person:bashar al-assad

10 Facts the Media Won’t Tell You About the War in Syria
▻http://theantimedia.org/10-facts-war-syria

Pour les détails, suivre le lien.

(ANTIMEDIA) Corporate media regularly attempts to present Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria as solely responsible for the ongoing conflict in the region. The media does report on events that contradict this narrative — albeit sparingly — but taken together, these underreported details shine a new light on the conflict.

10: Bashar al-Assad has a higher approval rating than Barack Obama

9: The “moderate” opposition has been hijacked

There is no longer such a thing as “moderate” opposition in Syria – if there ever was. The so-called Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) has been dominated by extremists for years. (...)

8: Assad never used chemical weapons on his own people

A U.N. investigation into the first major chemical weapons attack committed in early 2013 — an atrocity the West immediately pinned on Assad — concluded the evidence suggested the attack was more likely committed by the Syrian opposition. (...)

7: Toppling the Syrian regime was part of a plan adopted shortly after 9/11

According to a memo disclosed by 4-star General Wesley Clark, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon adopted a plan to topple the governments of seven countries within five years. The countries were Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. (...)

6: Iran and Syria have a mutual defense agreement

5: Former Apple CEO is the son of a Syrian refugee [!!!]

4: ISIS arose out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, not the Syrian conflict

3: Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia wanted to build a pipeline through Syria, but Assad rejected it

2: Leaked phone calls show Turkey provides ISIS fighters with expensive medical care

1: Western media’s main source for the conflict is a T-shirt shop in Coventry, England

This is not a joke. If you follow the news, you most probably have heard the mainstream media quote an entity grandiosely called the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” (SOHR). This so-called “observatory” is run by one man in his home in Coventry, England — thousands of miles away from the Syrian conflict — yet is quoted by most respected Western media outlets (BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, and International Business Times, for example).

*

(...)

Assad may be brutal — and should face trial for allegations of widespread human rights abuses — but this fact alone does not make the other circumstances untrue or irrelevant. People have the right to be properly informed before they allow themselves to be led down the road of more war in the Middle East, and consequently, more terror attacks and potential conflicts with Russia and China.

Outside help behind rebel advances in Aleppo
▻https://www.ft.com/content/da076830-5d77-11e6-a72a-bd4bf1198c63

Apparemment le rapprochement turco-russe est une fiction,

... the offensive against President Bashar al-Assad’s troops may have had more foreign help than it appears: activists and rebels say opposition forces were replenished with new weapons, cash and other supplies before and during the fighting.

“At the border yesterday we counted tens of trucks bringing in weapons,” said one Syrian activist, who crosses between Syria and neighbouring Turkey. “It’s been happening daily, for weeks … weapons, artillery — we’re not just talking about some bullets or guns.”

Two other rebels, who, like all those interviewed, asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, described cash and supplies being ferried in for weeks. They and others believe the money and supplies came from regional backers, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and were sent in trucks across Turkey’s border with Syria.

This was in spite of the fact that the rebel offensive — dubbed “the great Aleppo battle” — has been led and organised by Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, a jihadi group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra.

Some rebels claim that US officials supporting moderate rebel forces intentionally turned a blind eye to Fatah al-Sham’s participation in the offensive to ensure the opposition maintains a foothold in Aleppo.

“The Americans, of course, knew what was going on. They ignored it to put some pressure back on Russia and Iran,” said a western diplomat in contact with the opposition.

#Syrie #al-Qaïda #Etats-Unis

Commentary: The real reason Washington calls Putin a #thug | Reuters
▻http://www.reuters.com/article/us-commentary-putin-vanburen-idUSKCN10D03T

It seems the word “thug” is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: “A thug and murderer.” Kerry also said, "Daesh [Islamic State] is in fact nothing more than a mixture of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs ...”

Then-President George W. Bush on al Qaeda: “If we let down our guard against this group of thugs, they will hurt us again.” Bush also thought Saddam Hussein was a thug.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Muammar Gaddafi: “Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer.”

