US President Barack Obama has said that the US “will have to rethink the range of options that are available to us” on the Syrian crisis, including the possibility of arming the opposition, though he noted that the country would not rush into a decision because “we want to look before we leap.” US officials then tempered Obama's declaration, denying that it meant that US weapons were on their way to the Syrian opposition. It merely meant that the US was studying options to speed up the transition in Syria, they said. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said arming the opposition “is only one option” and reiterated Washington's concern that weapons could end up in the hands of extremists in the opposition who are hostile to the US, such as the Al-Nusra Front. Hagel said the option may be more acceptable to many in the US instead of direct US military intervention, warning of the risks of US involvement in a broad regional conflict. Meanwhile, British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said his country was bound by an EU ban on sending weapons to the Syrian opposition. “Our nations will only do what we legally can do,” Hammond stated. A few days ago, NATO said it was not planning to impose a no-fly zone on any part of Syria to protect Turkey, but if there was an escalation between Syria and Turkey then protecting the latter against possible missile attacks from inside Syria would become NATO's responsibility. It is certain that the US has different interests to the aspirations of the Syrian opposition, with US opinion polls showing that most Americans do not want their country to become involved in a war in Syria, even if the regime uses chemical weapons on a limited scale. In foreign policy, Washington is also in no hurry to get involved. There has long been a stand-off with Russia over Syria, and Washington is taking its time to verify who could come to power after President Bashar Al-Assad is overthrown. It also does not seem to mind the destruction of the infrastructure of the Syrian state, especially since this serves the interests of Israel. As a result, it is unlikely that US ground troops will be sent to Syria in the near future, as was the case in Iraq, or that a no-fly zone will be imposed, since this would require the US Air Force to bomb Syrian missiles bases and airports. It is also unlikely that advanced weapons will be sent to the opposition to overturn the balance of power out of concerns that these could end up in unfriendly hands. Although Obama recently declared that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime “would be a game-changer”, and then announced a week ago that there was evidence that it had used these weapons, the rules of the game seem not to have changed. The president did not succumb to pressure to make him move prematurely, and he placed obstacles in the way of his country intervening militarily in Syria. “We don't know when, where, or how they were used. We don't know exactly who used them,” Obama said. However, his other statements imply that the US president is moving towards a firmer posture on the Syrian crisis. US assistance to the opposition has been confined to non-lethal aid thus far, which is of little help to the armed opposition. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) said it had not received assistance from the US apart from medical equipment, food, binoculars and bulletproof vests which cost no more than a few million dollars. However, the US is not neutral, and the Pentagon has made plans for the possibility of boots on the ground if there is a need to secure chemical weapons sites in Syria, eliminate the extremist opposition and perhaps impose a new leadership during the transitional phase. According to US reports, Washington has sent military officers to Jordan, where they have trained moderate opposition combatants who mostly come from Deraa and Damascus on how to gather intelligence and use weapons. In the past two years of US hesitation on Syria, there has been much rhetoric and verbal threats, but no action, even as around 100,000 Syrians have died and Al-Assad continues to use his military might to crush the revolution that is trying to overthrow him. Meanwhile, the turmoil is spreading to neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Iraq and the region has become more unstable. The US has also lost its credibility among many Syrians. “We can say there has been a partial change in Washington's position on Syria. It also leads the positions of the Arab and Western states,” Akram Al-Bonni, an opposition figure, told Al-Ahram Weekly. “But it essentially ignores sending weapons and advanced equipment to the opposition, even as it shows interest in direct contact with [the opposition's] political and military leadership. The US is suspicious of the Syrian revolution and the possible outcome of a prolonged armed conflict, most notably the possible dismantling of the state and proliferation of jihadist groups.” “At the same time, the fragmentation of the opposition, especially those bearing arms, and the disastrous repercussions of the collapse of the Iraqi state have caused Washington to coordinate with Russia and support international efforts for a political solution that would guarantee preserving the Syrian state intact.” “There are also new factors that could cause the US to amend its policies, including strong pressure by Arab and regional powers to support the Syrian opposition, as well as bold military support by some of the regime's allies in Lebanon [Hizbullah] and Iraq [Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's government].” “There is also perhaps a preference for a quick change in the balance of power in order to curb warnings that the Syrian conflict could spread to neighbouring states, destabilising the region and threatening Israel's security,” Al-Bonni said. The Syrian opposition now believes that political solutions to the crisis have evaporated and that only military solutions will now work, including moving quickly whether or not the US arms the opposition. It adds that there are other sources of weapons supplies, but US intervention would speed up the solution and reduce civilian losses. “We believe some Western countries are more cognisant of the need to enforce and arm the FSA in order to hasten the overthrow of the regime, because the FSA is the only guarantor of Syria's future unity and social fabric,” Loay Meqdad, an FSA spokesman, told the Weekly. “Some of these countries have already taken practical steps in this direction, but these are still timid steps. Some Arab states have also supported the Syrian people and their revolution. Today, the Arab countries have given blanket Arab cover after the resolutions of the last Arab summit that officially recognised the FSA and gave legitimacy to arming it.” George Sabra, deputy chair of the opposition National Syrian Coalition, said that “these powers have recognised the right of the opposition to defend itself, and therefore it should be supplied with the resources to exercise this right. The escalation of fanaticism in Syria is caused by the inaction of the world powers.” Some observers believe that Washington will soon arm the “moderate” Syrian opposition groups with powerful weapons to enable them to fight both the regime and the extremist opposition. Others believe that the US has already taken a decision, and zero hour is already close, but that US allies are waiting until the region is on the brink of war. They note that the air strikes by Israel against strategic military targets in Syria over recent days could be only the beginning, paving the way for direct US participation in a war against the Syrian regime. Some in the political opposition argue that the US's sending of weapons to the armed opposition will now be too little too late, and that the response should be a combination of arming the opposition, imposing a no-fly zone, and air strikes, perhaps even a partial ground intervention because chemical weapons cannot be secured from the air. Is Syria on the brink of a new phase, and will the US now put an end to the brutality of the regime? These could be overly optimistic questions, and the war in Syria could continue for a long time to come.
