Syria's military command has declared the U.S-Russian brokered cease-fire over, blaming the country's rebel groups for undermining the agreement.

In a statement Monday, the Syrian military said that "armed terrorist groups" repeatedly violated the cease-fire which came into effect last week. It said the armed groups also took advantage of the truce to mobilize and arm themselves while attacking government-held areas. The statement said the rebels wasted a "real chance" to stop the bloodshed.

Activists and rebel groups also accuse the government of violating the cease-fire. The U.N. said the Syrian government has obstructed the delivery of aid, a key component of the deal.

This is a developing news update. AP's earlier story follows...

BEIRUT (AP) — Syria's week-long cease-fire, brokered by the United States and Russia, was in doubt Monday amid repeated violations and with no aid deliveries to the besieged rebel-held part of the northern city of Aleppo, a key point in the truce agreement.

The uncertainty cast doubts on a U.S.-Russian plan to set up a coordination center that would plan strikes against militants in the country.

The two sides, which brokered the truce earlier this month, had said that if it holds for seven days, it would be followed by the establishment of a Joint Implementation Center for both countries to coordinate the targeting of Islamic State and al-Qaida-linked militants.

As violations mount, a senior Syrian opposition official declared the cease-fire "clinically dead," adding that government forces have violated the truce all over the country.

For its part, the Syrian army, which endorsed the U.S.-Russia deal, had said in a statement that the cease-fire would end at midnight Sunday. There have been remarks from the Syrian military in Damascus that the truce might be extended by 72 hours.

A Syrian activist group said 92 people have been killed in Syria since the start of the cease-fire. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 29 children and teenagers were among those killed, as well as 17 women.

The figure does not include dozens of Syrian soldiers and Islamic State militants killed in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour, the Observatory said Monday.

On Sunday, rebel-held parts of Aleppo were targeted in aerial attacks for the first time since the truce went into effect, leaving a woman dead and several people wounded, according to opposition activists. A helicopter attack on the southern village of Dael killed at least eight people, activists said.

The opposition blamed government warplanes.

Also Monday, the opposition reported 254 violations by government forces and their allies since the truce started on Sept. 12. Syrian state media said there were 32 violations by rebels on Sunday alone.

George Sabra, of the opposition High Negotiations Committee, told The Associated Press that the truce has been repeatedly violated and did not succeed in its main objective — opening roads for aid to enter besieged rebel-held areas.

"Hundreds of thousands of people in Aleppo are waiting for this truce to allow aid to enter the city," he said, adding that there are aid trucks still waiting on the Turkey-Syria border. "I believe that the truce is clinically dead."

Meanwhile, Syrian state TV reported that government warplanes attacked positions of the Islamic State group in eastern Deir el-Zour province on Monday. The station said the airstrikes targeted IS positions in areas such as the Tharda Mountain, which overlooks the airport of the city of Deir el-Zour.

The areas hit are close to Syrian army positions that were targeted on Saturday by the U.S.-led coalition. Australian, British and Danish warplanes were involved in that attack on Syrian army positions.

Russia's military has said that it was told by the Syrian army that at least 62 Syrian soldiers were killed in the Deir el-Zour air raid and more than 100 wounded. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights gave a different death toll, saying 90 troops were killed in the strikes.

Syria and Russia blasted Washington over the attack.

Syria's Foreign Ministry said Sunday that "American" warplanes repeatedly attacked Syrian army positions the pervious afternoon. It said the airstrikes were "on purpose and planned in advance," and killed dozens of Syrian soldiers.

In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a new push by Turkish forces and Syrian rebels aimed at capturing a town held by the Islamic State group.

Erdogan said the Syrian opposition forces, backed by Turkish troops and tanks, are determined to advance toward al-Bab to clear the region of terror threats. The offensive, he said, will last until the area "is no longer a threat" to Turkey.

Last month, Turkey for the first time sent tanks across the border into Syria to help rebels clear territory of IS militants and to contain the expansion of a Syrian Kurdish militia.

Why ending Syria's bloody civil war is not as easy as it seems

With battles fought on so many fronts, talk of a Syrian ceasefire is hopeless until it is clear precisely who is fighting whom.

00:16, UK,Tuesday 13 September 2016

 With at least 11 million people displaced, close to half a million dead, the nation in tatters and a playground for apocalyptic death cults like so-called Islamic State, you'd think that sorting out a ceasefire in Syria would, after five years, be something of a no-brainer.

Well the death toll of over 100 from last weekend as the regime of Bashar al Assad and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies continued to slaughter rebels and the innocent in Aleppo, is a sure sign that you'd be wrong in making the assumption that just because the Syrian people must be exhausted by a half decade of war that the conflict will cease.

Not least because the Syrian people are enduring multiple conflicts raging about them - wars that they have no control over.

 

 President Assad Appears In Public For Eid Prayers

Take the Assad regime. It would have fallen last year had Russia and Iran not stepped in to save it. Damascus gets air power from Russia. It gets infantry muscle from the Lebanese Shi'a militia, Hezbollah, yet more from Iraq's Hezbollah and Shi'a militia from Afghanistan or press ganged from Iran. Oh, and Iran's got its own special forces units and other volunteers battling away on Assad's behalf.

Assad is fighting "rebels". Jaish al Fetah al Sham (JFS), the al Qaeda affiliate formerly known as the Nusra front, has proved the most effective force against Damascus.

:: Syria's Assad Prays In Captured Daraya Before Eid al Adha Ceasefire

It's also considered fair game by Russia, Assad, and the US-led coalition (more of that later).

The problem is that the JFS is closely linked to a huge number of other rebel groups of varying hues and religious affiliations all dedicated to ridding 

Some have been trained and backed by the CIA. Some have been backed by Islamist extremists in the Gulf States and may share al Qaeda-style ideology.

They are united, for now, only in their hatred of Assad.

So bombing the JFS, which both the US and Russia agree is a 'good idea', would prove catastrophic for the rebels who would inevitably die alongside them and who would therefore ignore a ceasefire that had not been applied to them.

The coalition is led by the US. It includes the UK, France, Australia and many other Western nations plus others from the Middle East - some of whom (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) are ruled by semi-theocratic monarchies who draw much of their legitimacy from an extreme conservative interpretation of Islam of the sort pursued by the extremists they are bombing in Syria.

Regional rivalries have meant that different Gulf states have backed rival rebel factions and the petro-Kings continue to use their gigantic wealth to buy long term influence from rebels and this has a meant of flood of weaponry into Syria.

The Turks, meanwhile, are part of the coalition fighting the so called Islamic Caliphate. But they're focused, above all, on making sure the Kurds don't manage to establish a homeland inside Syria.

The Kurds, notably the People Protection Force which dominates the Syrian democratic Forces, have proved the most effective fighters against the so-called Islamic State; providing the international coalition with infantry to exploit international air power.

The trouble is they're being attacked by the Turks right now.

So, talk of a ceasefire in Syria is noble of intent - but hopeless until the puzzle of who is fighting whom (let alone why) can be solved.

 cessation of hostilities has come into effect in Syria, although it is unclear how widely it will be observed.

The Syrian army says it is implementing the truce, which began at sunset, but rebel groups have been more guarded.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped broker the deal, warned it could be the last chance for peace in a united Syria.

Humanitarian groups are hoping to make aid deliveries to the worst-hit areas, especially the war-torn city of Aleppo.

