Russia's knockout game in Syria

Russia and Turkey recently concluded talks in Astana about Syria. It was a remarkable cooperation given that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet just over a year ago, damaging relations between the two countries.

What tactics has Russia used to manage such delicate relationships and become the main architect of the future of Syria? If we look at the past and present, we can see a successful pattern of Russian manoeuvring. 

In July 2015, the commander of Iran's elite Quds force, Qassem Soleimani, visited Moscow, after which Russia entered the Syrian war. Russia then moved towards working with the Obama administration as co-partners in developing ceasefires, an International Support Group for Syria, and a United Nations-led Geneva process. The cooperation with the US did not work; however, Russia achieved its goal of appearing an equal to the US globally.

The US entered that game without a policy on Syria, nor any weight on the ground. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry's words and techniques were no match for the Russian investment of hardware, and he effectively played into Russia's process.

The US has since been unceremoniously dumped by Russia in regards to Syria. Once Russia's goal of global parity was achieved, the Americans were no longer necessary. Russia invited the Trump administration to Astana (Iran rejected the American presence), but it was clearly a Russian defined process.

Russia used the UN deftly as well. The UN, and its envoy Staffan de Mistura, provided international legitimacy, and more cover for the Russian process, although the envoy initially garnered his credibility from being backed by Russian-American co-sponsorship.

But, once the UN process was no longer needed - and Mistura was a little too critical of Bashar al-Assad's excesses - Russia declared that he was not fulfilling his mandate, creating an excuse to sideline him. Having played the UN game, Russia could afford to shed it.

WATCH - Astana talks: Will change in Turkey-Russia ties bring end to Syria's war? (2:37)

A 'political solution'

Today, Russia wants to first achieve a ceasefire, or, as some say, a "frozen conflict" in Syria, and Turkey is the key to getting armed opposition groups to agree. This is the logic that justifies the cooperation between the two today.

However, after a ceasefire, the next step will be a "political solution" to the conflict. The key to that file is Iran, not Turkey. It is the Islamic Republic that is closest to Assad and his security system, and with the highest stakes in his fate.

Will Turkey, like the US and the UN before it, then get knocked out of the game after Russia achieves its aims of a ceasefire. Will it be left behind as Vladimir Putin clambers up the ladder of control in Syria?

Some will say that Putin is clever enough to keep Turkey in the political game, needing it as a counterweight to Iran, and having it manage the opposition. Russia will also have probably made political promises to Turkey to seal today's cooperation deal.

Turkey may not be knocked out, but its role may be geographically circumscribed to certain parts of northern Syria. The question is, can Russia square the circle of its promises to Turkey while also dealing with Iran?

It is far from certain whether Russian wiles can outdo Persian cunning for the future of Syria.

 

Iran is not fully happy with the Russian-Turkish approach today, as it wants a clearer and firmer victory for Assad, but it is smart enough to bide its time. It is the power on the ground and also the key for any serious future politics.

Iran and Assad needed Russia's air force for military victory, but political and security control on the ground is their game. Lest we forget, President Assad has his own ideas about his future and that of Syria, probably closer to Iran's than Russia's. The successful Russian manoeuvres meet their match with the partner that had "invited" it to the conflict in July 2015.

Russia will have tough decisions ahead: Will it be an exit from Syria, leaving an incoherent mess, a managed frozen conflict, or real change? If Russia opts for any significant political change, the situation may end up a tough and dirty tactical tug of war between Iran and Russia for years to come, each pressuring the other to bend to its will.

The wild card

However, the Middle East is never that simple. There is still a wild card left. Israel has deftly stayed out of the Syrian war until now, and has developed quiet understandings with Russia so the two don't get in each other's way militarily.

If Israel increases its pressure on Assad and Hezbollah - and thereby Iran - in southern Syria, that would constitute an indirect message: don't get too confident about "victory". Donald Trump's more anti-Iranian stance will abet this direction. The Obama holiday is ending for Tehran.

OPINION: How far is Russia willing to go in Syria?

It is far from certain whether Russian wiles can outdo Persian cunning for the future of Syria. What is clear however is that, through Syria, Russia has achieved the perception of global parity, if not supremacy, with the US, woven itself into international legitimacy through the UN, and deflated and co-opted a rival, Turkey.

In the stratospheric realm of geopolitics - and fighter jets - Russia has run circles around everyone. However, "the ground" is controlled by fighting forces and security systems created and nurtured by Iran. There, the visitor to Moscow in July 2015 and his country may have the final say.

Victory for Asaad

It is not the first victory that Mr. Assad has secured with overwhelming force in the Syrian conflict. But his subjugation of eastern Aleppo has echoed across the Middle East and beyond, rattling alliances, proving the effectiveness of violence and highlighting the reluctance of many countries, perhaps most notably the United States, to get involved.

