Washington Cuts Off Military Aid to Syria

RIAC expert, Head of Asia and Middle East Center of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies Elena Suponina comments on the House and Senate Intelligence panels’ decision to block military aid to Syrian rebels.

The decision of the U.S. Congress is quite understandable. Americans are very concerned about strengthening the radicals’ position in the Syrian opposition. In addition, the U.S. learned a lesson in Libya, where Islamic radicals attacked the American consulate on September 11, 2012 and killed the ambassador and several diplomats. Since then, the United States operates with more caution in the Middle East.

Congressional concerns about Syria are more than justified. The radical elements are reinforcing their positions in the Syrian opposition. They are represented by Jabhat al-Nusra (Defense Front for the People of Greater Syria) and other smaller organizations, including those associated with Al Qaeda. In Syria, radicals from other countries are fighting in the ranks of the opposition.

The moderate opposition, in turn, finds excuses in the fact that the numbers of “aliens” and extremists are not that great, and from the fact that government forces also have foreigners in their ranks, such as military advisers from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah militants. However, the longer the civil war in Syria lasts, the stronger and more experienced the radicals become, posing a threat to moderate forces inside Syria and undermining security in the region as a whole.

Is it possible to break this vicious circle of bloody confrontation? In the coming months, it seems unlikely. The war will continue. The Syrian opposition fighters pin their hopes on the U.S. military and financial aid to improve their shaky position. In many ways they are losing ground and lack modern weapons. They expected to receive aid from Washington before the end of the summer.

However, the opposition’s current situation is not as bad as it might seem: the weapons come indirectly from a number of Arab countries, including Libya and Saudi Arabia. This aid will help them achieve local successes on the Syrian fronts in the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. In the near future, fierce fighting in the country will continue.

The U.S. Congress’ decision will, perhaps, be something of a dampener on those oppositionists who had counted on a quick restoration of the balance of forces on the battlefield. The Americans have reminded the opposition of the chance offered by the joint Russian-American initiative to convene a peace conference on Syria in Geneva. However, this conference will not take place either in July or August, since the warring parties are not ready to negotiate. So the initiative’s fate will be decided in the fall.

By September, the situation on the frontline will become clearer and there will be indications whether any of the warring parties stand a real chance of military victory. Much will depend on whether the United States changes its policy on arms supplies to the opposition. Indeed, the American establishment has no united position on this issue yet.

Despite the price it has to pay, the executive branch insists on the need to support the opposition. And the U.S. Congress has only recommended deferring a decision on the arms supply to Syria until a later date; it did not block it completely. Washington is under pressure from both the opposition and some Arab monarchies who do not believe in the success of peace efforts and stake on the military solution to the Syrian conflict.

Interviewer: Alexander Eliseev, RIAC Program Coordinator.