Mr Kerry, speaking at the state department in Washington, said early reports indicated "some reduction in violence".

But he said that it was too early to draw a definitive conclusion about how effective the truce would be.

• What's left after five years of war?

• Syrian refugees living in fear as Lebanon tightens its laws

• Behind the scenes at the US-Russian talks in Geneva

• Syria conflict: How will the new truce work?

Just after the ceasefire came into effect at sunset on Monday, the Syrian army announced a seven-day "freeze" on military operations.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group reported that calm appeared to be prevailing on most front lines.

The deal was struck on Friday in Geneva after months of talks between Russia and the US. It also requires both sides to allow unhindered access for humanitarian aid to besieged areas.

Battle for key military base rages in Syria's Aleppo

Coalition of rebels claims capture of artillery academy in Ramosa quarter but government forces say attack repulsed.

06 Aug 2016 15:36 GMT

​

A coalition of armed anti-government groups, the Army of Conquest, has captured all of a strategically important military base in the northern city of Aleppo, Syrian rebels said.  

The opposition forces, who already control the countryside and areas southwest and east of Aleppo, said on Saturday that they now control the base in the Ramosa quarter in southwestern Aleppo.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based monitoring group, also said on Saturday that the same armed rebel coalition "took control of the armament school, where there is a large amount of ammunition, and a large part of the artillery school".

  Life among barrel bombs for Aleppo's children

However, Syrian state television disputed the claim, saying that government forces pushed the rebel fighters back, killing hundreds of them in the process.

Saturday's conflicting claims came a day after the  Army of Conquest said they had stormed the major army artillery base, and were fighting to take the other military academies adjoining it.

The artillery base is almost 2km from the besieged opposition area.

Aleppo mother: 'Nobody can help except God'

 

It has a huge supply of ammunition and is used regularly to shell parts of the city held by opposition forces.

"There are two suicide bombers who have driven into regime posts inside the artillery base," Abu al-Walid, a fighter with Ahrar al-Sham, told Reuters news agency on Friday, adding that there was fighting inside the base.

Hundreds of fighters clashed with government troops only a few hundred metres from each other in parts of the artillery base after breaking into government defences around the heavily fortified compound, the rebels said.

For its part, the Syrian army said the attack on the artillery base and two major military academies had been foiled, with hundreds of fighters killed and much of their armoured vehicles and tanks destroyed.

It said the assault was the biggest by rebels against government-held areas in the past few years.

"Today there was a large-scale attack by the terrorist armed groups and they used all types of weapons, but we are fighting this attack and will defeat them," Brigadier-General Deeb Bazi, the head of one of the military academies targeted, told Reuters.

OPINION: Syria's civil war is a post-factual conflict

Al Jazeera's Reza Sayah, reporting from Gaziantep, on the Turkish side of the Syria-Turkey border, said the fighting in Aleppo is described by many as "the decisive battle for Syria".

"The impression is that if the government manages to take over Aleppo, they will gain momentum and take away leverage from the rebels - there will no longer be an incentive to go on the negotiating table with the rebels," he said.

Rising death toll

Once Syria's economic powerhouse and the country's biggest city, Aleppo has been divided between government forces and rebels since the summer of 2012.

The government siege of opposition-held districts began on July 17 and has raised fears of a humanitarian crisis for some 300,000 people trapped in rebel-controlled areas.

 

Al Jazeera team's narrow escape in Aleppo air strike

According to the SOHR, at least 115 civilians, including 35 children, have been killed in the city since the fighters began an assault on Sunday to break through a strip of government-controlled territory in order to reconnect their area of control in western Syria with the encircled sector of eastern Aleppo.

The deaths include 65 people, among them 22 children, killed in opposition fire on government neighbourhoods, according to the SOHR, which gathers information from a network of activists in Syria.

Another 42 people, including 11 children, have been killed in strikes on eastern Aleppo.

It reported five more deaths in rebel fire on the Kurdish-majority Sheikh Maqsoud district of the city.

Battle in Manbij

In a separate development, a coalition of Arab and Kurd fighters trying to oust fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from Manbij took "almost complete control" of the key town south of the Turkish border on Saturday, according to the SOHR.

Backed by air strikes by the US-led coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) had launched its offensive to retake Manbij on May 31. 

"The Syrian Democratic Forces took control of Manbij on Saturday and are combing the city in search of the last remaining jihadists," the SOHR said.

The Manbij Military Council - a key component of the SDF - said fighting was still ongoing in the town.

"The battles are continuing near the centre of the town. We are in control of 90 percent of Manbij," said spokesman Sherfan Darwish.

The town in Aleppo province had served as a key transit point along the supply route of ISIL, also known as ISIS, from the Turkish border to Raqqa, the de facto capital of its self-styled "caliphate".

The Syrian conflict began as a mostly unarmed uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in March 2011.

However, it quickly escalated into a full-blown civil war, with more than 280,000 people now estimated to have been killed in fighting between the government, the opposition and other armed groups.

Washington Moves to Outsmart Moscow in Syria

August 30, 2016

Jasmin Ademovic

 

The recent rapprochement and normalising of relations between Ankara and Moscow was supposed to put to bed the difficulties and strains in the relationship after the November 2015 downing of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M jet by a Turkish F-16. The recent coup attempt, the ever present ISIS attacks on Turkish soil, the impact of Syrian refugees and the ongoing difficulties with the Kurds, both PKK and YPG in Syria, had necessitated a recalibration.

The apology and placing of blame on the now Gulen-linked F-16 pilot was supposed to benefit both Russia and Turkey, allowing them to move forward. For Putin it was one less distraction and difficulty, better securing his navy’s position and its ability to enter and exit the Black Sea via the Bosporus Straits. Turkey would now have closer relations, having shifted somewhat from the US and NATO in response to their lukewarm support during the coup (and widespread belief that the U.S. at least had foreknowledge of the coup).

Erdogan’s St Petersburg visit would also bring news of the revival of the previously scrapped Turkish Stream project, bringing a direct gas pipeline from Russia’s Black Sea region via the Black Sea to Turkey before entering Greece. Both sides would benefit financially and guarantee the strategic development of economic and energy security. Moreover, the increase in the ultra-nationalist presence under the AKP umbrella and centres of power, particularly in the military, taking the spaces left behind by the purges of Gulenists is likely to lead to an increase in pro-Russian sentiment, while the anti-Kurd stance continues. The re-emergence of conservative and nationalist Kemalist elements is directly contrasted to the decline of Gulen loyalists. A greater degree of separation from Washington was, and to a degree still is, on the cards.

However, the news that Turkish tanks and Ankara backed rebel forces entered Jarablus in order to clear ISIS from the border region and claim land for the rebels is a net gain for Washington, as much as it is for Turkish objectives. If successful, the strategy will further protect the Turkish border, strengthen Ankara backed rebels in the war for Aleppo and reduces the chances of further ISIS attacks in Turkey.

An expansion in Turkey’s role in Syria, of course, increases the risk of direct conflict with Russia, likely through a repeat of the November 2015 scenario, but it also highlights the zero sum game that Ankara and Moscow are playing in Syria.