Madeleine Albright found thugs in Somalia and the Balkans for the wars of her era as secretary of state.

But why Putin, and why now? Perhaps what we’re seeing is preparation for the next iteration of America’s perpetual state of war.

#Etats-Unis #guerre_perpétuelle

Kerry: Critics of Obama administration’s Syria policy ’completely screwed up’
▻http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/07/kerry-critics-obama-syria-policy-erdogan-coup-army.html

Laura Rozen reports, “The US proposal for deeper US-Russian coordination against Jabhat al-Nusra is controversial within the US administration, with some Pentagon, intelligence and State Department officials expressing doubt the Russians could be trusted to restrain the Syrian regime or not to use the intelligence to target US-backed rebels, given their track record of doing so in the past months.”

In a joint press conference with Lavrov, Kerry described critics of his initiative as “completely screwed up.” He reminded the “dissent” crowd that Jabhat al-Nusra, just like the Islamic State (IS), is designated as a terrorist organization under numerous UN Security Council resolutions. He said that “Nusra is plotting against countries in the world” and that “what happened in Nice last night could just as well have come from Nusra.” Kerry refused to characterize Jabhat al-Nusra as “opposition” and expressed confidence in the “non-terrorist organization opposition, the legitimate opposition, the opposition we have supported.”

Kerry noted that, in addition to the Syrian government, Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies have also violated the cessation of hostilities, as this column has reported — a fact often missing in press accounts. The secretary said opposition forces pairing up with Jabhat al-Nusra because of a shared commitment to fight President Bashar al-Assad’s forces “will not excuse it in our eyes. We saw what happened when people said the same thing about [IS] for a period of time — oh, don’t worry, they’re just a force against Assad, and down the road we can take them on. Well, they became more than just a force. And so I think that it is important for the United States, Russia, the entire coalition of ISSG [International Syria Support Group] to stand up against terrorism, and that is what we intend to continue to do.” Kerry made clear that the United States maintains that Syria can’t have peace while Assad is there,” and that Washington and Moscow disagree on this point.

Why the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Syria
▻http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/opinion/why-the-us-military-cant-fix-syria.html

The memo’s authors and other interventionists fail to recognize that the United States in fact has effectively weakened President Bashar al-Assad already. In 2015, the administration’s aggressive covert action program facilitated significant gains for the opposition in northern Syria, exposed Latakia — the regime’s heartland — to attack, and diminished the Syrian military position in the northwestern province of Idlib.

But these losses were also key factors in Russia’s decision to enter the Syrian fray after years of sitting on the sidelines. This gives the lie to the interventionists’ belief that “judicious” airstrikes could somehow disempower the Assad government, sap Russian resolve and improve prospects for a negotiated solution.

If Moscow saw fit to intervene on account of Washington’s covert support for the rebels, it is only logical that it would retaliate even more strongly in the event of overt support. Indeed, that prospect is probably Moscow’s main motivation for keeping an air contingent and thousands of troops in Syria, conducting regular operations there and continuing to assure the Syrian government of Russia’s unstinting support.

Even in the unfathomable event that Russia were to abandon Syria, direct American military action would cause Iran and Hezbollah, the Assad government’s closest allies, to intensify their support. This would strengthen hawks in Iran and dim prospects for further improvement in United States-Iran relations.

Perhaps the interventionists believe that American military action would force Mr. Assad to the peace table. That prospect is equally implausible. There is no conceivable bargain that the Syrian president could strike with his adversaries, many of whom are hard-line Islamists. He and his colleagues would rather go down fighting than hand Syria to Sunni jihadists. The same goes for Iran and Hezbollah.

The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب : Turkey coup
▻https://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2016/07/turkey-coup.html

Turkey coup
I will write later but I believe that Saudi regime covered the coup if not sponsored it. Many signs.

