A changing balance of power

Unlike the hesitant West, Russia has been providing Assad’s regime with advanced and lethal weapons that are poised to change the balance of power among the warring parties in Syria. While the Western excuse of not providing the opposition with advanced weapons is justified by the fear that such weapons may fall into the hands of radical elements, the West is running the risk of weakening the opposition altogether.
Explicit in the Russian insistence to provide Assad’s troops with more weapons is its desire to exploit the Western diffident position. It is as if the balance of will between Russia and the Western countries is in Russia’s favor. For this reason, Assad feels emboldened and his troops continue murdering and killing Syrians.
The new Russian shipments of missiles — the Yakhont anti-ship missile system — can help the regime to counter any effort to impose a naval embargo or to establish a no-fly zone. Jeffrey White, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior American intelligence official, argued that the new shipment would bolster the Syrian arsenal and would “tend to push Western or allied naval activity further off the coast” and was also “a signal of the Russian commitment to the Syrian government.”
The Western inaction is confusing on two grounds. First, the reluctance to provide the opposition with weapons to counter other players’ (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah) huge assistance to the Syrian regime is counterproductive. Assad is not expected to step aside in the face of the evolving situation in Syria.
Second, the new shipment of missiles can set back the American efforts to foster political transition. It remains to be seen how this will play out if the international conference is held as expected in early June.
The military gains on the ground over the most recent weeks must be embarrassing for the opposition. If things continue like this unchecked, there may be a clear shift in the balance of power before convening the international conference. And yet, the opposition can make a better case now for getting more armaments. How can they sit on a table while the regime, supported by Assad, continues to kill?
Not surprisingly, the prospects for an agreed upon political transition in Syria are dim. If anything, the regime and the opposition are not expected to talk in good faith. Each party will try to exploit the situation to finish off the other. Additionally, Syria’s fragmentation has made the fault line sectarian. Amid this situation, the ability to sustain an agreement, in case they arrive to one, will be pretty low. This does not mean that the effort to convene an international conference is meaningless. On the contrary, it is worth taking as the alternative is complete chaos and mayhem.
On the other hand, Assad does not seem to budge. In a recent interview, he made it perfectly clear that he would not step down until 2014. The problem, and herein lies the crux of the matter, is the inability of the opposition to accept any deal that keeps Assad in power. After the killing of more than 80,000 Syrians, it would be tantamount to capitulation if the opposition accepts Assad to stay in power. Ironically, Assad blamed foreign intervention in the crisis in Syria while Iran and Hezbollah fought hand in hand with his forces.
Let us face the situation; the only way of averting a civil war in Syria entails a change in the balance of power within Syria in favor of the opposition. The American hesitancy cannot be more damaging. The opposition feels that its back is exposed while Assad feels that his allies are way more committed to the survival of his regime.
In a rare interview, Assad took a hard line when he accused the West of adopting policies only to prolong rather than to solve the crisis in Syria. Unfortunately, it seems that Assad has a point. A more decisive Western position in the early stages of the crisis could have changed the course of the crisis and made it amenable to a solution. And yet, it is not too late for the West to step in and help the opposition gain the upper hand in the conflict.

Email: [email protected]