Syria: The US is "strategically on the sidelines"

MEPGS excerpts:                                                                                                'April 19, 2012
At least for the time being, Syria has eclipsed Iran as the number one problem facing the Administration in the Middle East.  Today, more than fifty countries, called “Friends of Syria, are meeting in Paris in another attempt to coordinate support for the Syrian opposition.   So far, key players in the region including Turkey and the Gulf states as well as Western powers ostensibly led by the US, have been unable to significantly advance the cause of the opposition.
Part of the problem lies with the fractured nature of the opposition.  Not only are political opponents disunited and the so-called Free Syrian Army [“FSA”] more a moniker than a centrally led military force but both groups lack significant and cordial contacts between them, according to well placed US officials.  This lack of unity has kept the Administration, says one well informed official, “strategically on the sidelines.”  Although the US (and other NATO members) are preparing to supply non-lethal supplies such as night vision equipment and better communications gear, most support consists of medical supplies.

Even Arab states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which have been outspoken in their calls for supplying lethal weaponry to the FSA, have, according to informed sources, “…”talked a good game but have failed to deliver substantial equipment.”  Some officials suspect that the Saudis and other Gulf states are talking up military support in order to press the US and its European allies to become more active on the diplomatic front.  Turkey, too, has been playing what one official calls  “Kabuki theatre.”  While hosting Syrian military and political opponents, they are reluctant to get more deeply involved in what most observers have difficulty in seeing as a quick, decisive, let alone satisfactory conclusion to the ongoing rebellion.  This caused one key US official to quip, “The Turks take two steps forward, then two steps back.”  Ultimately, however, a number of analysts believe Ankara will have to be more forthcoming.  “The Turks aspire to regional leadership and are seen to be doing very little to stop a humanitarian catastrophe from occurring right next door.  They are creating a credibility problem for themselves.”
While few officials believe that the UN sanctioned mission of former Secretary General Kofi Annan will succeed in securing a lasting ceasefire, let alone a political solution in Syria, they believe that this diplomatic track offers the most hope in the short term.  To begin with, they note that Annan’s mission has the blessing of the entire Security Council, a first since the revolt started more than a year ago.  “Listen, we got the Russians to sign on.  No small feat,” says one Administration insider.  More important, this official predicts that by agreeing to Annan’s plan, the Russians may find themselves on a “slippery slope” towards condemnation of the Assad regime.(or so, we hope!)
So far, US officials estimate, Moscow believes that the Assad regime has a reasonable chance to survive.  And these same officials believe that the regime is convinced it is going to ultimately prevail.  Russia and China have provided crucial political and diplomatic cover.  And Iran, Syria’s one regional ally is providing expert assistance in tactics on the ground, say top US officials.  “They [the Iranians] are good,” notes a key Administration official.  And Assad is learning from them.  The Syrians have adjusted their operations and become more effective over time.”  It also helps that the FSA is, in the words of one Administration official “fundamentally weak.”  This leaves the Administration in a difficult position, say top officials.  On the one hand, while there may be some dissent from officials who pressed for a robust US role in helping Libya’s opposition, they have been marginalized this time around.  Most in the Administration are unalterably opposed to any kind of military intervention [Pentagon officials say it would take 6 months to create a no-fly zone,” says one US official.  “The Israelis could do it in a week.”] Still, there is the public insistence by the President that Assad must and will cede power.  And officials who now have experienced the President’s resolve in Libya, not to mention in the killing of Osama bin Laden are convinced that his words are not to be taken lightly.
The President’s pledge not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon fits into the same category of unshakable resolve, say a variety of US officials.  And say these officials, Teheran may finally be getting the message.  In the first round of meetings just concluded in Istanbul, top Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili sought out his P-5 +1 counterpart, Catherine Ashton to plead a case for preventing new EU sanctions slated to go into effect on July 1.  This was seen as a sign that the regime fears the political consequences at home of the ever increasing pressure of newly minted economic sanctions.  
Even the Israelis appear sanguine, at least for the moment.  They, too, in the words of one well-placed official, recognize that “The squeeze [on Iran] is getting stronger.”  The Israelis also believe that their ominous warnings of military action have provided the backbone to US-led efforts to force Iran back to the negotiating table. [They also admit that the US and the EU had gotten fed up with Iran’s behavior across-the-board especially as the Arab Spring evolves].
Since the Iranians, in the words of one diplomat, “At least said nothing bad” at the Istanbul meeting, a second meeting has been scheduled for next month in Baghdad [“No one was happy with the choice of Baghdad but then no one could come up with a good reason not to go,” quipped one well informed source].  But unlike the Istanbul conclave, solid results will be required for this diplomatic effort to continue, say well-placed officials.  “We need to be able to put together a strong agenda and a formula for defanging the Iranian nuclear program,” said one well placed official this week.  
What will likely be billed as “confidence building measures” are the stuff of progress, say well-informed officials.  Although the P-5+1 have not signed off on a plan , it is clear that the goal is a return to the status quo ante circa 2003, when Iran had not enriched its uranium stockpile to 20% and the fortress-like Fordo processing plant was, at most, in its planning stages.  Whether an enforceable mechanism to achieve that end – without endangering the viability of the current regime in Teheran – is something no one is willing to wager can be achieved and something the Iranians alone will have to decide.
Still, the betting among some top officials is that the longer this process goes on, the more likely it becomes that Iran’s ability to promote its nuclear program will be undermined.  The greatest fear, however, is premature military action.  And that, of course, means a unilateral strike by Israel. Should the preferred option, diplomacy, fail one veteran analyst predicts the US will act, “Give us eighteen months of Iranian stalling and intransigence and I think an American strike, make that repeated strikes, will not only be militarily successful but will gain support of many in the international community, including Europeans and Arabs.”