J’avais hésité à l’écrire, on verra quels sont les signes que As’ad Abu Khalil mettra en avant. Pour ma part, j’ai été très frappé de la couverture très très très « en deça » du Hayat. J’ai fait un tour sur la presse saoudienne, mais c’était probablement un peu trop tard déjà, l’affaire était pliée et, du coup, tout le monde titrait : « L’Arabie saoudite se félicite du retour au calme » ou quelque chose de ce genre...

#Turquie

A New Fight Over Syria War Strategy - Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com
▻http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/07/08/new-fight-syria-war-strategy

#Gareth_Porter

The long internal political struggle within the Obama administration over policy toward Syria has intensified following a proposal by President Barack Obama to cooperate with Russia in an air campaign against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise.

The proposal, in response to an overture from Russia in May, would coordinate airstrikes against al-Nusra Front – the most powerful force in the war against Bashar al-Assad’s regime – in return for Russian agreement to constrain the Syrian regime from bombing non-jihadist forces willing to comply with the ceasefire.

If fully implemented, such a joint U.S.-Russian military campaign against Nusra could help hasten an end to the war by weakening the jihadist group cited by the Syrian regime as a major reason it has refused to make sufficient political concessions. In theory, such cooperation could strengthen both the regime and the so-called “moderate” rebels at the expense of the jihadists.

But Obama’s proposal is under attack by powerful elements of the national security bureaucracy. Even though the opponents have been unable to stop the proposal, they continue to press their case and it is not clear how committed the proponents are in pressuring their Syrian clients to comply with an agreement.

Last week, opponents of the proposal within the Obama administration leaked its existence to Washington Post columnist Josh #Rogin, whose sympathies clearly lie with the U.S. advocates of direct US war against the Assad regime.

Rogin’s story confirms that one major source of opposition to the proposal is Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his staff. The article suggests, moreover, that the Pentagon opposition has less to do with Syria than with the Pentagon’s interest in preventing any softening of the new U.S.-Russia Cold War.

#Syrie #OTAN #Russie #Etats-Unis

Turkey Did Nothing About the Jihadists in Its Midst — Until It Was Too Late | Foreign Policy
▻http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/01/turkey-did-nothing-about-the-jihadists-in-its-midst-until-it-was-too-

https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/trk.jpg

Turkey was aware of these networks from the early days of the Syrian conflict. In 2012, Turkish police began to electronically monitor suspected Turkish al Qaeda members but did little to disrupt their networks. Turkish intelligence officials privately suggested that they were more interested in mapping the network and seeing where the information led them rather than endlessly arresting low-level recruits.

The Turkish government had also concluded that the Syrian conflict would be a short one, estimating that President Bashar al-Assad would be forced from power in six months. It viewed Syria’s jihadist problem as secondary to that of the Syrian regime and was focused on the immediate task of defeating Assad. The jihadist threat, many Turkish officials argued, was linked to Assad’s brutality. They made the case that the regime had to be removed before a long-lasting solution to a group like the Islamic State could be pursued.

But as Ankara focused on Assad, the jihadists concentrated on expanding their influence on Turkish soil. Turkish jihadists operated in much the same way as the Islamic State in Iraq, establishing cells embedded within hierarchical networks. These cells, like in Iraq, sought to use the media for propaganda. In Turkey, the leader of one al Qaeda cell, Ilham Bali, worked closely with Abdulkadir Polat, the editor of the Turkish language Takva Haber. This suggests that a more senior, Syria-based, Islamic State leader helped to shape Takva Haber’s editorial content.

The leaked transcripts clearly show that the Turkish government was monitoring these networks. The decision not to crack down on them at the outset of the Syrian conflict backfired badly on Ankara: As the war continued in Syria, al Qaeda and Islamic State recruiters tried to persuade Turkish youth and other Turks who worked in Syria with Islamist NGOs to join their ranks.

#Turquie #Erdogan #Syrie #retour_de_bâton

Le Brexit, c’est parce qu’on n’a pas bombardé Bachar. CQFD.

