Syria between Clinton and Panetta

In Ankara, Clinton discussed the possibility of setting up a no fly zone in northern Syria, and created a “working group” for the purpose of American and Turkish activists and enthusiasts of intervention and decisiveness. Panetta, however, sees that matters are more complicated and that they need a “major, major policy decision” that has not yet been made, and that the whole issue is not “on the front burner” currently as the US administration’s agenda is engrossed in the "last quarter of an hour" before the presidential elections.  Who should we believe, then, and which of the American secretaries reflects the “reality” in Washington, Clinton or Panetta? Or are each of the senior officials reflecting one side of the situation in Washington, and the whole picture cannot be seen and read accurately without considering the two estimations/stances together? In my moderate view, we are not before an internal conflict familiar to successive US administrations. We are before a dynamic US policy toward Syria, and each secretary tackled its gradual and critical phases separately. Clinton spoke of a “no-fly zone” and some say that this doesn’t refer to US air force and aircraft carriers pounding the Syrian military air force and air defence. This can be achieved "by proxy" through arming the Free Syrian Army with Stinger missiles which proved effective in defeating the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan and shot down more than 270 of its aircraft. In this concern, Lebanese newspapers say that the intention of Ankara and Washington to provide Syrian opposition fighters with these missiles stemmed after Clinton’s visit, on condition that it remains under supervision from the Turkish army and control of its officers and soldiers who can be deployed without much noise or “publicity” in north Syria. Panetta did not say anything that contradicts this view, although he said that the decision for a no fly zone was not yet ready. Here, the US Secretary of Defence's statements can be taken as follows: after the US elections, expected to result in Obama’s re-election, the Syrian issue will a priority that Washington needs to decide on. Then, it would be possible to impose a no fly zone, humanitarian passages, and safe havens with the US/NATO/regional (especially Turkish) power. At that point, selective strikes can be made against strategic Syrian targets, among them Assad’s hideouts, his presidential palaces, and control in the army and its main sectors; especially since efforts to equip, train, arm and “sift” the Free Syrian Army will have gone a long way. Thus, this force with what remains of the Free Syrian Army will be responsible for preserving Syria’s security in the post Assad stage. The contradiction between Clinton and Panetta may be limited to this specific area, nothing more nothing less. Washington quit long time ago the “political solution” to the Syrian crisis. It considered toppling Assad as the first sentence in its Syrian discourse. But the news comes later according to the Syrian crisis conditions and developments. In this context lies Washington’s search for alternatives, new leadership, and more present actors on the ground in Syria. In this context, too, we noticed a transformation in US priorities concerning Syrian opposition. The Syrian National Council is no longer the side that impresses Washington for two reasons: the first because it is under control of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Washington doesn’t want to put all their eggs in the “political Islam” basket; the second is that the liberals and secularists of this council are not at best better than Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi leader who became a lie and a joke. News was leaked of a US decision to enter the world of internal Syrian opposition where the Free Syrian Army becomes the focal point for US interests. Major defectors like General Manaf Talas and former PM Riad Hijab also play a similar role in the game of searching for an alternative to the transitional stage in Syria. The glow of the SNC and opposition outside has faded, while regional and international attention has moved to actors on the ground which excludes all or most of the "external" opposition with all its names and titles. If the reading of the situation, based on some information and given facts, turns out correct, then Washington is on the road which Clinton spoke about in the beginning while Panetta spoke of its process. Yet this doesn’t mean that this scenario is Syria’s irredeemable destiny. The Syrian regime and its allies still have a bagful of cards to wave and put on the table if necessary. Lebanese newspapers also unveiled the “SAM for Stinger equation” which stands for Syria’s arming of the Kurdistan Workers Party with developed surface to air missiles, transporting the battlefield to the heart of Syria and turning the power scales between Turkey and its rebel Kurds. The Syrian regime continues to show unexpected perseverance despite the tightening pressures and collars of isolation around it. At the same time, the Free Syrian Army did not show enough signs of rebellion, rift, and exhaustion. It is fighting ferociously in Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs. The picture seems like this, at least after decreasing talk of a decisive battle. Syria allies did not give in either. Iran, as sources mention, and as Panetta says, is working on establishing the Mahdy Army 2 in Syria, and I have no idea what stops Hezbollah from establishing its Syrian counterpart. Russia is also fighting the battles of natural gas, warm water and defending Caucasus from Syria and on Syrian lands. China wants to gain recognition as a major political power not only based on US general debt bonds and Wall Street Journal figures. The battle for Syria has come to summarise the world’s conflicts and its existing power balances. It has become the cruellest test of the one-superpower system, and the hardest job for a new world order. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.