Hezbollah Fighter Talks Qusayr

For a good, brief description of the fighting on the ground to take Qusayr, check out the story, "Hezbollah fighter tells of Syria battle," by Alexandra Sandels and Jeffrey Fleishman in this morning's Los Angeles Times. A Hezbollah squad leader named Hassan tells of battling foreign-funded Islamist rebels of the Al Nusra Front, many from Libya and Tunisia, in door-to-door combat. There is no doubt after reading Hassan's account that this is an international conflict, and that so far the Shiite forces are much more motivated than the West and its Al Qaeda proxies. Interestingly -- because it is rarely if ever reported in the Western media -- the Hezbollah squad leader says that the fighting is heavy and daily around Sayyida Zainab, the Shiite shrine to Muhammad's granddaughter Zaynab:

"Hezbollah can't cover all of Syria," he said. "Those who say Hezbollah is all over [Syria] are stupid. You have some strategic places." 

One of those is the Shiite shrine Sayyida Zainab, which Hassan said he has been protecting on and off for months from Sunni militants who want to destroy it to ignite an Iraq-style sectarian war. He said the fighting was heavy each day he was stationed at the shrine. 

Hassan said that for him, the battle goes on "until the last breath." It is a fight, he said, that cannot be lost to Hezbollah's many enemies, including the United States. 

"I love the fighting," he said. "You are doing something you are convinced of. You are not being paid money to go. There is a difference."

The rebels don't have an answer for this level of commitment. The opposition's strategy at this point seems to be to do whatever it can to instigate direct military intervention by Israel and/or the West, thereby bringing superior firepower to bear on a fighting force that Sunni jihadists can't best in the field.

Michael Gordon is reporting this morning that "Syrian Opposition Won’t Attend Talks Unless Rebels Get Arms, Top Commander Says." The West is in a difficult spot:

“There is agreement on one point within opposition circles: the regime, Iran and Hezbollah, supported by Russia, aim to win; the U.S. aims for talks,” said Frederic C. Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former senior State Department official who worked on Syria transition issues. “This helps to explain the opposition’s reluctance to attend a Geneva conference and the difficulties it’s having organizing itself around a coherent goal.” 

At the State Department, Mr. Kerry and his aides have long said that it is vital to change Mr. Assad’s “calculation” about his ability to maintain his grip on power in order to facilitate a political transition. 

With Mr. Assad digging in and his forces making headway on the battlefield, any leverage the United States might be able to bring to bear on the Assad government appears to depend on the possibility that the British and French might send arms to the rebels later this summer, and the prospect that the United States might expand its assistance to the armed opposition, which has consisted of food rations and medical kits.

The Syrian opposition's position remains that talks can't begin unless Assad first agrees to step down. All more firepower will do is expand the conflict and guarantee world war in the Middle East. Even Cameron's bellicoseTory-led government is split over the wisdom of increasing arms traffic to the rebels.

The Syrian civil war roundup provided by Nick Cumming-Bruce and Rick Gladstone, "In Its Biggest Appeal Ever, U.N. Requests $5 Billion in Humanitarian Aid for Syria," in this morning's New York Times covers Putin's offer to supply replacement troops for Austrian members of the UN peace keeping force who are leaving the Golan Heights because of fighting between rebels and Syrian government forces at the Quneitra crossing. The Russian offer was promptly refused:

United Nations officials declined Mr. Putin’s offer. “We appreciate the consideration that the Russian Federation has given to provide troops to the Golan,” said Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “However, the disengagement agreement and its protocol, which is between Syria and Israel, do not allow for the participation of permanent members of the Security Council in Undof.”

The Security Council issued a statement yesterday calling on Syria to allow humanitarian relief to reach Qusayr.

The World Food Program is feeding 2.5 million people in Syria, a number expected to increase to 4 million by the end of the year.

U.S. Patriot Missiles, F-16s in Jordan

Anne Barnard in a frontpage story, "In Syrian Victory, Hezbollah Risks Broader Fight," engages in what can be taken as pro forma Western finger wagging: Hezbollah can expect reprisals for its role in the rebels' defeat at Qusayr. What makes such reporting slanted is that it parrots the Obama administration's rhetoric: Hezbollah and Iran are acting as aggressors by inserting fighters into another country's conflict. But what is rarely mentioned is 1) the West and its allies among the Gulf monarchies are propping up the rebels; in fact, a compelling argument can be made that without Saudi and Western support the opposition promptly collapses, and 2) Hezbollah and Iran have concluded that they cannot survive if Syria collapses; in other words, the outcome of Syria's civil war affects all Shiite power structures in the Middle East.

For a sober, unbiased assessment of what's going on in Syria, check out yesterday's Democracy Now! interview of Patrick Cockburn:

In her story this morning Bernard reports that talks between Russia and the United States over a peace conference remain stymied:

A meeting convened by American, Russian and United Nations officials in Geneva aimed at finding a way to hold peace talks was adjourned in failure, with no agreement on even who among the Syrian antagonists would attend. Lakhdar Brahimi, the special Syria envoy of the United Nations, said that the officials would hold another meeting June 25 and that “evidently, there is still a lot of work to do.”

Apparently Jordan has requested U.S. Patriot missiles and F-16s:

Reflecting concern about a spillover in the war, Jordanian officials said that they had asked the United States for Patriot antimissile batteries and fighter jets to bolster their defense abilities in the event of an attack from Syria, their northern neighbor. A Pentagon spokesman, Army Col. Steve Warren, confirmed the request and said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “will favorably consider it.” Further underscoring the volatility of the conflict, Syria state news media suggested that the fight there might not be completely over, and said the military was still sweeping northern Qusayr for militants.

This is not a good sign. It is an indication that the West is committed to widening the war. Why would Syria attack Jordan? It makes no sense. The only thing that I can think of is that the U.S. is positioning its forces to deal with the aftermath of another Israeli attack on Syria. In such a case, Syria will be under a great deal of pressure to respond. Once Syria responds to Israel's aggression, the United States will have its justification for direct intervention. The thinking in the West must be that this is what it's going to take to bring Assad to the table weak enough to agree to dismemberment of Syria and relinquishing Baathist control of the government.

A provocation is needed. And all one need do is look at breaking news this morning that rebels have captured a Golan Heights border crossing. Isabel Kershner reporting from Jerusalem says that:

Rebels fighting the Syrian government on Thursday seized control of the only border crossing operated by United Nations peacekeeping forces along the Israeli-Syrian cease-fire line in the Golan Heights, according to the Israeli military and rebel forces. Israeli forces were placed on alert in the sensitive and disputed area as the violence of the civil war threatened to spill over into Israeli-held territory.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) says that the government has retaken the crossing, and so does the BBC.

The game of war continues: The U.S. condemns Syria for reasserting control in its own city, and Britain and France assert conclusive proof exists that the Syrian government used sarin gas.

For all of Obama's feebleness, the one thing I believe is that he will not be bum rushed into a world war in the Middle East. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think after surging in Afghanistan and intervening in Libya he's learned his lesson. The counterpoint here is that he is not -- to be charitable -- a super-strong leader, and that he will not hold out if there is unanimity in the West and the Gulf for direct military intervention.