In Middle East, British Vote Seen as Casualty of Region’s Wars
▻http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-middle-east-british-vote-seen-as-casualty-of-regions-wars-1466782546

Britain’s vote to exit the European Union was viewed in the Middle East as one of the casualties of the wars in Syria and Iraq, with activists and ordinary people saying the West hasn’t worked hard enough to resolve the regional crises that sent refugees flooding into Europe and fueled the Leave campaign.

[…]

There was a degree of schafendreude evident in some of the initial reactions in the Middle East, with some saying that Europe, and Britain specifically, was finally feeling the pain of decades of its Middle East policies. Many Syrians have sait that if the U.K. and U.S. had intervened more decisively to stem the bloodshed and remove President Bashar al-Assad from power, there wouldn’t be a massive flow of migrants to the West.

Conflict among U.S. allies in northern Syria clouds war on Islamic State
▻http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-north-insight-idUSKCN0Z8238

On June 12, one of the many FSA groups in the Aleppo area fired a guided TOW missile at a YPG position, the first attack of its kind, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and YPG said.

The two sides have different priorities in the war, with the FSA rebels battling to oust President Bashar al-Assad, while the YPG is trying mainly to carve out its own areas of control in northern Syria.

Each side also accuses the other of conspiring with its enemies in a struggle with an ethnic dimension pitting groups drawn from Syria’s Arab majority against one that emerged in 2011 with the stated aim of defending the Kurdish minority.

“There is a deepening divide between us,” the politburo chief of the Jabha Shamiya, one of the biggest FSA rebel groups in the Aleppo area. “If there is no quick political solution between the revolutionaries and the Kurds, it is heading towards escalation.”

YPG spokesman Redur Xelil said his group did not aim to spark a battle with FSA groups. But he added: “If they want a war, they will certainly lose.”

#Syrie

Kenneth Roth de Human’s Rights Watch est furieux contre le dernier livre de Noam #Chomsky,
▻http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/09/a-case-against-america

Who Rules the World? is also an infuriating book because it is so partisan that it leaves the reader convinced not of his insights but of the need to hear the other side.

Entre autres parce que Chomsky occulterait le fait que Assad et Poutine sont aussi responsables que les #Etats-Unis quant à la situation délétère du Moyen-Orient,

President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq fits his thesis of American malevolence, and the terrible human costs of the war get mentioned, but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s decision to fight his country’s civil war by targeting civilians in opposition-held areas, killing hundreds of thousands and setting off the flight of several million refugees, does not. Nor does Russia’s decision to back Assad’s murderous shredding of the Geneva Conventions, since Chomsky’s focus is America’s contribution to global suffering, not Vladimir Putin’s.

C’est pas compliqué, et le Département d’État va t’expliquer ça clairement : Iran is the main state sponsor of terror, US report finds
▻http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-isis-terrorism-main-state-sponsor-of-terror-us-state-report-find

Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism, according to the US State Department’s annual survey of worldwide terrorism.

The Islamic republic "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world," the report said.

It went on to highlight the group’s support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Insurgents seize Syrian Alawite village, killing 19 - Observatory
▻http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-village-idUKKCN0Y41MJ

(Via angry arab)

In Syria’s rebel areas, journalists complain of new censorship

Journalists in Syria’s opposition or rebel-held areas say they are being censored and violently intimidated, sometimes as badly as under the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

▻http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/05/09/In-Syrias-rebel-areas-journalists-complain-of-new-censorship/8761462470912/?spt=su&or=btn_tw
#Syrie #censure #journalisme #médias #presse

’No victors, no vanquished’ : UN sees Assad staying, post-conflict
▻http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/4/25/no-victors-no-vanquished-un-sees-assad-staying-post-conflict
▻https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/file/getimagecustom/b72fbb5c-e11e-4dca-bf67-c4afb4a71156/600/338

President Bashar al-Assad should remain in power in the immediate aftermath of Syria’s war, as the Damascus government, opposition and civic society groups form a transitional authority, according to the UN envoy’s peace plan, The New Arab can exclusively reveal.

