Is the Syrian colour revolution imminent?

Letters from O'Brien #70

Dear Mr Smith,

An interesting way to gauge geopolitical sentiment between East and West, in my experience, is to look at whatever is happening in Syria. So if you’d indulge me, I’d like to address some of the things that have begun to unfold there.

After several years of tension, US-backed rebel forces have recently begun a new offensive against the Assad government. The rhetoric has been the same for over a decade, but I believe there is a crucial reason that these rebel groups have conveniently seen renewed victories as of late.

THE SITUATION

The major development as of late has been the rapid advance of anti-Assad forces into the northern city of Aleppo. This city has historically been in the crossfire of rebel factions in the north. To the public, Aleppo is best known for its role in the war against ISIS— back when Islamic State forces seemed unstoppable.

Today it is fallen. Of crucial importance are the groups which have seized control of the region— US-backed associates of the Free Syrian Army— such as the Syrian Brigade of Druze. At the same time, Kurdish forces also are seeing an uptick in activity further north.

As of writing, these groups are seeing successes in the way of territorial gains. Crucial to this has been the Russian and Syrian military withdrawal from the city. The claim is that ground forces basically didn’t engage the rebels at all and have rather pulled east, for whatever reason. The relocation of Russian ground forces is important, because Assad’s forces have historically relied on the Russians to hold back these rebel groups.

Now the timing and dynamic of all of this is what I think is important, more so than the mere tactical or territorial victories on the ground…

For over a decade, Syria has been an international battleground. The Russians have famously backed Al Assad’s government while the US has backed Assads opponents; a selection of ‘moderate’ rebel factions like the Free Syrian Army and the SDF, and previously several revolutionary Kurdish groups as well. The situation caused international outrage multiple times with Assad’s supposed chemical attacks on rebel-held towns, but the whole war really went mainstream following the rise of ISIS— who for a time seemed unstoppable.

It is important to consider that the situation has never been clear-cut, and this has stalled rebel victories; for example, Turkey technically supports the FSA against Assad, but regularly bombs US backed Kurdish groups like the SDF, YPG, and the old PKK communists. ISIS also broke free of its shackles a decade ago and wreaked havoc as it steamrolled both government forces and the rebel factions. But what has been common throughout this has been a focus on destabilising the country. This is why I believe Israel admitted to arming ISIS; because in the short term they would knock out Assad. Likewise, US backed groups desire regime change in the country.

The rebels have not seen a major victory against government forces in one decade, yet now they are suddenly moving to victory? This all points in one direction.

WHY SYRIA?

Now why is it that Syria seems a constant target? People often say it is because of Russia, an extension of the ‘new Cold War’ rhetoric. There is obviously some truth in this, but I think there is a prevailing reason which is less discussed, but obvious once noted…

Syria remains one of the last independent Arab nations directly under the control of a strongman government. Al Assad is a strict leader. The propaganda has always portrayed him - just as Gaddafi and Hussein - as a totalitarian madman who must be stopped. As I will highlight later, this is pure rhetoric.

Assad remains one of the last regional opponents to Israel. With help from Russia, he has prevented Syria from falling into rebel hands, and on multiple occasions has prevented what appeared to be foreign-funded colour revolutions in their formative stages. He has kept Syria from falling into post-2004 Iraq; a state fallen to roaming religious fundamentalist militia.

Syria is also geographically located in an inconvenient position for Israel, creating a type of buffer zone around some of Lebanon and forming a wall to the north against Turkey. Assad has always been a thorn in Israel side, yet in recent years the focus has obviously shifted to the more capable Iranian regime. However, this all ties together.

As of writing this, the 60-day ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has come into effect. Two things are currently happening; Israel has just announced a restriction on movement south of the Litany River (everything south Israel wants to become a buffer zone) and has begun bombing targets inside of Syria. As of writing, there have been 86 air strikes in Syrian airspace.

Note that Assad - despite his disagreements - fundamentally stands on similar ground to Hezbollah, and given the regional placement, Syria and Hezbollah benefit one another since they prohibit each other’s geographic isolation. So long as Syria remains allied with Hezbollah, it makes Israel’s job far harder, as they must extend their theatre of operation to include the entire Syrian Desert and anywhere else where Hezbollah militants might run lines to Iran.

An important consideration is the dynamic at play; the Syrian Civil War really began after the 2011 Arab Spring, a movement clearly co-opted by the US in order to destabilise regional threats in the Middle East. The two primary backers of Syria have been Russia and Iran. Who are the current geopolitical rivals of the US? Russia and Iran.

In other words, Israel is struggling with containing Hezbollah, Syria backs Hezbollah and complicates the scenario, and along with Iran all three remains united in their stance against Israeli expansion.

LIKELY GOALS AND OUTCOMES

I believe that this is happening right now to draw the US into a direct conflict with Hezbollah, with the added benefit of destabilising Syria.