While both now share similar objectives regarding ISIS, which explains the Lavrov — Kerry talks in Geneva and potential for agreement on the issue, their other objectives remain in juxtaposition. Turkey wishes to see the fall of Assad and control of Syria by a Sunni Muslim majority that will side with Turkey going forward. Russia uses its Syrian bombing campaign to prop up Assad in order to maintain its naval base at Tartus and guarantee Iran’s links and dependence on Russia. It would also like to avoid the U.S. and Turkey expanding their presence in the region, strengthening positions on Russia’s southern flank. The loss of Tartus would make Russia’s access to the Black Sea more precarious, reliant upon good relations with Turkey. Its boldest foreign policy steps from the Georgian war to the Ukrainian war and Crimean annexation have centred on the Black Sea. Russia’s recent naval expansion and control of Sevastopol has extended its power projection within the Black Sea, in direct opposition to the other major power: Turkey.

Of course, the key to the incursion are the Kurds. While Erdogan maintains and strengthens relations with the Iraqi Kurdish region, Turkey desperately wants to finish off the PKK and ensure an end to Turkish Kurd secessionist hopes. The success of the YPG in the Syrian conflict raises the possibility that a post-war autonomous Kurdish region within Syria could be established unilaterally or through negotiated settlement. Turkey would see such an outcome as an inevitable precursor to the formation of an independent Kurdistan. By driving ISIS out of the border region and forcing a Kurdish withdrawal east of the Euphrates Turkey would achieve its double objective of helping its Syrian rebel allies and stopping further Kurdish dominion over the border, thus securing its southern flank.

The fact that the Americans are providing air support and instructing the Kurds to fall back suggests they are attempting to mend relations with Ankara after the post-coup attempt recriminations and Turkey’s Russia recalibration. Turkey is unlikely to have entered Syria the way it did without significant planning and agreement from Washington.

The U.S. won’t extradite Fethullah Gulen, but they will use their influence over the Kurds to give Turkey a win. With a retreat of the YPG in Syria, in the medium term, Turkey would have more breathing room in southeast Turkey in its engagement with the PKK, even though PKK attacks in Turkey’s Kurdish regions will continue to increase in scope and intensity.

The move also indicates that Washington understands the importance of Syria and Turkey’s difficulties with the Kurds. While the U.S. has generally utilised the Kurds as a regional agent, exploiting their aspirations vis-a-vis Kurdistan, their interests will be disregarded if they conflict with more important short and medium-term objectives. The U.S. places more value in its relationship with Turkey than it does the Kurds.

In addition, the Americans are also attempting to undo the progress in the Russia-Turkey relationship after Erdogan’s St. Petersburg visit. The Turkish incursion heightens the tensions, guaranteeing a somewhat strained relationship between the two former imperial powers. In the short term, it keeps Turkey away from the Russian camp, unless the strategy involves Turkey siding with Assad’s forces to fight the Syrian Kurds.

However, the news that Turkish and rebel forces have engaged with the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces in Jarablus and Manbij, a town 38km further south, is not a positive development for Turkey or the situation as a whole.

While the U.S. will need to use its influence to ensure a Kurdish withdrawal if it wants to help Turkey, the longer this initial incursion lasts the more dangerous the potential blow-back for Ankara. The Kurds may decide to push forward with their objective of linking the Kurdish controlled zone east of the Euphrates to the isolated pocket in north-west Syria around Afrin. The Kurds may decide to call John Kerry’s bluff with regard to his threat of ending US support if they do not fall back. The United States still needs Kurdish forces in Syria.

There is also the possibility the 150 km distance between Manbij and Afrin is too much even for the SDF and YPG. At worst, fighting will continue either until Turkey expands its bombing campaign or until the United States applies enough pressure.

This development, combined with Iran’s withdrawal of Russia’s Hamadan airbase access, has the potential to increase tensions in Ukraine. While Putin would be unwilling to fight two wars simultaneously, he might consider a short term scale-back of operations in Syria so that Turkey can achieve its anti-Kurd objectives, combined with an escalation in Ukraine. John Kerry’s talks in Geneva with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and a potential cease fire indicates that both sides are aware of a potential escalation and are therefore attempting to reach a consensus to de-escalate and/or solidify positions. Such a move would reduce the risk of Russia coming into direct contact with the US and Turkey, while Putin could use his Ukraine strategy as a way of regaining the initiative in the run up to September’s Duma elections and the upcoming talks over Ukraine.

Fighting Escalates on Turkey-Syria Border, Endangering U.S. Forces

Tensions rise after the death of the first Turkish soldier along the newest battlefront of the Syrian war

 

ENLARGE

Turkish tanks return from Syria to Turkey after a military operation at the Syrian border as part of their offensive against the Islamic State. Photo: European Pressphoto Agency

ByMargaret Coker

​

ISTANBUL—The death of a Turkish soldier in the newest battlefront of the Syrian war is stoking tensions between two U.S. allies, Turkey’s military and Syrian Kurdish rebels, heightening the risk to U.S. forces in the area and their common fight against Islamic State.

Syrian monitoring groups said that at least 70 people were killed over the weekend, mostly civilians, in the Turkish operations. The Turkish military said they killed at least 25 “terrorists,” and didn’t comment on the reported civilian deaths, except to say that commanders are taking all necessary measures to protect noncombatants. It wasn’t possible to independently verify the Syrian casualty figures or the identities of those killed.

​

Turkey’s military struck deeper into Syria with airstrikes and artillery strikes on Sunday after the Turkish soldier died and three others were wounded on Saturday when their tank unit came under attack by Kurdish rebels, known as the YPG.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

 

There was no comment from U.S. officials about the escalation of fighting between the two sides—both of which are U.S. allies. It was unclear what role, if any, the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State, of which Turkey is a member, had in the air campaign over the weekend.

The clashes underscore the complexity of the coalition’s campaign to reverse Islamic State’s territorial hold in Syria. American special operations forces are embedded with the YPG and earlier this month helped them oust Islamic State from the town of Manbij, less than 20 miles from Saturday’s hostilities. In general, those U.S. special operations forces have close contact with their Turkish counterparts, and they rely on Turkey for their rear supply lines, according to people familiar with the situation.

The U.S. also supports the Turkish-led campaign launched last week with Syrian Arab fighters who are rivals of the YPG. The initial goal of the operation was to clear Jarablus, along the Syria-Turkey border, of Islamic State positions and mop up any fighters that escaped Manbij, which is approximately 20 miles further south.

Turkish officials have said the timing of the offensive, known as Operation Euphrates Shield, was related to the YPG’s broken promise given to the Americans and Turks that its units would withdraw from Manbij once it was liberated from Islamic State and allow local Arab-majority inhabitants to control the area. Instead of retreating to the east side of the Euphrates River outside Manbij, the YPG in recent weeks has moved to expand westward, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.

Turkey considers the YPG to be a terrorist group and has a declared national security objective to prevent the YPG from linking up its disparate territorial holdings in Syria into a larger autonomous region. Turkey sees the YPG as an armed affiliate of a domestic Kurdish militant group known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has been fighting Turkish security forces for decades with the aim of achieving its own autonomous state.

With Invasion of Syria, Erdogan Shows His New Power Over Turkey’s Militaryn recent years, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordered plans drawn up for a Turkish military incursion into Syria. At every turn, though, military commanders, already fighting a war inside Turkey against Kurdish militants, pushed back.

And then last month a rebel faction of the military tried to stage a coup, and that changed everything.