Assad would, however, be stripped of authority over the military and security apparatus as the first step in a multi-stage transition designed to draw a line under the war that has killed at least 400,000 people in the past five years.

The proposal is mentioned in a draft communique from Geneva, believed to have been authored by UN envoy Staffan de Mistura as the framework for negotiations. The document has been leaked exclusively to The New Arab and its sister Arabic-language publication.

#Syrie
#Assad
#Transition
#poker

Assad’s Other War: Winning on the Ground, Defeated by the Pound? - Syria in Crisis - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
▻http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=63231

L’autre guerre de #Syrie, très intéressant.

Though the Syrian president is doing well militarily and may remain in power in Damascus for years or decades to come—no one seems very eager to oust him anymore, at least no one capable of doing it—the evolution of the state’s finances will decisively shape the structure and outlook of his regime. If the formal economy proceeds to break down in more fundamental ways than it has already, if the SYP loses even more of its purchasing power, and if state institutions cede ground to private charities, the black market, and militias, then the Assad regime will continue to evolve from an institutional state apparatus into a coalition of warlords. While tragic for Syria, such a development is especially dangerous for Assad himself, since his long term strategy is predicated on an ability to present himself as the last barrier against a permanent state collapse in Syria.

Reversing the decline of the government’s financial writ is therefore just as important to Bashar al-Assad as winning the battles on the ground. So far, he has seemed considerably more successful at the latter than the former.

Voici venu le jour où nos médias évoquent « le leader “modéré” d’al-Qaeda ». (Tu sais que j’apprécie beaucoup les usages créatifs que les journalistes font des guillemets, mais là on touche au chef-d’œuvre.)

Abu Firas al-Suri : Who was the ’moderate’ Jabhat al-Nusra leader killed in an air strike in Idlib ?
▻http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/abu-firas-al-suri-who-was-the-moderate-jabhat-al-nusra-leader-killed-

But it was his stance taken towards Isis which marked the importance Abu Firas, a senior leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. He had remained implacably opposed to the group even as other senior rebel commanders joined in the mission to create the Caliphate.

Some of what is left of the ‘moderate’ rebels held that Abu Firas was someone they could work with in opposing both the Damascus regime and Isis. If initial reports that he died in a US drone strike prove to be true, it will reinforce conspiracy theories among them that the Americans and the Russians are secretly working in cahoots to keep Bashar al-Assad in power.

2 articles récents renforcent le sentiment que l’on assiste à un rapprochement russo-américain sur le dossier syrien.

Interview de Balanche dans l’OLJ :
« Les Américains ne veulent pas risquer d’exclure Assad au stade actuel »
▻https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/979022/-les-americains-ne-veulent-pas-risquer-dexclure-assadau-stade-actuel-

Dans quel contexte intervient cette déclaration ? [de Bassma Kodmani critiquant les USA pour leur rapprochement avec les Russes - écho aux mêmes critiques de Ryad Hijab] :

Je pense que l’opposition se sent abandonnée par les États-Unis. Le secrétaire d’État américain a dû expliquer à Bassma Kodmani que le maintien d’Assad au pouvoir pendant la période de transition est acceptable pour les États-Unis. Les Américains au nom de la Realpolitik ne veulent pas risquer d’exclure le président syrien avant le rétablissement de la paix et de la sécurité sur le terrain. Ils ont également conscience aujourd’hui que l’Europe est au bord de l’implosion principalement en raison de sa gestion de la crise syrienne. On assiste à la montée de partis de droite prorusses, les opinions publiques européennes adhèrent de plus en plus à l’approche des Russes, dont le succès dans la lutte contre le groupe État islamique (EI) est tangible face à l’efficacité limitée de la coalition constituée par les États-Unis.

