Close Menu
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Facebook Instagram LinkedIn
    Middle East Transparent
    • Home
    • Categories
      1. Headlines
      2. Features
      3. Commentary
      4. Magazine
      Featured
      Headlines Hussain Abdul-Hussain

      Inside the harrowing attack on Syria’s Druze — and why the US’ first in the right direction is vita

      Recent
      28 July 2025

      Inside the harrowing attack on Syria’s Druze — and why the US’ first in the right direction is vita

      23 July 2025

      Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home

      22 July 2025

      Lebanese Central Bank Lands a Blow on Hezbollah’s Finances, but It’s Not Enough

    • Contact us
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • العربية (Arabic)
    • English
    • Français (French)
    Middle East Transparent
    You are at:Home»Message from the ruins of Qusair

    Message from the ruins of Qusair

    0
    By Sarah Akel on 8 June 2013 Uncategorized

    On Wednesday, Qusair fell to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. Qusair is a strategic town that connects Damascus with Assad’s Alawite heartland on the Mediterranean, with its ports and Russian naval base. It’s a major strategic shift. Assad’s forces can now advance on rebel-dominated areas in central and northern Syria, including Aleppo.

    For the rebels, it’s a devastating loss of territory, morale and their supply corridor to Lebanon. No one knows if this reversal of fortune will be the last, but everyone knows that Assad now has the upper hand.

    What altered the tide of battle was brazen outside intervention. A hardened, well-trained, well-armed Hezbollah force — from the terrorist Shiite group that dominates Lebanon and answers to Iran — crossed into Syria and drove the rebels out of Qusair, which Syrian artillery has left a smoking ruin.

    This is a huge victory not just for Tehran but also for Moscow, which sustains Assad in power and prizes its warm-water port at Tartus, Russia’s only military base outside of the former Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin has stationed a dozen or more Russian warships offshore, further protecting his strategic outpost and his Syrian client.

    The losers? NATO-member Turkey, the major supporter of the rebels; Jordan, America’s closest Arab ally, now drowning in half a million Syrian refugees; and America’s Gulf allies, principal weapons suppliers to the rebels.

    And the United States, whose bystander president, having declared that Assad must go, that he has lost all legitimacy and that his fall is just a matter of time, is looking not just feckless but clueless.

    President Obama doesn’t want U.S. boots on the ground. Fine. No one does. But between nothing and invasion lie many intermediate measures: arming the rebels, helping Turkey maintain a safe zone in northern Syria, grounding Assad’s murderous air force by attacking airfields — all the way up to enforcing a no-fly zone by destroying the regime’s air-defense system.

    Obama could have chosen any rung on the ladder. He chose none. Weeks ago, as battle fortunes began changing, the administration leaked that it was contemplating possibly, well maybe, arming the rebels. Then nothing.

    Obama imagines that if America is completely hands-off, a civil war like Syria’s will carry on as is, self-contained. He simply does not understand that if America withdraws from the scene, it creates a vacuum that invites hostile outside intervention. A superpower’s role in a regional conflict is deterrence.

    In 1958, President Eisenhower — venerated by today’s fashionable “realists” for his strategic restraint — landed Marines in Lebanon to protect the pro-American government from threats from Syria and Egypt.

    In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Russia threatened to send troops on behalf of the Egyptian army. President Nixon threatened a U.S. counteraction, reinforced the Sixth Fleet and raised the U.S. worldwide military alert level to DEFCON 3. Russia stood down.

    That’s how the region works. Power deterring power. Obama deals instead in empty abstractions — such as “international legitimacy” — and useless conclaves, such as “Friends of Syria” conferences.

    Assad, in contrast, has a real friend. Putin knows Obama. Having watched Obama’s retreat in Eastern Europe, his passivity at Russian obstructionism on Iran, his bended-knee “reset” policy, Putin knows he has nothing to fear from the U.S. president.

    Result? The contemptuous Putin floods Syria with weapons. Iran, equally disdainful, sends Revolutionary Guards to advise and shore up Assad’s forces. Hezbollah invades Syria and seizes Qusair.