In the aftermath of the coup, which failed but claimed more than 200 lives, Mr. Erdogan purged thousands of officers from the ranks, leaving the military seemingly depleted. It also provoked worry from Western allies, including the United States, that Turkey would either be unwilling or unable to be a reliable partner in the fight against the Islamic State.

Instead, the opposite happened on Wednesday, as Mr. Erdogan ordered Turkish tanks and special forces soldiers into Syria, under cover of American and Turkish warplanes, to assist Syrian rebels in seizing the city of Jarabulus, one of the last border strongholds of the Islamic State.

More Turkish tanks rumbled into northern Syria on Thursday to support rebels there, and the Turkish military seemed to be succeeding in clearing the border area of Islamic State militants, and preventing Kurdish militias from seizing more territory in the region — a primary goal of Turkey in the campaign.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The operation, coming so soon after the failed coup, has highlighted how Mr. Erdogan, even after the purge, secured more operational control of the military. It allowed him to undertake Turkey’s most ambitious role yet in the long Syrian civil war and to bolster the flagging fortunes of rebel groups, of which Turkey has been one of the most consistent supporters.

Other factors holding back Turkey’s ambitions in Syria were also recently resolved. A feud with Russia, which began last year after Turkey shot down a Russian warplane near the border, ended after Mr. Erdogan expressed regret for the episode. After Ankara’s relations with Moscow deteriorated, a Turkish incursion into Syria could have risked war with Russia, which has been bombing rebels in support of the Syrian government. And the United States, which had previously been opposed to Turkey’s intervention, agreed to support it.

Continue reading the main story

  The operation also buoyed the hopes of armed opposition groups that are not affiliated with the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, whose fighters and supporters have been dejected for months over losses in northern Syria that their foreign backers did little to prevent, and a fear that the United States and Turkey were preparing to abandon them to pursue of a broader deal with the Russians.

Photo

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Credit Kayhan Ozer/Presidential Palace

A senior Turkish official, who spoke anonymously as a matter of protocol, said that many commanders had resisted an operation in Syria in recent years.

Many analysts who closely follow the Turkish military have said the same thing. One of the most prominent commanders opposed to a Syria operation, the official said, was the former head of the Turkish special forces, Brig. Gen. Semih Terzi, who was one of the most prominent plotters and was killed during the coup attempt.

The invasion seemed to support the opinion of many experts that the Turkish military’s combat capabilities had not been substantially diminished. “This is the second largest military in NATO,” said Ross Wilson, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington and ambassador to Turkey from 2005 to 2008. “Yes, it’s been somewhat reduced in the last month, but it is still a very potent and well-trained fighting force. They are very capable in their own region.”

On Thursday, an estimated 350 Turkish soldiers were in Syria taking part in the operation, called Euphrates Shield, including 150 members of the special forces, the local media reported. Two Syrian rebels interviewed in Karkamis, which lies just across the border from Jarabulus, said that Turkish soldiers were mainly helping to defuse and dismantle the numerous bombs and booby-traps that the Islamic State, which fled the city without much of a fight, had left behind. Witnesses reported loud explosions, followed by plumes of smoke, coming from Jarabulus on Thursday afternoon.

The question now, with the Turkish troops inside Syria, is how long they will remain there. Turkish officials have not given a timetable, but have indicated that the army would stay as long as it takes to neutralize security threats to Turkey — defined as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and Syrian Kurdish militias.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who arrived in Ankara, the capital, on Wednesday just as the operation began, seemed to suggest on Thursday that the Turkish military would stay in northern Syria indefinitely, and with the blessing of the United States.

“I think the Turks are prepared to stay in an effort to take out ISIL as long as takes,” Mr. Biden said during a visit to Sweden, according to Reuters. He added that the Turks have gradually come to “the realization that ISIL is an existential threat to Turkey.”

Some analysts said that Turkish forces, wary of being perceived as occupiers, would likely clear a swath of territory west of the Euphrates River, perhaps several miles inside Syria, and then eventually turn day-to-day operations in that area over to Syrian rebels backed by Turkish special operations troops and trusted local Turkmen militia forces.

Syrie: quels sont les objectifs de l'opération turque «Bouclier de l'Euphrate»?

Par Daniel Vallot

Publié le 25-08-2016 Modifié le 25-08-2016 à 17:38

Blindé turc manoeuvrant dans la poussière à la frontière turco-syrienne, le 25 août 2016.REUTERS/Umit Bektas

L'offensive turque se poursuit à la frontière avec la Syrie. Au lendemain d’une offensive éclair qui a permis de chasser l’organisation de l’Etat islamique (EI) de la ville frontalière de Jarablos, la Turquie a envoyé un nouveau convoi de blindés en territoire syrien ce jeudi 25 août. L’organisation jihadiste est la première cible de l’opération « Bouclier de l’Euphrate », la plus importante pour Ankara depuis que le conflit syrien a éclaté en 2011. Mais la Turquie a également pour ambition de réduire le territoire conquis dans le nord de la Syrie par les Unités de protection du peuple (YPG), les combattants du Kurdistan syrien.

C'est un objectif explicite de l’intervention turque en Syrie, et pour certains observateurs c’est même le principal motif de l’opération « Bouclier de l’Euphrate » : contenir l’avancée vers l’ouest des combattants kurdes des Unités de protection du peuple (YPG), considérés comme des « terroristes » par la Turquie au même titre que leurs cousins kurdes du PKK.

L’élément déclencheur a sans doute été la prise de Manbij, au début du mois d’août. Manbij est en effet située à l’ouest de l’Euphrate, et la Turquie a toujours considéré le fleuve comme une ligne rouge à ne pas franchir par les combattants kurdes. En s’emparant de cette position, les YPG avaient en outre la possibilité de prendre en tenaille la ville frontalière de Jarablos, deprogresser le long de la frontière et de concrétiser encore davantage leur ambition de créer un territoire homogène, de Kamechliyé dans le Nord-Est au canton d’Afrin dans le Nord-Ouest. La prise de Jarablos par des combattants syriens affiliés à l’Armée syrienne libre permet donc à Ankara de mettre un coup d’arrêt à cette avancée kurde et d’écarter le spectre d’un territoire kurde unifié au sud de la Turquie, territoire qui serait contrôlé, facteur aggravant, par les YPG.

L'opération permet également à la Turquie d’accroître la pression sur les combattants kurdes pour que ces derniers se retirent de la région de Minbej et pour qu’ils franchissent de nouveau l’Euphrate, pour se cantonner sur la rive orientale du fleuve. La menace est désormais explicite : « la Turquie a tous les droits d’intervenir » a déclaré Fikri Isik, ministre turc de la Défense, si les Kurdes refusent de se retirer.

Pressions américaines

Pour l’instant, rien ne semble cependant indiquer que les YPG soient disposés à céder à la pression exercée par la Turquie. Selon des sources officielles américaines, les combattants kurdes auraient entamé leur retrait à l’est de l’Euphrate, conformément au souhait de la Turquie, mais l’Observatoire syrien des droits de l’homme (OSDH), qui dispose d’un vaste réseau d’informateurs sur le terrain, ne constate qu’un retrait partiel, le gros des forces étant resté à l’ouest du fleuve. « Les YPG sont des Syriens et de ce fait les Turcs ne peuvent pas imposer des restrictions aux mouvements des Syriens sur leur terre », a en outre déclaré, interrogé par l’Agence France-Presse, le porte-parole des YPG, Redur Xelil.