President Obama, on Friday at his final news conference of the year, acknowledged that the nearly six-year-old war in Syria had been among the hardest issues he has faced, and that the world was “united in horror” at the butchery in Aleppo. But Mr. Obama — who came into office committed to reducing America’s military entanglements in the Middle East — also defended his decision not to intervene more forcefully.

To do otherwise, he said, would have required the United States to be “all in and willing to take over Syria.”

The message for autocratic leaders in the region and elsewhere is that force works — and brings few consequences, said Maha Yahya, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

The lesson for the victims of that force is that they are on their own.

“Everybody has been watching helplessly as this conflict unfolds,” Ms. Yahya said. “They are watching civilians being massacred mercilessly and all they can do is tweet about it and sign petitions.”

This is the Middle East that President-elect Donald J. Trump will face upon taking office next year, a region where jihadists have erased borders, Russia is ascendant, Iran has extended its reach through powerful militias and American allies are questioning how much they can rely on Washington.

Mr. Trump has articulated no comprehensive policy for the region, other than underlining his support for Israel and suggesting he could work with Russia against the Islamic State, perhaps establishing “safe zones” in Syria — an apparent contradiction since Russian jets have bombed civilian areas.

But the fallout from Aleppo highlights the dynamics that are likely to shape the region throughout his term.

Analysts have begun to add Aleppo to the list of places where humans have failed to stop tragedies committed against other humans, as in Grozny, Rwanda and Srebrenica. The comparisons are not perfect, but can be instructive.

Most estimates put the death toll in the Rwandan genocide much higher than that of the entire Syrian war, although the killing in Rwanda happened much faster, giving foreign powers less time to react.

The siege and bombardment of Aleppo, on the other hand, came after years of conflict in which Mr. Assad’s forces attacked protesters, dropped exploding barrels on rebellious communities and used chemical weapons on their own people.

What is more, because of smartphones and the internet, the Syrian conflict has arguably been better documented than any armed conflict in history. But that has still failed to bring about accountability.

“Aleppo is now the symbol of how far we have retrenched,” said David M. Crane, a veteran international war crimes prosecutor and a professor at the Syracuse University College of Law. “It is part of a worldwide move away from a global village. Countries are turning back into themselves.”

While acknowledging the current weakness of international justice, Professor Crane has been working throughout the Syrian conflict to compile evidence of possible war crimes against different parties in hopes that they will one day be held to account.

“I really do believe that over time we will be able to move forward,” he said. “International justice is not going away.”

By way of example, he mentioned Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia, whom Mr. Crane helped put behind bars in an international trial many years after he had committed his crimes.

The Syrian conflict did not begin as a civil war but as a popular uprising aimed at ousting Mr. Assad. He responded to protests with gunfire, detentions and torture. Many in the opposition took up arms to defend themselves and fight back, drawing support from Gulf countries, Turkey, the Syrian diaspora and the United States. The conflict escalated from there, as Mr. Assad sought help from Russia and Iran.

As the state receded and chaos spread, jihadist movements established themselves, attracting recruits with religious fervor and ample funding, fueling accusations by Mr. Assad that his opponents were terrorists.

Over time, as the space for civil activism narrowed, that claim became increasingly true, giving Western nations another reason not to intervene.

Mr. Obama denounced Mr. Assad as an illegitimate leader but kept American forces out of the battle to oust him. He argued that the United States could not resolve the conflict and that Syria was not a core American interest. Even when Mr. Assad deployed chemical weapons, crossing a “red line,” Mr. Obama did not bomb Syria, angering the opposition and allies like Saudi Arabia, who felt he had further empowered Mr. Assad. Instead, Mr. Obama made a deal with Russia to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

But the war metastasized, spawning new horrors that increasingly affected the United States and its allies. The Islamic State seized territory in Syria and Iraq, declaring a caliphate and inspiring attacks from Bangladesh to San Bernardino, Calif.

And the violence sent waves of refugees into Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and let loose a flow of migrants whose arrival in Europe has undermined its unity and stability.

All those shocks contributed to the environment in which the siege and battering of eastern Aleppo could take place, changing the course of the conflict.

Mr. Assad’s seizure of Aleppo will leave the opposition with no control in any of Syria’s major cities, possibly signaling its end as a political force that can pressure the government to negotiate.

“The Assad regime has won the strategic war,” said Hassan Hassan, a resident fellow from Syria at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington. “Psychologically, the opposition is no longer seen as a force that can break Bashar al-Assad.”

Other leaders have paid attention to how he did it.