Les États-Unis ont-ils la maîtrise de l’évolution du calendrier diplomatique sur la question du sort de Bachar et les moyens de négocier l’option d’un départ du président syrien ?

Les États-Unis ne souhaitent pas le départ de Bachar el-Assad à n’importe quel prix et au risque de voir s’installer le chaos en Syrie. Ils considèrent que le pouvoir est beaucoup trop personnalisé, et la dernière chose qu’ils souhaitent c’est de voir des groupes comme l’EI ou le Front al-Nosra profiter du vide pour s’imposer. Même à supposer qu’ils se rallient à cette option, qu’auraient-ils à proposer aux Russes en échange du départ d’Assad ?
Que peuvent-ils imposer aux groupes d’opposition ?
Ont-ils les moyens de suspendre le soutien de leurs alliés turcs et saoudiens aux groupes jihadistes ? Quelles garanties peuvent donner les Américains ? Je ne le pense pas.

Article dans le Guardian qui laisse entendre qu’il y aura une entente dans la #course_vers_Raqqa :
US and Russia planning military coordination against ISIS in Syria
▻http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/russia-and-us-planning-military-coordination-against-isis-in-syria

Signs of wider military cooperation in Syria have emerged as Russia revealed that discussions have taken place about coordinating the liberation of the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa in conjunction with the US.

Russia and the US have slowly been working more closely in the wake of the partial Russian withdrawal of its aircraft from Syria, including an agreement last week to press President Bashar al-Assad to hold talks with the opposition about a political transition once peace talks recommence after 9 April in Geneva.

Russia and the US are discussing “concrete” military coordination to liberate the Isis stronghold of Raqqa, Interfax news agency cited the Russian deputy foreign minister, Oleg Syromolotov, as saying on Wednesday. The revelation follows visits to Moscow this month by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and CIA head John Brennan.

Escalade au sud d’Alep où un ensemble de groupes avec notamment les groupes salafistes al-Nousra, Ahrar al-Cham et Jound al-Aqsa attaquent plusieurs villages constituant des positions prises par l’armée syrienne fin 2015 lorsqu’elle avait, avec l’appui de l’aviation russe, établi une zone sécurisant l’autoroute Damas-Alep. Le village de Tall al-’Eiss vient semble-t-il d’être pris par al-Nousra. L’attaque est présentée par ces groupes comme une réponse aux violations du cessez-le-feu par le régime.
2 remarques sur cette escalade :
1° - al-Nousra pourrait être en train d’essayer d’entraîner plusieurs groupes à rendre caduque la cessation des hostilités - même si la zone concernée ne fait pas partie de cet accord. Voir ici l’analyse d’E.J. Magnier sur la menace que cet accord fait peser sur al-Nousra : ▻http://seenthis.net/messages/475052
Sujet déjà abordé à plusieurs reprises sur seen this (voir #liste_blanche / #liste_noire)
2° - la Division 13 (ASL), récemment boutée hors de son QG de Maraat al-Nouman par al-Nousra (voir : ▻http://seenthis.net/messages/469485), ce qui avait déclenché des manifestations pro-ASL et anti-alNousra dans la ville, combat désormais au cours de cette offensive aux côtés de cette branche syrienne d’al-Qaïda.
Ceci attesté sur son compte twitter où est publiée la photo d’un de ses combattants mort dans la bataille pour la prise du village de « Khalidyah dans le rif sud d’alep » : ▻https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce-9m7KWQAAhLDC

How US-Backed War on Syria Helped ISIS – Daniel Lazare
▻https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/31/how-us-backed-war-on-syria-helped-isis

Since the Times claims to have “several hundred” surreptitious contacts inside Syria, the charge that Assad’s troops fled without a fight may conceivably be correct. But it’s hard to square with reports that the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh) had to battle for seven or eight days before entering the city and then had to deal with a counter-offensive on the city’s outskirts. But even if true, it’s only part of the story and a small one at that.

