The Syrian Powder Keg

     Aleppo is starting to look like someone's Stalingrad.  Photo by: Niklas Meltio

Things are not going well for Bashar Assad.  His army had pushed the rebels out of Damascus and seemed to be forcing a decisive battle in Aleppo on their terms.  Given the Army's heavy weapons and air assets, it should have been a walkover. But more than a month later, the battle for Aleppo continues.  In addition, after having been driven out of Damascus last month, the rebels are not only back, but seem to have shot down a helicopter.  The Syrian Armed Forces are clearly unable to win this war.  The rebels, on the other hand, have taken everything the government has thrown at them and keep advancing.

The usual scenario in these circumstances is a grinding war until the rebels get the upper hand and the government disintegrates as the players rush for the exits.  Without foreign intervention, that's what will happen here.  Unfortunately, the regional players have upped the stakes in this conflict. And the chemical weapons are a wild card inviting intervention from the US, France, Britain and possibly Russia. 

While we have all been paying attention to Israeli threats against Iran and the Egyptian revolution, a regional war has been brewing to the East.  The US invasion of Iraq upset the regional status quo by shoving Iraq (majority Shia) into Iran's outstretched arms.  Iran gained a straight line of allies all the way to the Mediterranean (Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah).

The Saudis thus feel out-flanked by Iran and threatened by Iranian nukes.  They also felt threatened by Shia demonstrations in the North of the Kingdom, the oil part, and were forced (by their reckoning) to stifle a Shia revolution in Bahrain.  So the emerging power blocks are sectarian; Sunni vs. Shia.  Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Iran's clients on one side, the USA, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arabs on the other. Egypt is a wild card and Israel irrelevant.

The war in Syria is acting like a magnifying glass to focus all these issues in one place.  Iran and the Saudis both lack the military for a direct conflict. One invading and/or conquering the other is not possible.  So the temptation to fight by proxy in Syria is attractive.  But very, very dangerous.  Expect an international crisis at some point this fall.

Syria Primer

Currently, Syria is run by an Alawite regime headed by Bashar al-Assad. The Alawite are a group of tribes from western Syria and make up between 10% and 20% of the population depending on who you ask. These tribes practice a form of Shia Islam, in contrast to the majority of the population who are Sunni.

The Alawite have been in control since the sixties when Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad took over in a coup. Hafez was a master politician, though a brutal and repressive dictator. Bashar is not in the same league and many feel he is first among a group that lead the regime, but not a real force on his own.

Last year, public demonstrations against the regime began, like elsewhere in the Arab world. As the government brutally and ineffectually sought to crush the demonstrations, they gradually became a rebellion.  The rebellion itself is divided and includes groups with many different agendas. The only thing they seem to agree on is that the regime has to go (and that they don't like Israel, but that's mom and apple pie in the Arab world).

This year, the rebellion became strong enough to compete with the government in rural areas, and has taken over large swaths of the country. Lately, they have been contesting urban areas, with less success.  However, they have survived a month of combat in Damascus, and three weeks of heavy combat in Aleppo.

Several factors, including the attack on Damascus, and the spectacular assasination of Bashar's top security officials have made it clear that the regime is probably doomed. When the trickle of defections becomes a flood, the end will be at hand.

But nothing is simple in the Middle East. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq Turkey, Qatar and the United States are intervening directly or indirectly. The Russians don't want to lose their last significant Arab client state. The Iranians don't want to see a Shiite regime overthrown, plus Syria is a key strategic ally, helping them get stuff to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Saudis want very much to have a Shiite regime replaced with a Sunni, and they are funneling guns to the rebels, as is the US (presumably via Qatar). Israel is on red alert, but can't do anything to influence events. So they make concerned noises, but will do nothing unless the chemical weapons come into play. 

The chemical weapons are a new factor. The regime moved some out of rebel held areas recently. This was viewed as a good thing by both the US and the Russians. Both remain concerned (as does Israel) that the weapons could fall into the hands of "terrorists". The Russians are said to have warned Assad in very direct language that these weapons must be secured and cannot be used, period.

At the moment, with all the confusion on the ground and the mad spinning by all sides, it is impossible to tell for sure what is going on.

In any case, the most likely outcome is the fall of the regime and the death of many Alawites. Who will replace them and on what terms is unknowable at this point. Just don't believe everything you read.

The Iran War: Closer

Last week when I posted about the Iran war, it was on again. By Friday, it was off again. Now its said to be back on again. At least Debka is reporting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait believe its on. Debka is semi-reliable. Its very much in tune with Israeli Military Intelligence. Frequently, things are presented as fact that are opinion, guesses or spin. But they do have information nobody else does, so you have to put up with the editorial line.