“The Assad playbook now is that you can crush your people; you can destroy cities; you can attack with chemical weapons; you can enable extremists — and the international community will stand by and not do anything,” Mr. Hassan said. “That is a precedent for dictators who feel threatened by their populations.”

But Mr. Assad’s seizure of Aleppo does not mean the end of the war. Gulf states like Qatar have said they will continue to back the rebels, and many analysts predict that the movement will become a prolonged insurgency.

Mr. Assad’s surprise loss of the ancient city of Palmyra last week to the Islamic State indicates that his fighters are stretched thin.

Also converging in Aleppo is the region’s rising sectarian split. As the rebels have been adopted by Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia, Mr. Assad has deepened his reliance on Shiite militias who receive support from Iran. Bolstering Mr. Assad’s troops in Aleppo were fighters from Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Shiite militiamen from Iraq and elsewhere who viewed the battle in religious terms.

Many Syrians, including in government-held parts of Aleppo, will be happy when Mr. Assad takes back the whole city because they see him as a symbol of a unified state or because they distrust the rebels for accepting support from foreign powers. Others will just be glad the fighting has stopped.

For some, the war’s greatest casualty has been the ability of Syrians to live together.

Samir Altaqi, a surgeon and former member of the Syrian Parliament who now directs the Orient Research Center in Dubai, said he now avoids images of Aleppo, where he grew up and began his career.

“I don’t bear to look too much at this footage because it would mean a full moral collapse, and I would become too extremist,” he said.

His interactions with younger Syrians who have lived through the war have scared him, he said.

“My impression is that these people have no more distance from death,” said Mr. Altaqi, who is in his mid-60s. “They are sorry to be alive because all their beloved people are dead.”

He recalled his youth in Aleppo decades ago, when his family had Jewish and Christian neighbors and a “mercantile attitude” pervaded the city.

“I remember how we never asked about the religion of our neighbors and friends,” he said, even when a son or daughter brought home a potential mate.

“What will happen to all of this history?” he asked.

Fighting intensifies in Syria's Aleppo

Syrian rebels warn of "collateral damage" and call on civilians in war-torn city to stay away from government positions.

Fighting has intensified in Syria's divided city of Aleppo, a day after a "humanitarian" pause announced by Russia ended, a monitoring group and rebels said.

Unidentified jets bombarded rebel-held areas in the south-western part of Aleppo on Sunday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Lebanese Al-Manar TV, run by the Syria-aligned armed group Hezbollah, broadcast footage of tanks and fighters advancing under heavy fire along a ridge reportedly in the Aleppo countryside.

OPINION: Aleppo and the myth of Syria's sovereignty

Rebels have also confirmed the bombardments on the opposition-held areas of the city.

The activist-run Shahba Press reported that government artillery shelled the strategically important village of Khan Touman, which overlooks the highway connecting Aleppo and government-held cities in the center of the country.

But a commander from the rebel Syrian Free Army, speaking on condition of anonymity, said opposition fighters had repulsed the attack and inflicted "big losses" on the regime forces.

His report could not be independently verified.

Meanwhile, opposition rebels have also launched counter-attacks, shelling the regime-held southern district of al-Hamadaniyah. No casualties have been reported so far.

A leading northern Syrian rebel coalition warned civilians in Aleppo to stay away from government positions around the city, as rebels and pro-government forces clashed along the city's outskirts.

Yasser al-Yousef, a spokesman for the Nour el-Din al-Zinki rebel faction in Aleppo said an operation to break the government's siege of the rebel-held eastern districts of Aleppo was "coming."

Collateral damage

Yousef said rebels would not target civilians in government-held districts, but warned of collateral damage from the anticipated operations.

On Thursday, Russia, a key military ally of Syria, had announced an 11-hour ceasefire to allow civilians, rebel fighters and injured people to leave opposition-controlled eastern Aleppo, promising them safe passage.

5 Things To Know About Aleppo

It later extended the ceasefire for another two days. Rebels, however, rejected the offer.

The Syrian opposition said there were no guarantees that wounded evacuees would not be arrested by government forces and no provision for supplying humanitarian aid to those remaining in the enclave.

The fighting between Syrian government forces and rebels ran in parallel with renewed clashes further away from the city between Turkish-backed opposition forces and Syrian Kurdish forces, over territory formerly held by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.

The activist-run Aleppo Media Center said Turkish forces struck over 50 Kurdish positions on Sunday alone.

The US has backed both the Turkish-backed forces and the Syrian Kurdish forces in the area, though it has clarified that it does not support the Syrian Kurdish forces that have come under Turkish attack in the Aleppo countryside.

The Turkish military intervened in the Syrian war in August this year under orders from Ankara to clear the border area of Islamic State fighters and U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces linked to Turkey's own outlawed Kurdish insurgency. The Turkish government considers both to be terrorist groups.