Même s’ils rechignent à obtempérer, et à se retirer de positions chèrement conquises face à l'organisation EI, les YPG vont devoir cependant tenir compte des pressions exercées par les Etats-Unis, devenus l’un de leurs principaux alliés depuis 2014 et la bataille de Kobané. Confrontés à la colère de la Turquie devant l’avancée kurde en Syrie, et à la dégradation de leurs relations avec Ankara depuis le coup d’Etat manqué du 15 juillet dernier, les dirigeants américains ont choisi, en effet, de demander à leur tour aux YPG de ne plus avancer vers l’ouest de la Syrie. Or, les YPG ont grandement bénéficié du soutien américain et ils devront opérer un arbitrage douloureux entre leurs ambitions territoriales et la nécessité de conserver cet appui crucial.

Les combattants kurdes pourraient contourner le problème en mettant en avant les quelques unités non kurdes qui composent les Forces démocratiques syriennes (FDS), une coalition de groupes armés qu’ils dominent largement. Mais ils pourraient également renoncer à l’offensive planifiée sur la ville d’al-Bab, située à l’ouest de Manbij et toujours aux mains du groupe EI. En intervenant directement dans le conflit syrien, pour la première fois depuis le début de la guerre civile, la Turquie va sans doute réussir à interrompre l’expansion territoriale des combattants kurdes dans le nord du pays. Mais elle risque également de compliquer la tâche de la coalition créée par les Etats-Unis pour lutter contre le groupe EI – dont le fer-de-lance était justement composé des combattants kurdes des YPG.

 

Russian ministry of defense announced that the bombardiers will atack ISIS from Iran

Le ministère russe de la Défense a annoncé que des bombardiers Tu-22M3 et Su-34 avaient décollé de la base militaire de Hamedan, dans le nord-ouest de l'Iran, pour frapper en Syrie des positions du groupe Etat islamique (EI) et du Front Fateh al-Cham.

Avec notre correspondant à Téhéran, Siavosh Ghazi

C'est un développement majeur dans la coopération entre l'Iran et la Russie à propos de la Syrie. En effet, c'est la première fois que la Russie utilise une base militaire en Iran pour ses bombardiers qui interviennent en Syrie.

La Russie et l'Iran sont les deux grands alliés du régime syrien de Bachar el-Assad. Ils soutiennent politiquement, financièrement et militairement Damas contre les groupes rebelles et les jihadistes.

L'utilisation de cette base dans la région de Hamedan, située au nord-ouest de l'Iran, réduit considérablement la distance pour les avions russes et augmente leur capacité de manœuvre et de frappe.

« Opérations élargies »

L'Iran a indirectement confirmé cette information. « La coopération entre l'Iran et la Russie pour lutter contre le terrorisme en Syrie est une coopération stratégique et les deux pays échangent leurs moyens et leurs capacités dans ce domaine », a déclaré Ali Shamkhani, secrétaire du Conseil suprême de la sécurité nationale.

Ali Shamkhani, qui est en chargé de la coordination entre l'Iran, la Syrie et la Russie, a annoncé le début d'une nouvelle phase avec des « opérations élargies » pour « détruire totalement » les groupes armés en Syrie.

 

Ces dernières semaines, l'armée du régime syrien a intensifié son siège à Alep. Dimanche dernier, des groupes armés rebelles ont lancé une contre-offensive, sans succès pour l'instant.

Selon l'Observatoire syrien des droits de l'homme (OSDH), les groupes de la rébellion ont perdu ces dernières heures une partie du terrain conquis depuis le début de leur contre-offensive dimanche. Dans la nuit, au moins 10 civils, dont quatre enfants, ont péri dans un pilonnage rebelle sur des quartiers prorégime à Alep, selon l'OSDH. Depuis dimanche, plus de 40 civils y sont morts.

L'objectif premier de l'assaut était de s'emparer du quartier gouvernemental de Ramoussa, dans le sud-ouest d'Alep, dont le contrôle permettrait aux rebelles d'ouvrir un axe de ravitaillement vers leurs quartiers est. Le ravitaillement de l'armée et des civils dans la partie ouest d'Alep transite par ce même quartier.

Chez les insurgés, plusieurs groupes armés sont engagés dans la bataille, notamment le Front Fatah al-Cham, ex-Front al-Nosra, qui s'est séparé récemment d'al-Qaïda. Du côté du régime, les troupes gouvernementales sont appuyées par l'aviation russe et au sol par des forces iraniennes et des combattants du Hezbollah libanais. L'Iran est le principal allié régional du régime et a envoyé des conseillers militaires et des officiers soutenir ses forces.

La reconquête d'Alep : un tournant

L'enjeu est considérable : la reconquête d'Alep par le régime de Bachar el-Assad et ses alliés constituerait un tournant dans ce conflit. La semaine dernière, Damas et Moscou ont proposé d'ouvrir des « couloirs humanitaires » pour l'évacuation des civils vivant dans les quartiers rebelles de la ville, totalement assiégés depuis le 17 juillet.

Cette proposition a été dénoncée ce mercredi par 39 ONG syriennes et internationales pour qui « une vraie opération humanitaire ne devrait pas contraindre la population d’Alep à choisir entre fuir vers ses assaillants ou rester dans une zone assiégée sous des bombardements continus ».

Le régime a assuré que des « dizaines de familles » étaient sorties, mais l'opposition a démenti, à la suite de l'annonce de cette ouverture la semaine dernière. Quelque 250 000 habitants sont bloqués dans les quartiers rebelles et manquent de tout.

 

BEIRUT — A series of airstrikes hit a hospital and nearby buildings in the rebel-held part of Syria's contested city of Aleppo overnight, killing at least 20 people — including two doctors and three children — as the U.N. envoy for Syria appealed early Thursday on the U.S. and Russia to help revive the Syrian peace talks and a cease-fire he said "hangs by a thread."The chief Syrian opposition negotiator Mohammed Alloush blamed the government of President Bashar Assad for the deadly airstrikes on Aleppo. He told The Associated Press that the latest violence by government forces shows "the environment is not conducive to any political action."The strikes hit shortly before midnight Wednesday, according to opposition activists and rescue workers. They struck a well-known field hospital in the rebel-held district of al-Sukkari in Aleppo. The dead included one of the few pediatricians remaining in the city's opposition-held areas and a dentist, activists said.The head of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 20 were killed, including three children, and that the hospital was completely destroyed.Suggested from Windows Store Nextgen ReaderA faster way to access your news (4,884 Reviews)A fast, clean and powerful RSS news reader for Windows (universal app). Login/purchase once and run on multiple…Get the app The Syrian Civil Defense, a volunteer first-responders agency, whose members went to the scene of the attack, said the al-Quds hospital and adjacent buildings were struck in four consecutive airstrikes. The agency, also known as the White Helmets, gave a slightly higher toll, saying 22 were killed. It said there were still victims buried under the rubble and that the rescue work continued.Among those killed were three of the hospital's medical staff, they said.Alloush, who was one of the leading negotiators of the opposition in the Geneva talks, described the airstrikes as one of the latest "war crimes" of Assad's government."Whoever carries out these massacres needs a war tribunal and a court of justice to be tried for his crimes. He does not need a negotiating table," Alloush told the AP in a telephone interview. "Now, the environment is not conducive for any political action."The February 27 cease-fire has been fraying in the past weeks as casualty figures from violence mount, particularly in Aleppo and across northern Syria. Airstrikes earlier this week also targeted a training center for the Syrian Civil Defense, leaving five of its team dead in rural Aleppo.Since April 19, nearly 200 people have died, including at least 44 in an airstrike on a market place in rebel-held area in northern Idlib province, as well as dozens of civilians in government-held areas from rebel shelling.The U.N. envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, briefed the U.N. Security Council via videoconference about the largely stalled indirect talks between the Western- and Saudi-backed opposition and envoys from Assad's government, which has the backing of Moscow.He said that after 60 days, the cessation of hostilities agreed to by both sides "hangs by a thread.""I really fear that the erosion of the cessation is unraveling the fragile consensus around a political solution, carefully built over the last year," de Mistura said in his council briefing obtained by The Associated Press. "Now I see parties reverting to the language of a military solution or military option. We must ensure that they do not see that as a solution or an option."The talks foundered last week after the main opposition group, called the High Negotiating Committee, suspended its formal participation in the indirect talks with Assad's envoys to protest alleged government cease-fire violations, a drop in humanitarian aid deliveries and no progress in winning the release of detainees in Syria.