As I noted last week, the end of August will be critical. There will be three US carrier task groups, two US Marine expeditionary forces in the area and a new moon. If they did plan to attack, that's what they would need. Look for a Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident around the 25th.

Nevertheless, I still think there will be no war. The Pentagon and its constituent groups have been not only opposed, but unusually publicly opposed. Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary has himself spoken against an attack. Gates is a very experienced Washington operator. Since taking office he has taken numerous actions to gain stronger bureaucratic control over the military. This control has been at the expense of the White House, and Dick Cheney in particular. If the White House wants to engage in a new war over the public opposition of a cohesive Pentagon, they will need huge political leverage. George Bush's performance over the last two weeks suggest he is not a man with much in the way of leverage. Specifically, I'm talking about his apparent public drunkenness at the Olympics and the impotent threats directed at Russia. He has lame duck written all over him.

Apart from the institutional and political problems Bush would need to overcome, there are a lot of facts on the ground that recommend against attack. First and most importantly, there is no possibility of deposing the Iranian Islamic government or ending their nuclear development via air strikes. So what would be the point? As I detailed last week, the only logical attack plan entails a huge operation. This would deplete America's strategic reserve, cause political and diplomatic problems worldwide, and probably cause a domestic political crisis just before a hugely important election. And that's without any Iranian response.

Last week I promised an examination of possible Iranian responses. But spinning scenarios for a series of events I'm arguing will never happen seems wrong somehow. Let's just say that the Iranians have three possible avenues for counter-attack. Direct and proxy military action against the Strait of Hormuz and US forces in Iraq, proxy action via Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria aimed at Israel, and unconventional action (i.e. car bombing US Embassys in 3rd countries and the like). The Iranians could cause significant disruption of traffic in the Strait, but would soon be blown to smithereens by the US Navy. Their ability to harass Israel via proxies is doubtful in my mind. None of the named organizations are Iranian puppets. All have limited will or capacity to do much damage. Attacks against US targets in 3rd countries that kills locals is simply stupid, and the Iranians aren't stupid. The only area where the US is vulnerable is Iraq. The Army and Air Force depend on a long and difficult to defend road that runs through Shia country from Basra to Baghdad. The Iraqi Shiite groups are most emphatically not the errand boys of Tehran, but conditions inside Iraq could make it desirable for one of the Shiite players to get involved.

There is little Tehran can do to materially blunt the US attack. They could get some traction from closing the Strait, if only briefly. They might also get a lucky shot from a land-based missile against a US carrier. In addition, a coordinated and sustained attack against US supply lines in Iraq could cause significant problems. Any direct or proxy attacks against Israel are likely to yield little of value. The IAF would love an excuse to hammer the Syrians, but the Army can't be very enthusiastic about another invasion of South Lebanon. They suffered a humiliating defeat there two years ago. In the complex world of Arab politics, an attack on Iran would be cautiously welcomed, an Israeli attack on Syria undesirable, but tolerable. Further de-stabilization of Iraq would be a serious problem. They don't want a stronger Iran, but they also don't want a bruised Iran making trouble for them as payback for supporting the Americans.

The Europeans would have mixed reactions. Brown is weak and the support of the UK is critical. US strategic bombing would be seriously degraded if they were unable to use bases in the UK and at Diego Garcia. The French seem keen to kick someone's ass in the Middle-East, so they might be a surprise. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Dutch and Belgians will be against the war and unlikely to allow their bases to be used. The Eastern European EU members will be conflicted. Russia will be 100% in the Iran camp. That's significant because the Russians can supply lots of intelligence, including real-time satellite and signals intelligence. China will be very unhappy, but will probably stay out. That guarantees the UN will be no help to the US.

To summarize, the US has the means on hand to attack, and the timing is right. All they need is an excuse. However, the chance of removing the Islamic government or ending the nuclear program are nil. There is significant opposition to the operation within the US Military. Regular US allies will not provide substantial material or political support. Israel is not in a position to provide material assistance, or capitalize on the crisis to re-order their immediate neighborhood. The Arab countries are scared that any outcome will be bad for them. A big US attack would extend their weakness in strategic reserve, creating vulnerabilities elsewhere. An attack, no matter how it turned out, would strengthen Russian influence in the Middle-East, and could draw China into the region. All of this would have to be dealt with by a lame duck president unable to bring political leverage to the problems being created. It would also be done immediately in advance of a key US election. The outcome of that election could have an impact on the personal fortunes of those making the attack decision.