Some 250,000 to 300,000 civilians are thought to be trapped in eastern Aleppo, with dwindling food supplies and extremely limited medical care in underground hospitals that have been hit repeatedly by air strikes.

Moscow’s Endgame in the Syrian Civil War

October 4, 2016

Alessandro Bruno

 

In Syria, Russia has become the country without which the resolution of the conflict would have been impossible. Moscow wants a dialogue with Washington and aims to recover superpower status. Russia’s endgame in Syria is as President Obama, rightly noted during his speech before the United Nations General Assembly, to “recover lost glory.” He added “through force,” but, Russia is actually playing a highly sophisticated diplomatic game. Force and Syria are both mere instruments in a more ambitious strategy to regain superpower status.

Obama’s reach is rather limited now. On November 8, in fact, Americans will choose their next president. How Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will manage Syria will depend much on Russia and its intentions. Certainly, given U.S. domestic interests and campaign promises, they will likely continue to focus on Islamic State. But, Russia has a wider goal of which Islamic State is but one component. Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian civil war, which intensified with the deployment of ground troops in September 2015, was as much a demonstration of the Kremlin’s desire to support the Syrian government as it was a strategic alliance between Russia and Iran. There was even talk of a Tehran-led ‘Shiite alliance’ emerging to challenge the Sunni bloc, made up by countries more dependent on Washington.

Still, Russia and Iran, remain distant from a full alliance. The recent Russian use of the Shahid Nojeh air base in Hamedan serves as an example. On August 16, The Islamic Republic granted the Russian Air Force permission to deploy its bomber planes to attack Syrian rebel positions. But, less than a week later, Iran revoked the permission. Russia and Iran now have many regional interests in common, particularly in Syria, but there are unresolved historical tensions, owing to Soviet incursions in Iranian territories after World War II. Moreover, Moscow does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia also fears that the comprehensive nuclear agreement might favor an eventual Tehran-Washington rapprochement. This would end up reducing Russia’s influence further.

As for Syria, Russia wants to ‘save’ its Syrian ally. It wants to show that it can deliver effective ‘protection’ to allies. Russia also sees the defeat of Sunni jihadism as a path to contain American influence in the Middle East. Syria is the crossroads for all three elements. Moscow wants to maintain a friendly government in Damascus, naval bases on the Mediterranean, and reaffirm its great power status. The Russians reject a Western-led regime change. That’s what they want to prevent, but that does not mean defending Assad’s political leadership at all costs.

Russia also has more pragmatic relations in the Middle East. If there’s any doubt about Moscow’s independent agenda in Syria – vis-à-vis Iran – consider that Tehran considers Israel an existential enemy; and the feeling is mutual. Yet, Moscow has secured even closer ties to Israel over the past few months – not to mention the fact that so many Israeli citizens were born in the Soviet Union. Moscow maintains relationships with Egypt, Turkey, and other Sunni states with which Iran is not always on good terms. Russia and Iran also compete in the oil and gas business, both are major hydrocarbon exporters. Both claim territories in the Caspian Sea region. Therefore, Russia enjoys its ties to Iran, while still being able to pursue relationships and opportunities with other countries in the region, regardless of ideological or geostrategic bent.

Therefore, in Syria, Russia is pursuing its own independent objectives. They can be summed up as three related goals. The main one is to defeat the Islamist militias like ISIS and keep them from spreading their influence to precarious Russian republics already on the edge of jihadist revolt, such as Chechnya. The map of the Middle East shows how close Russian borders are to Syria. Russia also wants to recover some of the former USSR’s regional prestige. The Soviet Union was a patron to Syria and Iraq (even when these countries were enemies in the not so distant 1980s and 90s). Finally, and in a related way, the Kremlin wants to regain international prestige.

Russians still feel the sting of humiliation at having suffered the virtual ‘defeat’ from the West, watching unwilling, and unable, to stem the democratic wave that broke the Iron Curtain in 1989-1990. There’s no bigger example of the sense of Russian humiliation than by the fact that many of those who experienced the collapse of the USSR dislike Mikhail Gorbachev. As Soviet president, he chose the path of least resistance before the demands of the people. Russians also find his successor, Boris Yeltsin, as having caved in too much to the United States. Vladimir Putin knows this. For the sake of his own power, but also out of some genuine patriotic instinct no-doubt instilled during his KGB days, he is playing the nationalist card.

