greater will be the militancy of the opposition and its bitterness toward supportive quarters of the international community for [...]]]> via Lobe Log

The sheer magnitude of death and destruction from the ongoing struggle between the Assad regime and the opposition is already defining the nature of the aftermath. The longer the fighting lasts, the greater will be the militancy of the opposition and its bitterness toward supportive quarters of the international community for not doing far more. Even if the fighting were to stop today, Syria would be left a devastated, impoverished nation with little in the way of financial reserves, roiling political and sectarian divisions, and facing an international community unable to provide abundant aid for recovery.

Cloaked in a speech purportedly about a settlement, President Bashar al-Assad urged his remaining base to redouble its efforts to crush the formidable opposition during his January 6 address. Yet it’s the airpower and heavy artillery he employs daily against the rebels that’s made the biggest contribution to the ongoing rubblization of Syria’s urban centers and infrastructure. Already, substantial portions of Aleppo, Homs and Hama have been wrecked; sections of the greater Damascus area have been devastated similarly. This wide-ranging destruction encompasses all manner of basic infrastructure; government, commercial and private property; historic tourist venues; medical establishments; and a host of poorer, more densely populated districts.

Even by last April, Syria’s foreign currency reserves were reportedly down by half. Not only has Assad’s war against the opposition consumed a great amount of public treasure; the Syrian economy has also been crippled by unrest and damage.

Meanwhile, tactics like turning loose “Shabiha” paramilitary units (a ruthless, corrupt, and mostly Alawi militia with origins dating back to the 1980’s) in bloody sweeps of neighborhoods and villages against rebels — and their families — has further intensified the sectarian slant of the fighting. What descended into open anti-Sunni violence in numerous cases doubtless gave added impetus to Sunni extremists organizing themselves within Syria, or elements like anti-Shi’a, anti-Alawi “al-Qaeda in Iraq” cadres crossing the border to join the rebels. Thus, tough extremist groups like “Jabhat al-Nusra” have been assuming a greater role in many anti-regime battles.

Assad rails on about rebel “terrorists”, but to the extent that is true, he played a major role in provoking them against him in rising numbers.

Yet, whether intentional or not, the radicalization of many rebels stemming from Bashar’s brutality and the prolongation of this bruising struggle has created one salient advantage for the regime. Both the West and sympathetic moderate Arab regimes remain reluctant to provide large amounts of munitions (and the most critical arms: anti-aircraft missiles) to the rebels. For the opposition, this handicap appears to have grown more serious. Recent reports from rebels inside Syria allege that outside arms supplies have come to a halt. The NPR’s Deborah Amos reported on Jan. 4 that after having spent time inside Syria, the flow of foreign arms had “slowed…almost to a full stop.”

Since last week, the government appears to have been on the offensive in some areas, hammering away at rebel holdings, probably because Assad & Co. are attempting to capitalize on the shortage of rebel munitions. Indeed, Bashar’s vigorous performance on Jan. 6 might well have been driven by a personal belief that his government could be on the rebound.

While the regime’s survival is still unlikely, the stalling of recent rebel offensives could buy it more time. The reportedly widespread opposition view linking the slackening in vital international support to the rebels’ military problems has generated deep resentment — especially since this decline came so soon after the opposition complied with Western and moderate Arab pressure to launch an ostensibly more united opposition council in exile.

All told, these developments have been casting an ever darker shadow over post-Assad Syria. National recovery will be slow and halting under the best of circumstances. A bitter legacy of sectarian violence and reprisals can hardly be expected to end with the fall of the Assad regime (particularly if certain pro-regime diehards fall back to sectarian strongholds to prolong their resistance). Establishing and maintaining coherent political authority will likely be a rocky venture resulting from a certain degree of falling out among various rebel factions, as well as the probable inability of any government to satisfy expectations of a return to normalcy among millions of Syrians scarred one way or another by the fighting.

Finally, militant Islam will almost certainly play a role in the politics of a new Syria. Any successor regime is also bound to be somewhat wary of the opposition’s erstwhile foreign “allies”, whom they believe failed to play a militarily decisive role –even indirectly — in helping to bring down the Assads sooner. Such resentment could be magnified by the inability of struggling Western economies to proffer enough assistance to accelerate substantially the agonizing rebuilding process.

Photo: A member of the Free Syrian Army at the entrance to Sarmeen. Credit: Shelly Kittleson/IPS.