I of course agree in full with their conclusions – although one opening criticism is that this report should have been put out far earlier because many of the trends, tradeoffs and pitfalls were evident very early on. The hilarious/depressing idea of accelerating violence against a formidible state clearly armed with chemical weapons – Syria – was always stupid, as but one marker of early clarity. It was a bad idea in March 2011 and now, most people realize – thankfully – that the idea is clearly bad.

Also clearly bad was the idea of pushing the resistance axis against a wall through direct force and pressure, rather than obliquely undermining its ability and desire to exercise violence through indirect means, political and economic alliances and pressures, incentives and the removal of grievances.

It should not have taken this long to get into the mainstream discourse – I think that although daniel and juien have always been on the sensible side of matters, others – especially conflict mitigation groups like USIP which started promoting the ridiculous idea of a “controlled collapse” in 2011 – and they are “pro-peace”! – have not been, and that all of us should have been much louder early on as matters were fairly clear.

A few other criticisms, but first the main, important points:
1) “Europe must, now get fully behind the peace initiative and reject the false choice between the supposed, “military, -, lite” or “diplomacy, -, lite” options, –, that the military balance can be tipped, without a weighty intervention, or that diplomacy can advance without having to deal, with Assad or Iran.”

– Indeed – and this lays the framework for the even more punchy conclusion below…

2) “Wisely the, international community has so far resisted military intervention, – learning from recent, experiences in the Muslim world and aware of the risks of an especially explosive mix of, forces at play in Syria. This has been matched, though, by an unwillingness to make the, uncomfortable compromises necessary for diplomacy.”

– This is the money shot – in the end, powers like the US, via obama, may be a lot smarter than Bush and the knee jerk neo-con/arm chair warriors, but they simply do not have the political courage to make that smartness and deliberation turn into a smart strategy because they lack the political courage to push the other way towards diplomacy and peace building – and smart strategies of dealing with difficult actors like the Resistance Axis.

3) thus, they write:

“If the West, wants to use real diplomacy to stop or slow the killing, on the other hand, it will need, to, make unpalatable compromises, –, in particular, accepting that Assad’s fate must be a, question for the transition process, not a pre, -, condition or assumed outcome, and that Iran, must play a role in the diplomatic process., This paper argues that a policy, of de, -, escalation backed by a diplomatic push towards, elements of a regional grand bargain, aimed at pushing reluctant domestic actors towards, the, negotiating, table, is the better option.”

– Ok, yes. This is great. What I feel like is sadly missing, yet again, is that this kind of a report has little in the way of teeth/power because it does not diagnosis the political failure in detail that is refusing to follow good recommendations. This missing half means we dont understand HOW these good ideas might come to fruition in political reality, what is blocking movement in Europe and the US and why it is in the interest of the Western actors. I also want to know more about HOW SUCH IDEAS can and should be sold to various constituents/power blocs/interests. There is great detail about the interests of non-western actors, but without a sharp analysis of what is blocking the western powers, we are left with a very sensible report which can and will be set aside, because 1) a grand bargain ain’t in the cards 2) the dynamics of greater conflict are only growing and getting into a row and 3) when political courage is missing at the top, only a bottom or medium level up approach is going to force some change an courage.

A final criticism – Daniel and Julien need to be more alarmist. There is very good reason to be alarmist – i.e. the underlying trends and capabilities are ALARMING. After so many dead, the region perched on a climactic struggle, it is high time to get shrill, amplify the WMD and War effects/threats and force political courage to de-escalate.

In my mind everyone on the side of sensible peace building solutions, descalation ideas etc are far far too soft in explaining the terrible road we are all on.

I was alarmist in the summer of 2011. True, a massive war has not come to pass in almost two years. But it has grown extremely close and open to small pushes now from small actors as never before.

It should not have come to this – I wonder: If there had been a kind of reverse Iraq War alarmism – but this time in the service of negotiation and peace building – well I think maybe, maybe it would have been worth the measured exaggeration and manipulation. it is something to consider when we must consider the political side/strategies of sensible policy recs.

We will see in this next period if the dead people and ruined lives stack up even more dramatically with a war – suffering that will no longer be restricted to the arab side, that seems certain.

I suspect this al-rai story is generally plausible.

Translated today by our mideastwire.com service.

*****************

On May 24, the independent Al-Rai al-Aam daily carried the following report: “Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah will be making an appearance tomorrow Saturday on the occasion of the thirteenth anniversary of the Israeli pullout from South Lebanon. He is expected to be saying some very important things concerning the controversial issues that he will be addressing.