He wants to restore Russia’s international prestige as do many Russians. Part of this involves opening up a wider market for Russian weapons. This also accounts for Putin’s pragmatism. Syria has offered a showcase for Russian missiles and airplanes. Russia has supplied Iran with the S-300 anti-aircraft systems needed to protect its nuclear facilities. In Syria, the Russians still think they can persuade Americans to accept their position and abandon their demand for Bashar al Assad to step down. Putin also thinks that they can continue to fight Islamic State with the United States, hoping it can persuade them that much of the so-called rebels are Islamists. Moscow is also pushing for a fast resolution to the Syrian civil war, because the Russians are convinced that Hillary Clinton will be a more formidable foe than Obama.

In a wider sphere, Moscow has supported China’s claims on the islands in the South China Sea. It has reconciled with Turkey, taking advantage of Ankara’s anger with the West, where there has been massive criticism of the attempted coup last July. Russia may be so ambitious as to want to pull Turkey away from NATO itself. Certainly, it seems that Turkey cares much less about its European Union membership ambitions now. Putin is using the coup as leverage to pull Turkey toward Asia and its emerging series of trade and diplomatic alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

In other words, Russia wants to regain its status as the equal of the United States, especially diplomatically. While Obama has disengaged from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Putin tries to organize a summit in the Kremlin between Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Therefore, Putin likes to intrude in the crises that Washington has either ignored or contributed to exacerbating. In Syria, many feel that the U.S. and its regional allies played a key role in worsening the civil war, financing Islamist rebels and by way of the disastrous Iraq adventure. Overall, then, by restoring Assad’s power throughout Syria – if possible – Moscow is using the Syrian civil war to destabilize NATO, playing on the rift between Turkey and the Atlantic Alliance. Then there are the various pipeline games moving oil and gas from the Middle East and the Caspian to the Mediterranean, Syria and Turkey are important outposts for exports to Europe.

Russia vetoes U.N. demand for end to bombing of Syria's Aleppo

​

By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS

UNITED NATIONS Russia vetoed a French-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution on Saturday that would have demanded an end to air strikes and military flights over Syria's city of Aleppo, while a rival Russian draft text failed to get a minimum nine votes in favor.

Moscow's text was effectively the French draft with Russian amendments. It removed the demand for an end to air strikes on Aleppo and put the focus back on a failed Sept. 9 U.S./Russia ceasefire deal, which was annexed to the draft.

British U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "Thanks to your actions today, Syrians will continue to lose their lives in Aleppo and beyond to Russian and Syrian bombing. Please stop now."

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, backed by Russian war planes and Iranian support, have been battling to capture eastern Aleppo, the rebel-held half of Syria's largest city, where more than 250,000 civilians are trapped.

"Russia has become one of the chief purveyors of terror in Aleppo, using tactics more commonly associated with thugs than governments," U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations David Pressman told the council.

He said Russia was "intent on allowing the killing to continue and, indeed, participating in carrying it out" and that what was needed from Moscow was "less talk and more action from them to stop the slaughter."

A U.N. resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes to be adopted. The veto powers are the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China. The Russian text only received four votes in favor, so a veto was not needed to block it.

The French draft received 11 votes in favor, while China and Angola abstained. Venezuela joined Russia in voting against it.

It was the fifth time Russia has used its veto on a U.N. resolution on Syria during the more than five-year conflict.

The previous four times China backed Moscow in protecting Syria's government from council action, including vetoing a bid to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. China voted in favor of Russia's draft on Saturday.

 

'STRANGE SPECTACLE'

China's U.N. Ambassador Liu Jieyi said some of the content of the French draft "does not reflect the full respect for the sovereignty, independence, unification and territorial integrity of Syria," while the content of the Russian draft did.

"We regret that the (Russian draft) resolution was not adopted," he told the council.

Russia only gained the support of China, Venezuela and Egypt for its draft resolution. Angola and Uruguay abstained, while the remaining nine council members voted against.

Churkin, who is council president for October, described the dual votes on Saturday as one of the "strangest spectacles in the history of the Security Council."

"Given that the crisis in Syria is at a critical stage, when it is particularly important that there be a coordination of the political efforts of the international community, this waste of time is inadmissible," Churkin told the council.

Syrian government forces recaptured territory from insurgents in several western areas on Saturday.

 

U.S. close to suspending Syria talks with Russia as Aleppo battle rages

• ​

By Arshad Mohammed and Tom Perry | WASHINGTON/BEIRUT

WASHINGTON/BEIRUT The United States is close to suspending talks with Russia on a ceasefire in Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday, as the Kremlin vowed to press on with an assault on the city of Aleppo.

Moscow and Damascus launched a campaign to recapture the rebel-held sector of Syria's biggest city this month, abandoning a ceasefire a week after it took effect to embark on what could be the biggest battle of a nearly six-year war.

Syrian government forces made a significant advance, capturing the Handarat refugee camp a few kilometers (miles) north of the city. They had briefly seized it on Saturday, before losing it again in a rebel counter attack.