    Obama’s response? No warning that such balance-altering provocations would trigger even the most minimal American response.

    Even Obama’s chemical weapons red line is a farce. Its very pronouncement advertised passivity, signaling that anything short of WMD — say, massacring 80,000 innocents using conventional weapons — would draw no U.S. response.

    And when that WMD red line was finally crossed, Obama went into lawyerly overdrive to erase it. Is it any wonder that Assad’s allies are on full offensive — Hezbollah brazenly joining the ground war, Russia sending a small armada and mountains of military materiel, Iran warning everyone to stay out?

    Obama’s response is to send the secretary of state, hat in hand, to Moscow. And John Kerry returns actually thinking he’s achieved some great diplomatic breakthrough — a “peace” conference that Russia will dominate and use to re-legitimize Assad and marginalize the rebels.

    Just to make sure Kerry understood his place, Putin kept him waiting outside his office for three hours. The Russians know how to send messages. And the one from Qusair is this. You’re fighting for your life. You have your choice of allies: Obama bearing “international legitimacy” and a risible White House statement that “Hezbollah and Iran should immediately withdraw their fighters from Syria” or Putin bearing Russian naval protection, Iranian arms shipments and thousands of Hezbollah fighters. Which do you choose?

    Tha Washington Post

    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email WhatsApp Copy Link
    Previous ArticlePew Forum: Among Muslims, Internet Use Goes Hand-in-Hand With More Open Views Toward Western Culture
    Next Article The doom of free speech in Lebanon

    Comments are closed.

    RSS Recent post in french
    • « Vers le sauvetage »: Pour mettre fin à l’hémorragie chiite… et lancer le redressement économique 18 July 2025 Nahwa al Inqaz
    • Du Liban indépendant et de son « héritage syrien » (avec nouvelles cartes) 8 July 2025 Jack Keilo
    • Nouvelle approche des Forces Libanaises: Alliances ou Endiguement ? 5 July 2025 Kamal Richa
    • Ce que nous attendons de vous, Monsieur le Président 3 July 2025 Michel Hajji Georgiou
    • Il faut être pour Nétanyahou lorsqu’il affaiblit la menace iranienne ; et ardemment contre lui lorsqu’il détruit Gaza 1 July 2025 Denis Charbit
    RSS Recent post in arabic
    • النشاط الصهيوني في الشام  28 July 2025 سلمان مصالحة
    • التأكد من أن دمشق تستخلص الدروس الصحيحة من اشتباكات السويداء 27 July 2025 أندرو جي تابلر
    • حول زوبعة “خور عبدالله” 27 July 2025 شفاف- خاص
    • تايلاند في أزمة سياسية مجددا 27 July 2025 د. عبدالله المدني
    • معركة تركيا ضد التقسيم في الخارج مقابل مُغازلة “الأَعراق” في الداخل! 24 July 2025 يوسف كانلي
    26 February 2011

    Metransparent Preliminary Black List of Qaddafi’s Financial Aides Outside Libya

    6 December 2008

    Interview with Prof Hafiz Mohammad Saeed

    7 July 2009

    The messy state of the Hindu temples in Pakistan

    27 July 2009

    Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany Apeal to the World Conscience

    8 March 2022

    Russian Orthodox priests call for immediate end to war in Ukraine

    Recent Comments
    • K Khairallah on Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home
    • Elie Abdul Hay on Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home
    • Khairallah Khairallah on Türkiye’s fight against fragmentation abroad, ethnic flirtation at home
    • Khaled Mahrouq on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    • Edward Ziadeh on Why al-Sharaa’s success in Syria is good for Israel and the US
    Donate
    Donate
    © 2025 Middle East Transparent

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    loader

    Inscrivez-vous à la newsletter

    En vous inscrivant, vous acceptez nos conditions et notre politique de confidentialité.

    loader

    Subscribe to updates

    By signing up, you agree to our terms privacy policy agreement.

    loader

    اشترك في التحديثات

    بالتسجيل، فإنك توافق على شروطنا واتفاقية سياسة الخصوصية الخاصة بنا.