“From Al-Qusayr to the Golan to Geneva 2 and the terrorism lists: there will be several headlines that Nasrallah will likely address in light of his forces’ participation in the massive battles in Al-Qusayr and his previous allusion to the inclusion of Golan in the fights in addition to the diplomatic action around Syria and the European tendency to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing.

“Al-Rai learned that Nasrallah will be defending his party’s choice to take part in the Syrian fights and that he will be alluding to the others’ interferences including regional Arab and western countries…Persons close to Nasrallah toned down the importance of “the time factor or the human losses in a battle that will see no stepping back no matter what the price is…” Al-Rai also learned that prominent Hezbollah commanders went to the land of the battle in Al-Qusayr to oversee the process of the “crucial confrontation” there…

“One of these commanders told Al-Rai that “the high human toll among the party’s members was due to the dash during the first wave of attacks in an attempt at achieving a quick progress and concluding the Al-Qusayr battle as fast as possible.” He added that his forces “re-organized themselves after learning their lesson and the progress is now being achieved in a methodological and well thought-out manner thus leading to the least possible amount of losses.” He added that the “special Syrian forces arrested a large number of Lebanese people who responded to the Jihad calls in Syria and their fate remains unknown.”

“… A prominent Hezbollah leader told Al-Rai that “now that the Golan front has been linked to the Shebaa Farms, Al-Gajar, and Al-Sheikh Mountain, the war with Israel will definitely take place sooner or later…” He added that “Hezbollah will not be entering the battle alone and Syria will also not be entering the battle alone. The front is now a unified one. Therefore, if Israel was to venture into a war, it will most certainly return to the stone age that Lebanon had been used to during its wars with Israel.”

“He also indicated that “Hezbollah and Syria will not be launching a sudden war. The enemy is the party that has always taken the initiative of launching the attacks. Therefore, dealing a blow to any airport will be confronted with a blow against an airport and train stations; and dealing a blow to an electricity plant will be confronted by dealing blows to the infrastructure…”

Indeed, the best response after the last Israeli strike was a painful military blow to the IDF in occupied golan by a “mysterious” group. It now looks like the resistance axis is gearing up for and telegraphing precisely that!

****************

“The prominent Hezbollah source also said that “Israel announced that it has bombarded weapons belonging to Iran and Hezbollah. This means that it has launched a war against Iran and Hezbollah…” He also revealed that “directions have been given [to the party’s fighters] to consider that the areas of Shebaa, the Kfarshouba Hills (in South Lebanon) and the Syrian Golan heights form one triangle and one area for operations…”

“The source added that “Hezbollah has recently started to study the deployment of the enemy and its fighting arrangements as well as the settlement areas…” The source indicated that “the Golan area will represent a wide target for the operations, traps, and counter traps as part of the upcoming war.” He revealed that “President Al-Assad gave clear indications to establish a Syrian resistance force similar to Hezbollah. This force will consist of units that have been prepped and trained to on gang-style fighting following the 2006 war. The training started immediately following the Israeli raid against Damascus…”"

The discursive one is the one I am most interested in – the field operations may or may not transpire and they will in all liklihood carry some important degree of deniability, be limited and make a smashing Israeli response very difficult.

Bashar is in the process of totally upending the relationship that his father set in place for so many years. Bashar of course did that from the start of his tenure in 2000, especially after 2006, but this process is now in final motion, I believe. Put it together with some of the aesthetic factors between Nasralah and Khamene’i and what we have is a rough balancing operation between the three main Resistance powers.

This is significant because they are consolidating, strengthening, hunkering down whereas their opponents aims, tactics and relations are fracturing to a greater extent.

This is a crucial dynamic, one pushed forward aggressively by Bashar’s “shift” (more like a maturation) today.

It is also a very smart two-headed response to the force and pressure against the Axis I think…. but really the only smart response available.

**********

“We have decided to give them everything,” the newspaper quoted him as saying, without elaborating.

“For the first time we feel that we and they are living in the same situation and they are not just an ally we help with resistance,” he said.

“We have decided that we must move forward towards them and turn into a nation of resistance like Hizbullah, for the sake of Syria and future generations.”

Assad was quoted as saying Syria could “easily” respond to Israeli air strikes by “firing a few rockets at Israel.”

“But we want strategic revenge, by opening the door of resistance and turning all of Syria into a country of resistance.”

“After the strike, we are convinced that we are fighting the enemy now, we are pursuing its soldiers deployed throughout our country,” he said, in apparent reference to rebel forces, which the regime has accused of being allied with Israel.

*

On Tuesday, Salehi made a quick visit to Jordan where he imparted to Jordanian King Abdullah “a clear and unequivocal message of Iran’s strong commitment to protect Assad and Syria,” according to the same Iranian source.

