After almost two years of indecision, the US decided last week to arm the Syrian opposition. To justify its change of heart, Washington said that the Syrian regime had crossed a red line when it used chemical weapons, and White House sources said that it was evidence of the use of chemical weapons that had made US President Barack Obama change his mind. The US decision came as a surprise to the Syrian regime and its allies. Russia did not expect the Americans to act so boldly while preparations for the Geneva II Conference were under way. Iran has been busy with presidential elections, and Hizbullah did not think that its intervention in the Syrian conflict would bring about such an American reaction. Aside from chemical weapons, two things prompted the shift in US attitudes. One is the military gains the regime has achieved recently, after thousands of Hizbullah fighters took part in the conflict against the increasingly beleaguered opposition. The other is that Russia has been uncooperative during the preparations for the Geneva II meeting, insisting that the fate of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad cannot be decided in advance and trying to exclude military and security officials from the transitional government. Munzir Khaddam, spokesman for the National Coordination Committee for the Forces of Democratic Change, told Al-Ahram Weekly that the US had other things on its mind. “The US will not arm the opposition such that the latter can defeat the regime's forces,” Khaddam said. “From a strategic perspective, America's adversaries are fighting each other in Syria. Washington wants to prolong the conflict without either side gaining victory, while aiming to make sure that it remains contained within Syrian borders.” After Washington's pledge of support, the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) promised to bring down the Al-Assad regime within sixth months if it was given adequate hardware. FSA commander Selim Edris urged western nations to provide his troops with anti-aircraft guns and rockets and also to create a no-fly zone. He said that the military opposition was well-organised and would be able to bring down the regime with better weapons and training. Western sources have spoken about a possible no-fly zone along Syria's southern borders with Jordan, a task that would require the destruction of Syrian air defences and air force. There has also been talk about a joint US-European intervention without a UN mandate. To end the speculation, Washington said that it had no plans to establish a no-fly zone because of the “high and open-ended” cost of such an endeavour, thus ruling out the kind of scenario that had earlier taken place in Libya. US sources expect military assistance to be confined to anti-armour rockets and perhaps shoulder-held anti-aircraft rockets at a later stage. Washington has decided to keep surface-to-air Patriot missiles, aircraft, and a contingent of Marines in Jordan after the end of the joint annual drills in that country. It is not yet clear what this means for military operations in Syria. Commenting on the US decision, Louay Safi, a member of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), told the Weekly that the US had two choices. “Either it allows the opposition to make clear gains on the ground, or it allows Iran and Hizbullah to control Syria. Although it has decided to arm the opposition, because of its concern for Israel's security the Obama administration will seek to provide just enough support to create a balance between the opposition and the regime. A balance among the warring parties is a necessary condition for negotiation.” For the best part of two years, western countries have been demanding that Al-Assad step down from power, voicing their view that the regime's days were numbered. However, they have refused to intervene militarily in Syria in the way that was done in Libya, saying that the situation was more delicate and weapons sent to the Syrian opposition could end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. As a result, the only option has been to push for a political settlement between the regime and its opponents. However, several Arab countries have sent weapons to the revolutionaries in a haphazard manner, there now being warehouses in Jordan and Turkey filled with weapons sent by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Arab countries to the Syrian opposition, according to western sources. These weapons await western permission before they can be delivered to the FSA. The West's delaying tactics have come at a high cost. More than 100,000 people have died in the course of fighting, and more than one quarter of the Syrian population has been displaced. Sectarian strife has taken on regional dimensions, pitting the Syrian Alawites and their Iranian and Hizbullah supporters against the Sunnis and their Saudi and Qatar supporters. In the Russian view, the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria enforced by F-16s and Patriot missiles would be in violation of international law. Moscow has also warned that the US arming of the opposition could lead to an escalation of the violence. The UN has said that sending more arms to either side is not the answer. Commenting on the Russian position, Safi said that the Russians did not have many options. “Russia is too weak in the face of US capabilities. It is too fragile to cope with a major escalation that would satisfy [Russian president Vladimir] Putin's sense of adventure. As a result, the Russian reaction will have to be muted.” Khaddam said that Russia would carry on arming the regime. “Russia is not going to stand idly by. It is already supplying the Syrian regime with weapons and it is not going to stop. Moscow sees the defeat of the Syrian regime as its own defeat. The American decision is a way of improving the US negotiating position at the Geneva II meeting, however. It will not escalate into a confrontation between the two countries,” he said. According to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, the US decision is connected to the Geneva II meeting, since the Syrian opposition had been likely to boycott the meeting unless equilibrium was restored on the ground. “We must not arm [the opposition] only for the sake of arming them. Instead, we must aim to restore equilibrium,” he said. The US can no longer afford to postpone arming the opposition. If Washington delays the shipments, other Arab countries are likely to step in. If this happens, these countries will arm groups that are loyal to them, something that will increase divisions among the opposition and make the task of collecting weapons in the future more of a challenge. Fawaz Tello, an opposition figure, told the Weekly that weapons were the opposition's main need. “Weapons, weapons and more weapons,” Tello said. “Unless we are given appropriate weapons, Iran and Hizbullah will send hundreds of thousands of mercenaries to save Al-Assad in cooperation with the Russians. The Arabs and the West must be aware that what is going on in Syria is a revolution. There is no room for a settlement that allows the regime to stay in power or to maintain the police, army, and ruling Syrian Baath Party intact, as those planning Geneva II want us to do.” In deciding to arm the opposition, the US has sent a message to both Russia and the Syrian regime, one that may succeed in stopping the Syrian war machine and the onslaught by Iran and Hizbullah. It may even succeed in altering the terms of Geneva II such that Al-Assad is excluded from power and a transitional government set in motion. However, if this message goes unheeded, US diplomatic sources believe that Washington may be forced to assist the Syrian opposition more directly and take action outside of a UN mandate. The US may then create a no-fly zone in Syria and give more sophisticated weapons to the opposition.