Put that all together and the whole thing looks crazy, as indeed, it is. I don't be a war. The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Pieliu will go home at the end of the month, and the USS Ronald Regan soon after. Everything will settle down until Obama is inaugurated. That's what I think will happen.

A Smoking Gun At Last?

This is not THE letter, I can't find an image of that, yet. Its a letter written by Saddam.

 Ron Suskind's new book Way of the World has an explosive snippit about an allegedly forged letter.  The letter from  Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam Hussein ties together Iraq, Mohammad Atta and debunked Niger yellow cake. It was "found" by US Forces and released in December 2003.   Suskind says the letter was in fact a forgery created by the CIA under orders from the White House.  Not only that, but Habbush was in the CIA's pocket before the invasion and had told them Iraq had no WMD.

The notion that the Bush administration deliberately lied their way into Iraq has been fully internalized by the chattering classes in the US, and everyone outside the US.  However, there is still a large slice of the American public that has not come to terms with this.  So the story of the forged letter, if true (and I don't doubt it), could do for George Bush what the 18 minute gap did for Richard Nixon.  The minor detail that gives the game away.  The smoking gun.

You might well ask why is this important?  To any sane observer, there are not only smoking guns everywhere, but smoking corpses as well.  About a million of them.  What makes this different than the hundreds of previous revelations is the White House reaction.  They are reacting in the same way they did when Joseph Wilson penned his op-ed.  Full attack mode.  Wilson only suggested George Bush knew his State of The Union address contained dubious assertions.  This is far more serious.

Suskind has a short piece today worth reading.  This story could be the [insert cliche here].  As Suskind says, "And so, we watch and wait...." I'm keen to watch, and a lot of people have waited a long time.

Mookie Lives

A story in today's New York Times claims: "The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army*, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq". They suggest that one of these neighborhoods is Sadr City.

I'm not buying it. Muqtada al-Sadr (known as "Mookie" by US troops) is the master of tactical retreat. He's done it several times before to great effect. The thing about a good tactical retreat in these conditions is that it looks similar to a loss. That's the point. Its an elaborate playing at possum. Of course, tactical retreat does not bring victory. But it can bring survival. And that, in Iraqi politics for 3 generations, has been the name of the game.  Al-Sadr survived Saddam, so its not like he's new at this.  He's made a career of being underestimated.

Gary Brecher argued in early July that al-Sadr had sensibly gone underground, adopting the successful model of the IRA  after the British Army demolished their no-go zones in 1972.  The main consideration being that if the US was prepared to use air strikes against Sadr City, the Mahdi Army was doomed in the streets.  Best to get off the streets.  And now the NY Times is noting their absence as a major development.

More wishful thinking from the US Embassy in Bagdhad I think. Its not outright false propaganda, its just that they continue to percieve the situation in unrealistically positive terms.  Conditions continue to improve. Things will go on improving until the day the US Army leaves Iraq.  Just as they did in Vietnam. Muqtada al-Sadr will probably still be around to see them off.

---------------------------
*The Mahdi Army is the militia of the Sadr Movement, al-Sadr's political party.  It, like Sadr City is named after his father, not him.  The other main Shiite party is The Supreme Iraqi Counci (SIIC). Their militia is the Badr Brigades, aka the Iraqi Army.  The only other militia worth noting specifically is that of the al-Fadilih party, a strong regional political party in Basra. There are many other smaller and splinter militia, particularly among the Sunni.

Curiously, the SIIC has been mentioned only 17 times in the last year in the NYT.  The Badr Brigades only 3 times.  The Mahdi Army, by comparison, has been noted 167 times. The NYT has some credibility problems when it comes to Iraq.  They have done little to alleviate their humiliation over pre-war reporting of WMD.  Its not like they can send reporters freely around in Baghdad.  They move only with the assistance of the US and Iraqi armed forces and do not have sufficient independence to reclaim their credibility.

The Onion Nails It Again

The Onion is at risk. Once a reliable source for fake news, The Onion has in recent years been threatened by Fox. Most recently, they've been outed for repeating talking points fed to them by the White House. And The Onion has now twice been caught posting what, in hindsight, turned out to be real news. Its just too confusing.

In the latest fiasco, a Point-Counterpoint about Iraq from March 2003 has turned out to be 100% accurate. Be sure to read both the point and the counter-point.

What Onion story will next turn out to be true? Firefighters Turned Away From Exclusive Nightclub Blaze? Queen Elizabeth II Pregnant? New X-Files Movie Opens?

I guess when it comes to fake news, there is now only one sure source.