“You must be aware that if the US decides to go to war with Syria, your kingdom will go in the process,” the message declared. It warned the Jordanian king of the “American trap that threatens your throne and will wipe Jordan off the map.”

“The Islamic Republic is ready to provide you what you need in face of pressures and to avoid the conflict being transferred inside Jordan,” the message relayed. It concluded by maintaining “Iran’s willingness to transfer Jordan to our camp, if you had the will to do so.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/in-syria-we-need-to-bargain-with-the-devil.html?pagewanted=1

“…First, Washington should use patriot missile batteries in an offensive capacity against regime aircraft – and deploy them defensively against SCUD and Fatah 110 missiles targeting opposition-dominated areas along Syria’s borders with Turkey and Jordan. A package of the patriot missiles recently deployed to southern Turkey augmented with an anti-aircraft capability, for example, could be used to carve out a 50-mile air exclusion zone from the Turkish border city of Kilis to Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. This would help the opposition create vital “safe areas” where civilians could be secure in an organized fashion free from regime airstrikes as the war against Assad continues.

As an important ancillary benefit, such safe areas would provide a vital place for the exile-dominated National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SOC) to politically organize and provide assistance directly to Syrian civilians. If properly defended, diplomats, officials, and aid representatives from the international community could work side by side with Syrians to help alleviate suffering and build a viable government for post-Assad Syria. When fully “liberated” areas under opposition control expand beyond the border regions to Syria’s interior, the United States and its allies could follow up with targeted air and missile strikes against Assad regime forces armed with chemical weapons or poised to carry out further mass atrocities.

Second, Washington should provide a package of intelligence-sharing, military training, and other security assistance to mainstream nationalist, non-extremist groups that have been vetted by Western countries, both to increase their military capabilities and in exchange for any chemical weapons captured from the regime’s stockpiles. The package should be comprehensive enough to allow participant groups to more rapidly defeat the Assad regime’s forces and more effectively secure chemical weapons. Groups receiving assistance would be required to allow U.S. and allied special forces to collect and secure captured stockpiles of chemical weapons…”

Have we gone beyond the nice detached (when not drone striking) Obama box where he is FORCED to make a major decision about war?

For four years (ok really since the july 2006 war) the war between the resistance axis and israel/usa/sunni monarchies etc – throw some more sides in there – seemed quite likely.

The sides have now been pushed so far that I would argue ONLY a courageous, far sighted decision by the US to engage in a wide ranging total political settlement vis a vis the resistance axis is possible to stop the march to war which many of the sides desire – including some in the US and undoubtedly many in the resistance axis (lets not even consider the Israelis for a minute!)

Obama is confronted by an incredible stew of negative factors – Andrew Exum’s balance of terror which stayed the climactic war is now breaking down and this was the ONLY “positive” restraint. Indeed, this breakdown was always going to be the case if matters proceeded on the track of more and more violence and compulsion instead of negotiation, concessions and smart strategies to drain the matrix of violence and the desire for violence.

Time is running out – make a tough decision Barry, because this war which is nearer and nearer is going to wrack incredible damage.

It’s really incredible that journos still digest this perspective, because even with NO understanding of the Middle East, one just has to remember that the Assad regime and the Resistance Axis was much much stronger 2 years ago, 1 year ago etc.

Tabler’s position is essentially that the US and allies should have more directly fought Assad WHEN IT WAS MANIFESTLY in a far better position tactically and strategically, armed with chemical weapons, more conventional forces, greater support etc.

It just does not add up, but sadly it still circulates:

“The problem here is we react so slowly,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “There have been many well-thought-out plans, but they address a certain context. Then the context changes, we see the situation as rapidly deteriorating, and the recommendations are no longer so finely tuned.”

**********

The Samson Option – the NYT piece here also captures where this conflict is going – towards greater irrationality as the level of violence accelerates and backs are pushed against the wall: “…As Mr. Obama contemplates his response, his advisers are trying to determine why Syria would use such weapons. The Syrian military, while strained, still appears capable of making rational decisions about how and where to deploy forces. It is currently engaged in fierce and ostensibly successful offensives in the Damascus area and in Homs Province. Moreover, two alleged massacres in the past week demonstrated that pro-government militias using knives and guns were capable of inflicting many times the deaths attributed to chemical weapons so far.

Israeli has now sorely tested Syria and the Resistance Axis limits for embarrassment and punishment; it seems very likely that matters have a reached a point where counterforce is not only logical but vital – and there is a smart, controllable pathway available for demonstrating that Israel too has limitations which limit its reactions to violence.