Rebel fighters have launched an advance of their own near the central city of Hama, where they said they made gains on Thursday.

The United States and European Union accuse Russia of torpedoing diplomacy to pursue military victory in Aleppo, and say Moscow and Damascus are targeting civilians, hospitals and aid workers to break the will of 250,000 people living under siege in the city.

The United States called the assault on Aleppo by Syria and Russia "a gift" to Islamic State on Thursday, saying it was sowing doom and would generate more recruits for the militant group.

Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari rejected accusations that his government was killing civilians.

But U.S. officials are searching for a tougher response to Russia's decision to ignore the peace process and seek military victory on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad.

"We are on the verge of suspending the discussion because it is irrational in the context of the kind of bombing taking place to be sitting there trying to take things seriously," Kerry told a public policy conference in Washington.

"It is one of those moments where we are going to have to pursue other alternatives," he added.

Kerry spoke to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday, the U.S. State Department said but it did not announce a suspension of the diplomacy, suggesting Washington may give Moscow a little more time.

Recapturing Aleppo would be the biggest victory of the war for government forces, and a potential turning point in a conflict that until now most outside countries had said would never be won by force.

The multi-sided civil war has killed hundreds of thousands of people, made half the Syrian population homeless, and allowed much of the east of the country to fall into the hands of Islamic State jihadists who are enemies of all other sides.

 

EU CONDEMNS ALEPPO 'MASSACRE'

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini called the air strikes in Aleppo a "massacre" and said European governments were considering their response. Russia and the Syrian government say they are targeting only militants.

Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken told U.S. lawmakers President Barack Obama had asked staff to look at how Washington might respond.

"The president has asked all of the agencies to put forward options, some familiar, some new, that we are very actively reviewing," Blinken said, adding that officials would "work through these in the days ahead."

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, meanwhile, said Russia would "continue the operation of its air force in support of the anti-terrorist activity of Syria's armed forces".

Peskov said Washington was to blame for the fighting, by failing to meet an obligation to separate "moderate" rebel fighters from those he called terrorists.

"In general, we express regret at the rather non-constructive nature of the rhetoric voiced by Washington in the past days."

U.S. officials say they are considering tougher responses to the Russian-backed Syrian government assault, including military options, although they have described the range of possible responses as limited and say risky measures like air strikes on Syrian targets or sending U.S. jets to escort aid are unlikely.

Two U.S. officials said the speed with which the diplomatic track collapsed in Syria and pro-government forces advanced in Aleppo had caught some in the administration off guard.

Possible responses include allowing Gulf allies to supply rebels with more sophisticated weapons, or carrying out a U.S. air strike on a Syrian government air base, viewed as less likely because of the potential for causing Russian casualties, the officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

One of the officials said the list of options included supporting rebel counter-attacks elsewhere with additional weaponry or even air strikes, which "might not reverse the tide of battle, but might cause the Russians to stop and think".

 

BATTLE FOR ALEPPO

Aleppo has been divided into government and opposition sectors for four years, and its rebel zone is now the only major urban area still in the hands of anti-Assad fighters supported by the West and Arab states. The government laid siege to it in July, cutting off those trapped inside from food and medicine.

Russia and Iran: United in Syria Civil War, Divided in Peace

September 26, 2016

Alexis Amini

 

Despite cooperating closely in propping up Assad on the battlefield, both Iran and Russia disagree on the Syrian dictator’s fate in a post-war Syria. Indeed, whereas Tehran insists that Assad remains in office as part of a peace settlement, Moscow has shown flexibility on this question. This divergence is due to distinct visions of a peace agreement’s function, resulting from their competing geopolitical interests in the Levant.

Because Syria is such a strategic location, Iran views a peace settlement as a way to maintain influence short of waging war. Indeed, in its attempt to achieve regional hegemonic status, Syria acts as the most efficient and safest land supply route to Lebanese Hezbollah. Since a peace agreement would entail an ethnic/confessional power-sharing system prone to political paralysis, Iran will be able to maintain the Syrian land bridge to Lebanon through its wartime local proxies that aren’t constrained by a central authority. More specifically, Assad and his inner-circle constitute Iran’s most efficient conduit of influence in Syria.

Despite their constituting 13% of the Syrian population, Iran can’t rely on the greater Alawite community. As the National Interest reported, many powerful Alawite families who are rivals to Assad harbor anti-Iranian sentiments. Belonging to a heterodox Shia offshoot, they consider Iran’s Twelver Shiism as a backward vision of Islam that Tehran is trying to impose on them. Therefore, the Alawites only cooperate with Iran when they face an existential threat from the Sunni majority. However, if a peace agreement is signed guaranteeing the Alawites’ security in relation to the Sunni majority, the broader Alawite community will distance itself from Tehran.

