It’s time for West to act in Syria

US Secretary of State John Kerry and 10 European and Arab foreign ministers gathered in Amman, Jordan on Wednesday night to again talk about helping Syria’s fighters.
Even as the international community discusses “grand strategy,” Syrian President Bashar Assad is taking decisive action.
With the help of thousands of Hezbollah militia forces, Iran and Iraq, he is close to achieving some of his largest military gains in two years.
Kerry, in a press conference, played down Assad’s military advances as “very temporary.” In truth, the Syrian leader and his foreign backers are gaining the upper hand in the conflict.
The Syrian opposition is in disarray. Approving a major American military intervention is politically impossible in post-Iraq Washington and a rift among Arab states has slowed their delivery of weaponry to the fighters.
Diplomatically, Washington’s key interlocutor is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, one of Assad’s primary international defenders.
One key factor favors Assad’s survival. Assad, his Allawite allies, Hezbollah and Iran are “all-in” inside Syria. They are hurling vast amounts of manpower, weaponry and money into the fight.
On the other side, supporters of Syria’s fighters are still trying to decide just how much assistance to offer. There is a strategy, but it is incremental.
The American “grand strategy” is threefold.
First, increase military aid to the fighters, but not American aid.
Last month in Istanbul, the Gulf states promised additional military assistance to General Salam Idris, the military leader of moderate Syrian opposition forces. They also pledged to curtail their support to the hard-line fighters who now dominate the opposition on the ground in Syria.
A senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Gulf countries appear to be keeping their word. They have supplied weaponry to Idris’s force and their shipments to hard-line Islamists appear to be slowing.
“Indicators are good,” the official said, “but we want to see more.” Meanwhile, American diplomats are trying to unite Syria’s fractious opposition. Since the head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed Moaz Al-Khatib, resigned last month, the group has struggled to name a leader. In Syria, the Istanbul-based coalition is still regarded as ineffectual. It is Islamist groups, flush with weapons, cash and hardened fighters, that dominate.
This week, the opposition council will expand from 60 representatives to between 90 and 100 members. This larger group will then choose a prime minister and other leaders.
Finally, Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov will host peace talks next month in Geneva. Theoretically, the opposition will be more militarily powerful and politically united.
At the same time, Russian officials have said that Assad’s prime minister Wael Al-Halqi will attend peace talks in Geneva. The United States has also quietly dropped its objections to Iran being allowed to have some role in the talks.
In a best-case scenario, increased military support for the fighters and Russian pressure force will force Assad to bargain seriously. The centrifugal forces now unraveling Syria, from sectarian tensions, and jihadist fighters to foreign funding, will ebb.
“We don’t need more proof that now is the time to act,” Kerry said in his opening statements at the talks here. “What we need to do is act.” American officials agree that their strategy depends on changing Assad’s calculation. “The balance of power on the ground must change,” said the senior State Department official.
Given the extent of support Assad is receiving from Iran and Hezbollah, that appears unlikely. Hezbollah forces are playing a crucial role in the battle to take the strategic town of Al-Qussayr. Iranians are now advising Syrian government units in Al-Qussayr and around Damascus. Members of Iraqi Shiite militias are fighting alongside Assad’s forces in several battles.
Assad and the Iranians are winning. If the Obama administration and its European and Arab allies want to support the fighters, they must do so now.
For the last two years, Washington and its allies have carried out a half-intervention. They provide enough aid to prolong the conflict but not enough to end it.
If the Obama administration and its allies are not going to sharply increase military assistance, their false talk of decisive aid should end. More empty rhetoric will prolong the bloodshed.