The real story began two months earlier when Syrian rebels launched a major offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province with heavy backing from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Led by Al Nusra, the local Al Qaeda affiliate, but with the full participation of U.S.-backed rebel forces, the assault proved highly successful because of the large numbers of U.S.-made optically guided TOW missiles supplied by the Saudis. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda.”]

The missiles gave the rebels the edge they needed to destroy dozens of government tanks and other vehicles according to videos posted on social media websites. Indeed, one pro-U.S. commander told The Wall Street Journal that the TOWs completely “flipped the balance of power,” enabling the rebels to dislodge the Syrian army’s heavily dug-in forces and drive them out of town. Although the government soon counter-attacked, Al Nusra and its allies continued to advance to the point where they posed a direct threat to the Damascus regime’s stronghold in Latakia province 50 or 60 miles to the west.

Official Washington was jubilant. “The trend lines for Assad are bad and getting worse,” a senior official crowed a month after the offensive began. The Times happily observed that “[t]he Syrian Army has suffered a string of defeats from re-energized insurgents … [which] raise newly urgent questions about the durability of President Bashar al-Assad’s rule.”

Assad was on the ropes, or so everyone said. Indeed, ISIS thought so as well, according to the Associated Press, which is why it decided that the opportunity was ripe to launch an offensive of its own 200 miles or so to the southeast. Worn-out and depleted after four years of civil war, the Syrian Arab Army retreated before the onslaught.

But considering the billions of dollars that the U.S. and Saudis were pouring into the rebel forces, blaming Damascus for not putting up a stiffer fight is a little like beating up a 12-year-old girl and then blaming her for not having a better right hook.

Russia’s Choice in Syria - International Crisis Group
▻http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/syria-lebanon/syria/b047-russia-s-choice-in-syria.aspx

In announcing Moscow’s intent to withdraw the “main part“ of the military assets that it deployed to Syria since last September, President Vladimir Putin again caught much of the world off-guard, this time allies and adversaries alike. Having decla­red victory while maintaining its war-fighting capacity in Syria, Russia has left key questions unanswered: will it actually reduce its military role and, if so, to what extent, where and against whom. But if it implements the announcement in a meaningful way, this could create the best opportunity in years to push the conflict toward an initial settlement, especially on the heels of Moscow’s decision to help implement a “cessation of hostilities”.

This much is clear: Putin’s announcement underlined crucial points distinguishing Russian aims from those of the Assad regime and enhanced Moscow’s leverage over Damascus. It also, for the moment at least, increased Russia’s investment in the fledgling, fragile political process it is co-sponsoring with the U.S.

This much is unclear: having battered Syria’s non-jihadist rebels nearly to the brink of defeat but not over it, what sort of political and military arrangements will Moscow seek? Will it aim to cement battlefield gains, while maintaining a less aggressive posture in the hope that reduced violence will encourage the U.S. to drop any active opposition to President Bashar al-Assad’s rule and to increase coordination with Moscow against jihadist groups? This option is consistent with Russia’s general approach to the conflict, but would entail an open-ended military commitment, offer little prospect of improved stability and possibly play to the jihadists’ advantage.

Alternatively, will Moscow push for a more robust settlement that has a chance of stabilising the country – at least those parts the regime and non-jihadist rebels control? That would require an additional, political outlay: most importantly, delinking its own interests in Syria from the person of Assad – and, ultimately, convincing Iran to do the same. If Moscow wishes to avoid further regional unravelling and spiraling radicalisation, this is an investment worth making.

CIA head in Moscow this month, discussed Assad leaving power - RIA
▻http://in.reuters.com/article/russia-usa-cia-syria-idINKCN0WU1KM?rpc=401

The director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency raised the issue of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leaving power when he visited Moscow at the start of March, RIA news agency said on Monday, citing the U.S. Embassy in Russia.

CIA Director John Brennan also discussed the observance of the ceasefire in Syria, the news agency said.