Furthermore, Iran can’t solely rely on the Shia community like it does in Lebanon and Iraq. The Shia community in Syria only accounts for 2% of national population. Thus, since demographic weight determines political clout, the Shias won’t have the most important government and administrative posts within any post-war confessional/ethnic power-sharing system. Consequently, the small Shia group won’t be able to block any legislation made by the foreign-backed Sunni majority aimed at reducing Tehran’s influence in Syria.

As a result, Assad is Iran’s best option for maintaining influence in a post-war Syria. Indeed, in the context of political paralysis brought on by a confessional power-sharing system, Assad’s intact pre-war patronage system can coopt Sunni politicians into distancing themselves from their constituents and foreign backers. Moreover, over the course of the Syria civil war, he has gone from being an unruly ally to a puppet as a result of his increased reliance on Iran to guarantee his regime’s survival. This fact hasn’t been lost on the rival Alawite families who resent Assad’s subordination to Tehran. Thus, since Assad is wary of any overthrow attempt coming from within his community, he is willing to fully guarantee Iranian interests in exchange for Tehran’s protection against potential coups.

Consequently, Iran prefers a peace settlement with Assad remaining in office in post-war Syria. But Iran’s peace plan might be dashed by Russia, which has an agenda of its own.

Unlike Iran, the Kremlin sees a Syrian peace agreement as a way to gain leverage over the U.S. regarding more important issues pertaining to Russian national security, such as the Ukraine crisis and its associated economic sanctions. Indeed, as a regional power focused on reestablishing its influence in its Near Abroad, Russia doesn’t have any fundamental interests in the Middle East like Iran does.

Therefore, in the context of a new cold war with the West over Eastern Europe, Russia’s military intervention in Syria is primarily aimed at pressuring the U.S. into reconsidering its stance on the Ukraine crisis by complicating Washington’s efforts to achieve its geopolitical imperatives in the Middle East. Indeed, as a superpower, the U.S. has important geopolitical interests in the Middle East, unlike Russia. These include impeding Iran from becoming a regional hegemon as well as preventing jihadists from using failed states as safe havens. Therefore, by propping up Assad on the battlefield, Moscow is facilitating Iran’s bid for regional hegemony since Assad has become an Iranian puppet in the course of the Syria civil war. Moreover, direct Russian military support for Assad prolongs the war thus creating more jihadists within the opposition movement. However, contrary to Iran, Moscow considers the Syrian dictator as a bargaining chip in its greater struggle with the U.S. Thus, the Kremlin is willing to facilitate US policy aims in the Middle East by ditching Assad as part of a peace agreement, but only if Washington agrees to reconsider its stance on Ukraine and economic sanctions.

Since Russia is the regime’s prime interlocutor given its greater diplomatic clout, Iran – being the junior partner – is worried that Moscow will strike a peace agreement with the US-backed opposition entailing Assad’s exit from power. Therefore, it’s fair to say that the level of distrust between Iran and Russia is lower when hostilities continue unabated and no concrete peace initiative is underway. Indeed, in this situation, Russia sees no point in ditching Assad, who can’t be used as a bargaining chip since no talks are taking place. However, distrust between Tehran and Moscow is higher when a lull in the fighting occurs in parallel with a serious peace effort to bring the Syria civil war to an end.

​

ISIS launch surface-to-air missiles at RAF jets as Defence Secretary says the extremists are 'on the cusp' of being driven out of Iraq 

• The militants possess the capabilities to shoot down British planes

• Jets have had to defend themselves on multiple occassions in the last year

• They possess flares and evasive maneuvering to escape missiles 

•  Michael Fallon says last IS stronghold in Iraq is 'on the cusp' of being taken

By Larisa Brown Defence Correspondent For The Daily Mail At Raf Akrotiri In Cyprus

Published: 21:00 GMT, 23 September 2016 | Updated: 10:09 GMT, 24 September 2016

 

•  

 

British warplanes have come under attack from Islamic State forces on the ground, the RAF commander leading the fight revealed last night.

Militants have fired surface to air missiles at RAF jets dropping bombs over Syria and Iraq.

Alarmingly, Air Commodore Martin Sampson warned that the militants had the capability to shoot the planes down.

His comments came as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said the coalition were 'on the cusp' of taking IS's last major stronghold in Iraq and the militants could be pushed out in months.

•  

The Tornado GR4 jets and Typhoon fighter aircraft have been forced to defend themselves on multiple occasions over the past year

Speaking at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, two years after British jets were flown out to the base to join the air war, Air Cmdre Sampson said: 'When you put an enemy on the back foot and then squeeze them geographically they will find different ways to lash out.