 

Syria Numerous sightings of weaponry that until recently was rarely seen among Syria's rebels suggest that someone has begun funneling them a new batch of air defense equipment. The use of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), specifically of the Chinese-made FN-6 variety, had previously been documented on the Syrian battlefield. In fact, shipments of the FN-6 were known to have been made to the rebels in early 2013. However, as the United States has sought to coordinate its efforts in Syria with the rebels' regional backers, it has been successful in persuading its allies to halt the supply and distribution of MANPADS in favor of less problematic systems instead. It is unclear whether the newest batch of MANPADS was sent with Washington's approval or in spite of its opposition. But either way, it portends greater flows of weaponry into Syria as cease-fires collapse and peace talks stall. In the wrong hands, the easily portable MANPADS could be used to attack civilian airliners or allied aircraft. This, coupled with the rise of the Islamic State and other jihadist factions in Syria, has long convinced the United States that the supply of MANPADS to the Syrian battlefield is too dangerous as a strategy. Once Washington agreed to set up a CIA-led support program for the rebels, it gained enough leverage with its regional allies to stem the flow of MANPADS. But coordination between the United States and its allies has not been seamless. The rebels' biggest regional backers — the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Turkey — have not been pleased with the United States' hesitant response to Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict. The rebels' supporters have urged the United States to reconsider its ban on MANPADS to bolster rebel defenses against the loyalist forces' improved air support. However, Washington has not budged on the issue, though it has pledged to enhance its program to supply and equip rebel troops, in the event that diplomatic measures fail. In truth, MANPADS would do little to counter Russian air power because they lack the range to effectively target Moscow's fixed-wing aircraft. That said, the weapons systems would be more useful against the lower-flying aircraft of the Syrian air force. Some evidence suggests that rebel MANPADS have brought down two Syrian warplanes within the past month. Moreover, the Russians are beginning to rely more heavily on attack helicopters, which, with their lower flight ceilings, are inherently more vulnerable to MANPADS than the Su-24 and Su-34 bombers. It is possible that Washington, under mounting pressure from its allies as negotiations yield few results, has altered its strategy and tacitly agreed to the shipment. However, it is far more likely that the MANPADS delivery occurred without U.S. approval. If so, the incident would strongly suggest that coordination among the rebels' backers is weakening. That could spur Washington to move forward with its much-touted "Plan B" of providing more help to the rebels in order to regain its clout within the coalition. That would include the delivery of longer-range indirect fire systems, especially rocket artillery, to counter loyalist artillery. It would also feature the provision of some anti-aircraft weaponry, likely of a bulkier and more traceable size than the low-profile MANPADS. Details aside, the introduction of more weapons on both sides of the conflict bodes ill for Syria, as military mobilization replaces the negotiations that have failed to deliver peace.

DAMASCUS, Syria — Air strikes and shelling pounded Aleppo for the third straight day Sunday, killing two young siblings and at least 24 others in Syria's largest city and former commercial capital.The northern city has been bitterly contested between insurgents and government forces since 2012. Opposition groups control the eastern part of the city but have come under intense strain as the government has choked off all routes to the area except a narrow and perilous passage to the northwest.At least 10 people were killed by rebel shelling on government-held areas in the city, according to activists and Syria's state news agency, SANA. Rockets struck schools and residential areas, SANA reported. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said two young siblings were among the dead.Air strikes on the opposition side of the city killed 16, including a mother and her daughter, the Observatory said.Suggested from Windows Store News360More than 30,000 sources (532 Reviews)News360 gathers news articles and blog posts around the web and, by learning what you enjoy, brings you content that…Get the app A video posted on social media by the Syrian Civil Defense first responder group, known as the White Helmets and which operates in opposition-held areas, suggests some of the strikes hit a market in the neighborhood of Sakhour, with footage showing overturned vegetable carts strewed among the wreckage.The opposition High Negotiations Committee, which suspended its formal participation in peace talks with the government in Geneva last week, called the strikes "an attack on the Geneva process that is the only possible pathway to peace."Salem Meslet, HNC spokesman, called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to hold its Damascus allies to the terms of a U.S. and Russia-brokered cease-fire that parties signed onto nearly two months ago."The key to ending these attacks, and to making progress in the talks, lies in Moscow," said Meslet.The cease-fire is still technically in place, but may have completely unraveled on the ground — with violence returning to most of the contested areas of the country. The U.N.'s Special Envoy to Syria last week called on the two superpowers to salvage the truce before it totally collapses.The Aleppo Conquest rebel coalition on Saturday threatened to dissolve the truce if pro-government forces continued to strike civilians in opposition areas.The al-Qaida branch in Syria, the Nusra Front, and its more powerful rival, the Islamic State group, are not included in the cease-fire. The Nusra Front is deeply rooted in the areas in northern Syria controlled by opposition forces, complicating the oversight of the truce.U.N.-mediated talks in Geneva have also been bogged down by the violence, with the Saudi-backed opposition delegation suspending its formal participation last week. The government delegation is nonetheless set to meet with U.N. envoy Staffan De Mistura Monday.Opposition groups have said reports of a new government offensive on the opposition-held side of Aleppo would wreck the peace talks.