In the short term, I think there are two goals for escalating in Syria…

The first, most obvious, and least interesting - which most people are discussing - is Russia. I think US decision makers may believe that they can also distract Russia by escalating in Syria, thus draining resources from the Ukraine War. This seems to be one of the more common claims going around, and while I do believe this is part of the reasoning, I don’t think Israel cares, thus I don’t think it is the primary motivating factor, nor do I believe Russia would overextend itself into a middle eastern proxy war.

Now in my view, the real goal is to escalate the domestic situation with Assad, in the hopes that some flash point will emerge. Once a civil war like this escalates, it’s highly likely the situation could result in ‘catastrophes’ (like in 2016) which necessarily provoke the need for US intervention. This may sound strange or irrelevant right now, given the focus in the Middle East is on Iran, but I think this is deliberate.

As I have written over the past year, I don’t think direct war with Iran is marketable to the public anymore. The Overton window has shifted so much that most people see it as another Iraq invasion scenario (correct). However, Syria remains a very controversial topic in the west, especially given the chemical attacks in the past, and the fact that ISIS has ‘tainted’ the country as unhinged in the minds of the public. Thus, intervention in Syria has less of a bite to it then direct conflict with Iran.

The end goal - as I see it - is to weaken or knock out Assad, and directly counter Hezbollah. There are two ways I can see this happening.

The most likely is that Assad strikes back hard against the rebels, especially if they encroach on Damascus. During such a situation, either false flags or actual last-ditch moves by Assad could be used as atrocity propaganda to justify intervention. I would guess that the media would find a way to tie all of this to Hezbollah, who are the primary target I believe.

The second possibility is that US proxies defeat state forces and large portions (or all) of Syria comes under proxy control to some extent. Chaos inevitably breaks out as militias fill the power vacuum. This is tied to or blamed on Iranian proxies or Hezbollah, and US intervention is sold as the remedy.

I think that however it spins, the goal will be to both topple Assad and tie this in some way to either Hezbollah or Iran. I think there is no denying that priority number one for these foreign interests is to somehow get the US to directly engage Hezbollah.

TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE US

To finish up, I just want to highlight why this clearly works contrary to the best interests of the US.

To exemplify this, I want to compare the rhetoric with reality. The US rhetoric has always been that Assad is a dictator, and that the Syrian people deserve a democratic liberal government. This is the same claim infamously used against Hussain and Gaddafi. A lot of these FSA-aligned groups are suspicious, and have long been claimed by eastern sources to have been behind these chemical attacks which were later blamed on barrel-bombing helicopters, or something. The Kurdish groups are even more outwardly unhinged; the PKK was literally a communist terror group from the 80s, yet up until 2019 the US was openly funding them (the CIA probably still funds them)— I’m not the biggest fan of Turkey, but their fight against the PKK makes some sense. Are these the groups we want running Syria?

Already there are videos being shared of rebel troops in Aleppo pulling down Christmas trees. That might sound insignificant, but it isn’t— those things are symbolic of what is to come.

I do not believe for a second that the FSA or any other ‘democratic’ US backed rebel group can successfully form a replacement government. I think the decision makers know this. I think this is deliberate. The outcome of a rebel victory - as we are already seeing - would be roughly the same outcome as we infamously saw in Fallujah in 2004; Islamic militia roaming free, executing and persecuting anyone who doesn’t align with them. The result would be a weekend nation, basically knocking Syria as an organised force out of the fight. And therein lies the reason for all of this - at least in my view.

There are two ‘levels’ of justification one can view pro-US claims against when considering the Middle East. The first is the stated justification, or claims made by decision makers; that we want to build fair democracies abroad. The second is the more fundamental justification held by most moral Americans; that even our enemies deserve fair treatment, and more critical that we must stop inhumane treatment and injustice if we have the power to.

From a non-interventionist standpoint, the latter justification is obviously a fair point which resonates with basically everyone who has witnessed violent injustice, even appealing to the non-interventionists if that were possible. However, when one weighs up the outcome of this proxy war against the justification, it fails on both axioms.

The FSA and associates cannot build an organised democratic government, and they will not be able to build a ‘more humane’ Syria either. In fact, when one looks at the actions of these groups, one can assume that these groups will work against western interests in a way that Assad never did. Notably, these groups - like in Iraq after Hussein’s fall - will go after Christians (who, despite being foreigners, are ’more like us’, or represent something closer to us in said country), they will go after other Muslims they don’t like, and so on. It will - by most standards - be objectively more ‘anti-western’ than Assad. Thus, neither a more democratic, nor a more ‘humane’ state will emerge from such a proxy conflict.

Knocking out Assad is not in the best interest of the United States by this metric. It will benefit Israel in this middle eastern conflict - not the US, not the West, just Israel. Our best interest would be to normalise relations with Assad, keep stability in the region, and peacefully but powerfully assert western interests in the region. Essentially, imagine what Trump would do if he wasn’t controlled by foreign donors. But anyways, I am getting carried away in my ‘short letter’— I will write to you again when time permits.

Sincerely yours

O’Brien