Saudi Arabia, along with the US, the UK and France, accused the Syrian administration of impeding any sort of tangible outcome from the Geneva 2 conference, according to Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of the online Rai Alyoum news website.
This development means abandoning moves for a political solution and once again resorting to military escalation to tip the scales on the battlefield in favour of the opposition.
This led the Free Syrian Army to replace chief-of-staff Salim Idris – backed by the West and the Gulf states – with the more experienced Colonel Abd al-llah Al-Bashir to head the military group.
But will this make any difference? It’s difficult to tell because in the last two and a half years, three different people have held the position of the head of the opposition.
With the first two being failures – Riad Al Asaad because of war injuries and Idris due to his so-called “ineffectiveness” – it is difficult to tell if Al Bashir will do any better.
However this is a monumental success compared to the opposition’s political sphere.
The FSA has seen five different people hold the helm in the last three years, with the most recent iteration being Ahmed Al Jarbaan, who leads the group not through his own popularity but because of his Western and Saudi supporters.
Al Idris’s failure was mostly in his inability to turn the FSA into a formidable force.
He sabotaged several conferences in Turkey and his dealings with other potential allies were anything but encouraging.
As long as the US fails to provide military assistance to the FSA, the balance of power will remain the same in Syria.
The US is aware of its ability to tip the scales through military support.
However, it fears the repercussions of sophisticated arms falling into the hands of Islamists after a military victory in Syria – especially with the implications for Israel.
Comparisons have been drawn to the US’s stance in the 1980s with Afghanistan, during which it armed the Mujahideen with Stringer missiles and other effective military technology.
The US’s response is simply that it was more troubling back then, especially because of the Soviet Union’s growing presence in the region.
However, with the coming “military escalation, the rules of the game have changed on Syrian soil,” he wrote.
“Both sides should expect many surprises, although it is not expected that Russia will stand idly as the escalation occurs.”
Military escalation will surely lead to more death and destruction in Syria and, for the media, more blood with which to paint the picture.
No progress in talks was a regime goal
The second round of Syrian peace talks in Geneva has ended with an important achievement for the Syrian regime: it failed to make any progress, Abdullah Iskandar wrote in yesterday’s edition of the London-based Arab daily Al Hayat.
The Syrian regime refused to discuss transition at the Geneva 2 conference. In the meantime, it was pressing on with its killing operations in besieged cities, claiming more lives than the time before Geneva 2, the writer said.
The Syrian regime’s barrel bombs have forced people to make concessions to the regime because they could not bear a lack of the basics of daily life, especially since the regime’s military crackdown showed no sign of abating.
Meanwhile, the regime and its allies are bracing themselves for what they consider to be a decisive battle in the area from Qalamon to the outskirts of Homs, and on the border with Lebanon.
These efforts on the ground have found political cover from their Russian ally, which threatened to veto any resolution that might come from the United Nations. In parallel, an assertion came from Iran that Bashar’s Syria is its frontline.
The lack of progress at the Geneva 2 talks has benefited the Syrian regime, and now it is more fervent in its crackdown after it saw boundless support from Russia and Iran despite their arrangements with the US.
Al Sadr leaving politics was Iran’s overall goal
Powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada Al Sadr announced his decision to exit from politics indefinitely, columnist Tariq Al Homayed wrote in Asharq Al Awsat.
“The reasons for his decision are obvious, especially under the tyrannical rule of prime minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is seeking a third term at the premiership.”
Al Sadr, an outspoken figure against the Iraqi regime, said the prime minister’s ways were the primary reasons for his decision, along with Iran’s interference and influence within the country.
It seems clear that Al Maliki will get his coveted third term by continuing to eliminate opponents by any means, even if it meant accusing them of terrorism.
“This indicates an Iranian scheme to continue to monopolise Iraq through a few loyal subjects and prevent the emergence of any independent Iraqi leadership or any resistance to Iranian authority,” the writer suggested.
It was clear that Tehran couldn’t risk having a prime minister who is not of its own choosing in Baghdad.
In light of Bashar Al Assad’s situation and Hizbollah’s dwindling morale as its image in the Arab public opinion has been all but destroyed, the upcoming phase is delicate for Iran. It can’t stand any loose ends or any dramatic political shifts.
* Digest compiled by Translation Desk
Translation@thenational.ae