March 14 2016

Even As Russians Withdraw, Their Legacy in Syria Remains

As the departure of Russian forces from Syria announced March 14 continues, evidence of construction at Russia's main air base in the country demonstrates Moscow’s intention to maintain a military presence there. Imagery dated March 17 acquired by Stratfor of the Bassel al Assad air base in Latakia province and the naval base at Tartus highlights the ongoing Russian drawdown of its forces in Syria that Moscow contends will be largely completed by March 20.The imagery shows that as of noon local time March 17, more than a quarter of the Russian air group at Bassel al Assad air base had departed Syria. Three Su-34 combat aircraft and a Tu-154 transport plane were the first to leave March 15, followed a day later by all 12 Su-25 ground attack aircraft and a number of Il-76 transport planes. The transport planes carried the mechanics, aircrew and equipment that serviced the combat aircraft. The Russians have indicated that a number of Su-24 aircraft departed March 17, but the imagery indicates that the Su-24 group was still largely in place. It is possible that those Su-24s departed after the imagery was taken.The imagery not only shows that the Russians are still expanding infrastructure and facilities at the air base, but also that they have deployed additional assets in the past few days there. These prominently include Mi-28 and Ka-52 helicopter gunships that have a variety of uses: In addition to protecting the facilities, they can conduct combat search and rescue operations and provide close air support to ground forces. The Russians have also emphasized that their air defenses will remain in place, as shown in the imagery of the active S-400 battery at Bassel al Assad air base. Furthermore, the Russians have not yet withdrawn their Su-30 and Su-35 air superiority fighters from Syria. Since the troop withdrawal announcement, Russia has continued to launch bombing sorties from that air base in support of Syrian government forces that are fighting the Islamic State near Palmyra.As can be see from the imagery of the naval base at Tartus, there are currently no significant onloading operations taking place. While military vehicles are staged there and are seemingly ready to depart, heavy artillery and armored fighting vehicles — which the Russians have deployed in Syria — do not appear to be among them. This highlights the possibility that Russia is going to maintain its active ground support of the Syrian government forces as they continue to conduct operations against rebel and Islamic State targets. There is also the potential for the Russians to transfer some of that equipment to loyalist forces, as they have with tanks and artillery over past months. As recent battlefield casualties reveal, Russian special operations forces are continuing their active support of loyalist operations as well.

February 2016

Interview: CGSRS’ Hirah Azhar on the Syria Civil

WarWhat are the prospects of the current UN-brokered peace talks?

Despite the UN’s claims that the talks have been merely ‘paused’ (they are scheduled to resume on February 25), the negotiations in Geneva are largely considered to have failed before even starting. It is not difficult to understand why when the Syrian government and Russia’s aerial bombardment of largely rebel-held areas continued even when the talks had officially begun. If anything, air strikes on rebel-held areas in the northwest of the country (most prominently in Aleppo) escalated right before the talks. As a result, the High National Committee (HNC), an opposition coalition of 34 groups, withdrew from the negotiations on the third day of the talks calling the government’s refusal to commit to a ceasefire unacceptable. The talks have now ended on a sour note, with both sides blaming the other for the suspension of negotiations.

The fact that all peace negotiations regarding Syria to date have ended in much the same way indicates deeper underlying issues with the conflict and the negotiation process. At its very core, this failure has a great deal to do with both the large number of actors involved in the conflict – Syrian and international – and the refusal to commit to a ceasefire. It is unlikely that future negotiations will bear much fruit until both sides can stop the exchange of firepower and all relevant parties are included in any talks. At the same time, international actors with vested interests (such as Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states) must not be allowed to orchestrate the negotiations. For example, the recent talks in Vienna in October-November 2015 (that precipitated UN Resolution 2254 and the Geneva talks), concerning the future of Bashar al-Assad, did not include a single Syrian representative from either side. Moreover, they witnessed tensions between both Saudi Arabia and Iran on the one hand and the United States and Russia on the other regarding Assad’s future role. Other peace initiatives since the start of the conflict have been suspended largely because neither side has committed to the ceasefire.

Nevertheless, it is likely that further efforts will be made to continue this UN-brokered negotiation process. Adopted after a unanimous vote in December 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 called for an end to indiscriminate bombing of civilians and measures to implement a nationwide ceasefire. The resolution, which essentially mandated the Geneva negotiations, requires an end to airstrikes and the provision of humanitarian relief to civilians.

 What would a negotiated settlement need to contain to have a good chance at success?

Any negotiated settlement to end a protracted conflict like the Syrian civil war will require – at the very least – a combination of sustainable political compromise and complete military ceasefire. Any peacemaking initiative needs to start by understanding the motivations that drive both sides. In purely black and white terms: while Assad’s regime seeks to remain in power and retain control of the country, the opposition demands Assad’s removal. However, there are a number of issues that further complicate this dilemma.

First, the opposition is not a coherent, unified entity and consists of hundreds of armed groups that are mutually distrustful and often at odds with each other. While members of the ‘moderate opposition’ demand a political transition post-Assad to a just and stable democracy, the many Islamist groups inside Syria seek to turn it into an Islamic state. Moreover, the groups compete not just for territory and the spoils of war, but also for the attention of Western and Gulf states from whom they receive arms, funds, and training.

Second, the growing prowess and presence of Islamist terrorist groups like the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra) has successfully introduced a third and destructive actor into the conflict. Any settlement between the two sides will need to adopt a strategy to militarily defeat these groups and retake the territory lost to them.

Third, this is no longer just a political conflict but one that has quickly transitioned into a frenzied sectarian one. The fight is predominantly between the country’s majority population of Sunnis and the minority Alawite population whose support Assad enjoys. Syria is also home to Shia, Christian and Druze minorities as well as a significant Kurdish population and they are all stakeholders in the conflict.

Lastly, the conflict is no longer being fought just between Syrians, but has managed to polarize world powers. Not only has it turned into a proxy war between regional powers (Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon on one side and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states on the other); Western governments have sided with the rebels while Russia is firmly allied with Assad’s regime and both have become increasingly more invested in the conflict over the years.

Any negotiations will need to resolve all these complications before a settlement can be reached. As the past five years have shown, neither side is willing to accept either military or political defeat and will continue using military means to achieve their objectives. A political compromise would therefore require both sides to accede some of their conditions for a final settlement and this can only be accomplished when military defeat no longer remains an option and a ceasefire can be properly enforced.

“a ceasefire in a conflict such as this is almost impossible to enforce.”

But therein lies another dilemma because a ceasefire in a conflict such as this is almost impossible to enforce. Protracted civil conflicts have historically taken decades to resolve (such as in Sri Lanka or Colombia) because of the mutual lack of trust and the power asymmetry that provides the state with both an inflated sense of power and the rebels with the motivation to continue military efforts until the state’s resources are exhausted. In the Syrian case, there is no trust on either side and at present, and no strong and neutral external actor that can impose the ceasefire. Of course, sending an international peacekeeping force is an option, although it will probably be greatly compromised by the presence of terrorist groups inside the country. The first step for a settlement is therefore the need to bring together both sides against the common threat of Islamist terrorism and persuade them to commit to a ceasefire with each other.

In your opinion, are there limits to Russia’s support of the Assad regime?

At the present moment, Russia is deeply invested into its support for the Assad regime – both politically and militarily. Though there has been a discernible shift in Russia’s stance on the conflict recently, indicating a growing willingness to engage in multilateral talks, I believe that it is unlikely that Putin will willingly pull back or limit support for the Assad regime in the near future. However, there are a number of scenarios that may precipitate a shift in Russian policy.

First, after the failure of the peace talks in Geneva amid Russia’s continued bombardment of opposition forces in Syria, the United States may decide to adopt a more assertive and challenging position vis-à-vis Russia’s military support for the Assad regime. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement after the postponement of the talks claimed that the “continued assault by Syrian regime forces – enabled by Russian air strikes…have clearly signaled the intention to seek a military solution rather than enable a political one”. Indeed, there has been growing exasperation in the United States regarding Russia’s uninhibited support for Assad’s regime, particularly since the start of Russian air strikes in September 2015. President Obama’s decision to work with Russia on negotiating a peaceful political settlement to the conflict is increasingly being seen within the country as a mistake.

