Realpolitik in Syria?

‘So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent’.

 

Churchill’s words sum up perfectly the West’s attitude to the shambles in Syria.

 Obama is set upon masterly inactivity; no boots on the ground, no ‘no fly zone’; no military assistance to the rebels apart from ‘soft aid’ such as flak jackets and bandages in case the flak jackets don’t work.

 Cameron comes all gung-ho about supplying arms, knowing full well  that he has zero chance of getting this past the Commons.

 The EU muddles and mutters; no change there, then.

 Or is there a more Machiavellian plan?

 In this conflict there are no goodies and baddies; only baddies and baddies. If Assad comes out on top, there will be massive reprisals and repression, and probably an on-going insurgency.

 

 If the rebels win, about the last thing we are likely to see is a peaceful, democratic  regime. There will be struggles amongst the various groups for dominance; Sunni against Shia, tribe against tribe, territory carved up between competing warlords.

 

 The only advantage will fall to Al Qaeda, which will be able to conceal itself amongst the chaos in a rich recruiting ground.

 And so it may suit the West to have neither winner or loser, but to let the conflict drag on until it burns itself out.

 Hezbollah has sent sizeable forces into Syria. It is pretty certain that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is there in force. There are reports that Iran is planning to send in 4000 more troops.

 There are very clear advantages for the West. Hezbollah forces tied down in Syria lessens the direct threat to Israel as long as they are preoccupied with endless fighting  a guerrilla war. Iran bogged down in neighbouring territory might limit its freedom to meddle elsewhere and distract it from making mischief in the Middle East.

 It is now fairly common knowledge that the rebels are being supplied with plane-loads of serious hardware from the Ukraine, but no heavy weapons; enough to keep the pot boiling but not enough to have a decisive effect. This is surely under the sponsorship of the CIA, whatever Obama might say about not arming to the rebels.

 It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, far from vacillation and inaction, the West is reverting to realpolitik.