Dean Boyd, the CIA’s chief spokesman, confirmed to Reuters that Brennan had visited Moscow in early March and that Syrian issues were on the agenda. It is unusual for the CIA publicly to discuss its chief’s travels or the subjects of his discussions with foreign officials.

Reporting (or Not) the Ties Between US-Armed Syrian Rebels and Al Qaeda’s Affiliate
►http://fair.org/home/reporting-or-not-the-ties-between-us-armed-syrian-rebels-and-al-qaedas-affilia

À la fois étiqueter groupe terroriste #al_nusra, et en fait compter sur lui et l’appuyer,

The Obama administration has long portrayed the opposition groups it has been arming with anti-tank weapons as independent of Nusra Front. In reality, the administration has been relying on the close cooperation of these “moderate” groups with Nusra Front to put pressure on the Syrian government. The United States and its allies–especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey–want the civil war to end with the dissolution of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by US rivals like Russia and Iran.

Reflecting the fact that Nusra Front was created by #Al_Qaeda and has confirmed its loyalty to it, the administration designated Nusra as a terrorist organization in 2013. But the US has carried out very few airstrikes against it since then, in contrast to the other offspring of Al Qaeda, the Islamic State or ISIS (Daesh), which has been the subject of intense air attacks from the US and its European allies. The US has remained silent about Nusra Front’s leading role in the military effort against Assad, concealing the fact that Nusra’s success in northwest Syria has been a key element in Secretary of State John Kerry’s diplomatic strategy for Syria.

When Russian intervention in support of the Syrian government began last September, targeting not only ISIS but also the Nusra Front and US-supported groups allied with them against the Assad regime, the Obama administration immediately argued that Russian airstrikes were targeting “moderate” groups rather than ISIS, and insisted that those strikes had to stop.

#délétère #Etats-Unis #Syrie

The end of Syria’s Baathist dictatorship? by Fred H Lawson
▻https://mondediplo.com/blogs/the-end-of-syria-s-baathist-dictatorship #st

As Syria’s civil war enters its sixth year, President Bashar al-Assad finds himself steadily gaining strength relative to the country’s disparate collection of opposition forces. Government troops continue to advance into previously rebel-held areas across the northwestern provinces, and have all but encircled the key northern metropolis of Aleppo. In the south, forces loyal to the regime regained control of the strategic crossroads town of Shaikh Miskin at the end of January. And in the far northeast, the Syrian armed forces have resumed the offensive against ISIS (so-called Islamic State), in conjunction with an assortment of Kurdish, Christian and tribal fighters.

Even so, it is unlikely that the dynamics of governance that characterized the Baath Party-dominated political-economic order that existed prior to the popular uprising in March 2011 will ever reappear. Syria’s domestic politics have changed in a half-dozen ways over the course of the civil war, and whatever type of political system emerges once the fighting comes to an end will be compelled to reflect these new realities.

▻http://zinc.mondediplo.net/messages/21410 via Le Monde diplomatique

Comment l’Iran perçoit le retrait partiel des forces russes de Syrie ?
Selon cet article d’al-Monitor, assez sereinement, même si l’on se demande quel genre d’accord a pu être passé par les Russes avec les USA.
▻http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/iran-reaction-russia-withdrawal-syria.html

Mehdi Mohammadi, who was an adviser to the hard-line former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, believes that due to the high probability of the cease-fires being extended, Russia decided to pull some troops from Syria because of the costs of provisioning operational forces. He added that there are enough troops to carry out attacks against terrorist groups when needed.

Mohammadi wrote in Tansim March 15 that Russia had informed both Damascus and Tehran of the details of the withdrawal. The main question, according to Mohammadi, is, “What concession has America and the opposition agreed to in exchange [for the Russian withdrawal]?” Mohammadi, without specifying to whom he might be referring, added, “Whatever it is, there is a great strategist standing behind these events.”