Similarly, as the EU finds itself in the unenviable position of receiving an increasingly heavy influx of Syrian refugees across its borders, growing frustration with Russia’s air strikes is likely to translate into concrete policy decisions sooner rather than later. However, this is only likely if the US applies pressure to review current EU relations with Russia. As the Ukraine crisis and resultant sanctions against Russia have shown, the EU is reluctant to follow through with its own policy decisions, often taken in tandem with the US. A related consideration is with regards to Turkey, which is a prominent NATO member as well as a strong supporter of the rebels and one of the conflict’s main external actors. It is also one of the EU’s key allies in managing the refugee crisis, and growing Turkish frustration with Russian warplanes in Turkey’s airspace may be the catalyst for a stronger European stance on Russia.

“Russia does not have a particularly successful track record of military interventions outside of the former Soviet Union.”

Third and perhaps most importantly, it is worth noting that Russia does not have a particularly successful track record of military interventions outside of the former Soviet Union. The last such intervention was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, a protracted and immensely costly campaign. It is unlikely that the conflict in Syria will be resolved any time soon and both Putin and the Russian people will be reluctant to become too deeply entrenched into the war. In practical terms, the bombing of a plane full of Russian passengers in October (claimed by ISIS), which caused 224 fatalities, will not be the last loss Russia suffers during its military campaign.

 The Syrian and Russian governments have hailed their recapture of the ancient oasis city of Palmyra from Islamic State, ending a 10-month ordeal that saw the destruction of some of the historic site’s most famed monuments.The battle for the city is the latest in a string of defeats for Isis, now in retreat across Syria and Iraq, where it once controlled vast tracts of territory: nearly half of Syria and the desert plains of Nineveh and most of Anbar in Iraq. ‘Palmyra will rise again. We have to send a message to terrorists’ Syrian forces are closing in on the ancient citadel. Now comes the task of assessing the destruction caused by Isis and rebuilding the city’s temples Read more Palmyra’s reclamation by Assad’s army, after weeks of intense combat, was aided by some of the heaviest Russian airstrikes since Moscow launched its military intervention last autumn. It is also a significant morale boost for the embattled Syrian strongman as well as the Kremlin.“The liberation of the historic city of Tadmur (Palmyra) today is an important achievement and is evidence of the efficacy of the strategy adopted by the Syrian army and its allies in the war on terrorism,” Assad told a French delegation in Damascus.

June 9, 2015

Syria’s disintegration into civil war since 2011 has created a strategic dilemma for Israel that the upcoming US-Iran deal will throw into stark relief. On the one hand Israeli security has benefited from the conflict in two concrete ways. Firstly its enemy the Syrian Baath party-state has partially collapsed, losing territory, allies like Gaza’s Hamas, and military resources. Secondly its northern border is quieter as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and its Iranian backers have been forced to divert men and money into propping up the Damascus regime. Shia-influenced Arab regimes in Beruit, Damascus, and Baghdad may one day form a hostile front against Tel Aviv but today each has Sunni militia groups that pose them more immediate problems.

On the other hand Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organizations like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrah al-Sham (which recently claimed Syria’s Idlib province), and Islamic State (IS) are equally antithetical to any Arab-Israeli peace. Israel may not love the Arab regimes that surround it but it has learned to live with them. A tangle of Sunni jihadi principalities competing for recruits, money, and territory would make for violent, unstable neighbors, even if they spent most of their efforts fighting each other. Hezbollah has shown Israel that a hybrid party-militia with a religious group identity can be a more nimble security threat than a sclerotic dictatorship.

Syria’s conventional military threat to Israel, never large, has diminished drastically; its unconventional threats such as terrorist proxies or chemical weapons programs have been dismantled or unleashed against internal enemies. The Baath have been characteristically ruthless in their treatment of their domestic enemies but are reeling from a Turkish-Saudi backed rebel coalition in the north and a simultaneous IS thrust from the east. The fall of Palmyra shows the regime is suffering a manpower shortage and Damascus and its foreign allies have resorted to recruiting Afghan mercenaries and arming Palestinian factions in the Yarmouk refugee camp among other measures. Many Iraqi Shia militiamen have returned home to fight IS, aggravating Syrian government overstretch.

Preoccupied with Gaza Israel has largely kept out of Syria. Now however reports have surfaced of wounded al-Nusra gunmen receiving treatment in Israeli hospitals, making it likely that the present Israeli government sees the odious Damascus regime as still the major threat to Tel Aviv. In material terms this may seem so, but the Afghan precedent is not encouraging. In the 1980s the West and Arab monarchies collaborated to bring down the Soviet-backed communist regime and got al-Qaeda and the Taliban as eventual successors.

Israel may be correct when it calculates helping in the Assad’s regime end will check Iranian influence in the Arab world. It may also be that the range of forces now weighted against the government of Syria are such that it is already fatally compromised even without Israel’s minor interventions in the rebels’ favor; Syrian and international jihadi groups could become a regional force regardless of what Tel Aviv does. Nonetheless by helping Jabhat al-Nusra now Israelis may find they have more ideologically-motivated and less deterrable neighbors facing them in the future.

Regardless of whether a weakened Assad prevails or not, whichever side wins the Syrian civil war wiIl be anti-Israeli. Assad would need Iranian money to rebuild his country and Tehran remains staunchly hostile to Tel Aviv regardless of recent elections and movements on the nuclear issue. The issue of the Golan Heights would doubtless also prove a useful diversion for the more corrupt militias the regime has created and justify the patriotic need for their continued existence. Meanwhile the jihadi movement is openly anti-Semitic and theocratic in its worldview. The re-conquest of formerly Muslim Palestine would be a rhetorical device all its factions could employ to mobilize supporters.

For Israel, the best outcome would be mutual exhaustion and a negotiated settlement to a government of national reconciliation which kept Syria’s state apparatus intact but without Assad and his family at the top. A UN-backed treaty similar to the Taif Agreement that ended Lebanon’s civil war would empower the country’s Sunni majority while allowing the state to reassert its authority in territory currently abandoned to IS and the Syrian Kurdish militias. Such a government would be divided between Syria’s many communities and preoccupied with its own internal security, not the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

February 2016

"Rather than risk defeat and, at best, the horrors of the dictator’s jails, many of the fighters who are now with non-Islamist groups may go over to Isil" But there is one great danger with this amoral plan. Millions of ordinary Syrians would also be compelled to make this terrible decision. Which way would the country’s Sunni majority jump? If they are forced to side with Isil’s Sunni zealots on the one hand, or an Alawite dictator who has butchered their compatriots with the aid of Shia Iran and Christian Russia, how many would line up behind the jihadists?

And what about the rebels caught between Assad’s pincers? From the start of this conflict, young men have fought with one armed group and then the next, moving between militias, Islamist rebels and even Isil. The only general rule is that any groups in trouble tend to lose their recruits.

Rather than risk defeat and, at best, the horrors of the dictator’s jails, many of the fighters who are now with non-Islamist groups may go over to Isil. If so, Isil could emerge as one winner from Assad’s impending victory near Aleppo – which is exactly what he would wish, since building up the jihadists has been his survival strategy all along. But Europe would then have to cope with an even greater danger from terrorism.

Suddenly, the greatest risks to our security are converging on the plains north of Aleppo.