The Syria Scheme
The setbacks are a major embarrassment for Assad, and may auger a geopolitical shift in the Mideast. Heavily beset, Assad sent an SOS to Iran, which instructed its Iraqi allies to help. Reinforcements are arriving in Syria. Little if any help, however, is forthcoming from Assad's erstwhile saviours, Russia and Hezbollah. Battered by Ukraine and Israel, respectively, neither can do much. Iraqi forces might compensate for their absence, but this is far from certain. Turkish drones may decimate Iraqi armor, just as they massacred Syrian tanks advancing toward Idlib a few years ago.
Why did the HTS offensive occur, and who was responsible? No doubt, Erdogan aided HTS but the assault wasn't on his initiative. The US was the real power behind it. Lately, Washington sensed a golden opportunity to eliminate most of Iran's allies and influence in the region. Ultimately, Israel is to be the main beneficiary, as successful implementation of the scheme would eliminate its entire northern front.
Preoccupied with Israel lately, Syria let down its guard and neglected its HTS front. Aware of this, the US devised a plan to topple Assad with local forces--including, besides HTS, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in eastern Syria. With his northern front weak, and bereft of Russian and Hezbollah assistance, Assad looked temptingly vulnerable. Ousting him would end Iranian influence not only in Syria but also in Lebanon. Cut off from Iran by the fall of Assad, Hezbollah would wither on the vine and die.
Despite US denials, America's role as instigator is confirmed by the participation of US artillery and jets in SDF attacks--operations coordinated with those of HTS. The SDF reportedly has taken Deir Ezzor and may soon take Boukamal. By taking border crossing areas SDF seeks to prevent reinforcements from Iraq or Iran from saving Assad.
Coming weeks may witness either the success of the scheme, or an embarrassment for the US.
Below, Assad.
posted by starman at 7:37 AM
10 Comments:
It is obvious that the U.S. wants to weaken Iran's position in the Middle East. Invading Iraq had backfired, since pro-Iranian elements replaced Saddam Hussein after he was deposed by American forces.
Sure, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 ultimately benefitted Iran, not the US. Indeed pro-Iranian fighters from Iraq might shore up Assad, thwarting the US plan to depose him.
Btw "anonymous," above, is me. :)
There are conflicting reports on the situation at present. The media portrays HTS as bearing down on Homs after taking Hama. SAA or regime sources claim the Tiger brigade has encircled Hama and retaken positions...That could be just propaganda, to improve morale.
The U.S. is naive to assume that deposing Assad would be beneficial on a long- term basis. Even if he were deposed, someone could put his replacement out of power. A person who replaced Assad might turn against the U.S. Middle Eastern politics is topsy turvy, and quite unproductive.
Excuse me, I meant to say that Middle Eastern politics is unpredictable.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I agree absolutely Neal. I may write a new blog post on the possible adverse consequences, for the West, of regime collapse in Syria. Btw the new rebel front in Daraa is further evidence of a comprehensive operation, orchestrated by the US, to eliminate Assad and Iranian influence.
December 7, 2024
You're right, that is definitely a comprehensive operation.
Sure, look at recent history. Did Iraq turn out great after the US deposed Saddam in '03? Or Ghadafy in 2011? Those who engineered the fall of Assad seem to have forgotten the lessons of history. Soon the US and others will be stuck with huge costs, continuing mayhem and an ultimate result not at all to their liking.
Post a Comment
<< Home