'They try to shoot at our aeroplanes. When they do they expose themselves and invariably when they expose themselves we strike them.

'There have been many instances where the coalition has received surface to air fire. We have the ability to plot it with pinpoint precision and then we strike back.'

The Tornado GR4 jets and Typhoon fighter aircraft have been forced to defend themselves on multiple occasions over the past year, he said.

They have had to use flares to distract heat seeking missiles and evasive manoeuvring to escape from militants using shoulder-launched missiles and anti-aircraft artillery.

The revelation highlights the dangers to aircrew flying deadly missions over the war-ravaged region.

He said: 'Daesh have a whole bunch of capabilities.

 

Air Commodore Martin Sampson (pictured) warned that the militants had the capability to shoot the planes down

'They have anti-aircraft artillery, they have handheld surface to air missiles.

'We are aware of their capabilities and we've got tactics and equipment that means that we're as safe as we possibly can be.'

He said that in response they used a variety of equipment and tactics, adding: 'We're constantly thinking about how they could counter it.

'We understand the environment, this is what we do. We never assume that you can use air power in a benign environment.

'It's not always totally contested but there is always the possibility that the piece of air that you are flying through could be contested. It might be contested by a Daesh bullet or a Daesh missile.'

Asked if they had the capability to shoot the RAF warplanes down, he said: 'In theory yes, what I would say though is every time they do that they expose themselves.

'I think as the campaign changes they will try different tactics and certainly firing at coalition aircraft is a tactic which thus far has proved to be pretty fool hardy for those who are doing it.'

He said they had 'sporadically' tried to hit RAF jets over the past year, adding: 'It's not a tactic they deploy regularly. We anticipate that they will do whatever is necessary when they get desperate and they are pretty desperate at the moment.'

•  

Although coalition helicopters could have bullet holes in them, none of the fixed wing aircraft had been actually damaged (file image)

He said although coalition helicopters could have bullet holes in them, none of the fixed wing aircraft had been actually damaged.

Speaking from London, Lieutenant-General Mark Carleton-Smith, the deputy chief of the defence staff (operations), said: 'There have been reports of engagements, several I think of United Kingdom aircraft but to no material effect.

'The principle is that they detect the missile as it is launched.'

A Typhoon pilot added: 'We are aware of the threat. If I said we didn't think about it then I would be wrong.'

Meanwhile Sir Michael said IS could be driven out of Iraq in months, as he laid out plans to retake Mosul.

He said: 'We ought to be able to get Daesh out of Iraq over the next few months - the remaining months of this year and next year.'

Sir Michael, who has just returned from Iraq, said Iraqi government forces backed by the US-led coalition are 'on the cusp' of taking the last major stronghold in the country.

•  

Sir Michael Fallon said IS could be driven out of Iraq in months, as he laid out plans to retake Mosul (file image)

He said the operation to take the city of Mosul would begin 'in the next few weeks'. RAF personnel expect the mission to begin mid-October.

Two years after the RAF began military operations against IS - also referred to as Daesh - he said UK warplanes were stepping up attacks on the militants' positions ahead of the offensive.

He said: 'There is no doubt now that Daesh is facing defeat. Indeed we are on the cusp of liberating the last major city it holds in Iraq – Mosul.

'The RAF is now operating at the highest tempo in a single theatre for over 25 years.

'Though Mosul is a large and complex city, it will fall and will fall soon'.

Coalition defence ministers will meet next month to discuss how to deal with the estimated 8,000 foreign nationals fighting with IS - including around 400 UK nationals - some of whom are expected to try to return to Europe, he said.

'The partners in the coalition are very clear that their nationals who have gone off to fight and may have been involved in barbaric crimes should not be allowed to slip through the net without facing justice,' he added. 

 

'Having spoken to the commanders of the troops involved, their self-belief and determination is very clear. 

 

Lieutenant General Mark Carleton-Smith, the deputy chief of the defence staff (operations), said coalition air strikes were keeping up the pressure on IS, destroying 'close to a billion dollars' in IS's illegally held 'cash stockpile'.

'We are disrupting Daesh command and control with targeted strikes that are restricting their freedom of movement and their logistic resupply,' he said.

Sir Michael acknowledged that the fall of Mosul would not mean the end of IS in Iraq, but said that it should be possible to drive them out of the country within the coming months.

'There remain pockets of Daesh resistance. 

'However, we estimated at the beginning a three-year campaign. Two years on we have made significant progress. Daesh is a failing organisation,' he said.

'We ought to be able to get Daesh out of Iraq over the next few months - the remaining months of this year and next year.'  

Air Cmdr Sampson added: 'We will militarily defeat Daesh in Syria and Iraq. I'm confident of that.'