The US and Russia In Syria After the 'Afghan Journey'

US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
TT

The US and Russia In Syria After the 'Afghan Journey'

US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP

Moscow and Washington are collecting negotiating cards in Syria - each according to its priorities - in preparation for a new round of dialogue between the two sides, which will be attended by the US National Security Council’s coordinator for the Middle East, Brett McGurk, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin, and Presidential Envoy Alexander Lavrentiev.

The upcoming round of dialogue will be the first after the “Afghan journey”, and will go beyond the previous secret tour that was held in Geneva at the beginning of July, and resulted in a “historic” agreement on a draft resolution for “cross-border” and “cross-lines” humanitarian aid to Syria.

Russia is moving in the south and north of the country, with its eastern and western wings, to present itself as the main negotiator between the warring parties. The Russian strike on the camp of a pro-Turkish Syrian opposition faction in the countryside of Aleppo was not accidental. As usual, Moscow does not threaten to raid, but directly bombs to obtain a compromise. This happened at the beginning of 2020 when a Turkish military base was struck south of Idlib to force Ankara to make concessions ahead of a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This was repeated two days ago in the countryside of Afrin. At the beginning of 2018, Moscow allowed Ankara to use the airspace of northern Syria to launch its “Olive Branch” operation in the city of a Kurdish majority.

The recent airstrike in the Afrin countryside was a Russian reminder to Turkey of the need for its consent.

What was the goal this time?

There was an aid convoy waiting to pass “across the lines” from Aleppo to the Idlib countryside, that is, from government-controlled areas to the opposition enclave, and Ankara was slow to provide approval.

After the strike, the convoy could finally pass. Moscow achieved a great political goal, represented by strengthening the trend to provide humanitarian aid “across the lines” in the three areas of influence, i.e. to consolidate and expand the idea of providing aid from Damascus in exchange for reducing dependence on “the Turkish border,” in implementation of the Russian-US understanding.

The Russian delegation had succeeded in obtaining a concession from the Americans in Geneva, by increasing reliance on “cross-line” aid to accept the extension of the international resolution. This is a political goal for Moscow, aimed at “consolidating the recognition of the Syrian government”, and was reflected in the remarks of the UN Under-Secretary-General, Martin Griffiths, when he called for engagement with the Syrian government.

There were other Russian “strikes”. In the south, government forces, specifically the Fourth Division, were “allowed” to attack the last opposition neighborhoods of Daraa. There was a double reminder for Damascus and Daraa: The need for the mediation of the Hmeimim base. After the strike, the Russian police entered what is known as the “cradle of the revolution” in Syria – the starting place of one of the “color revolutions” that Moscow despises. So from this particular area, this revolution must end.

In the broader context, this strike aims to extend the government’s influence and control to reach the Jordanian borders, “restore its legitimacy”, and open economic channels with the Gulf and Jordan.

In the eastern side of the north, the Turkish bombing of the positions of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the allies of the United States, was taking place under the Russian eye.

It is “okay” for Russia to remind the Kurds of the importance of its “satisfaction” with the understandings in the east of the Euphrates between the armies of Washington and Moscow, between the forces of Ankara and Moscow, and with Damascus, which raised its expectations after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What about the United States?

Syria is not a priority for the Joe Biden administration. But the price this administration paid for its withdrawal from Afghanistan helped it define more precisely its goals in Syria.

In his farewell speech to two decades of intervention in Kabul, Biden said that the era of nation-building or regime change ended in Afghanistan and others, that is, in Syria as well, and that the priority now was to fight terrorism, specifically ISIS.

Thus, the US condemnations of the bombing of northern and southern Syria are nothing more than political statements.

As for the clearest policy, it is the one that the acting US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joe Hood, brought to Qamishli a few days ago.

“We will not withdraw from northeastern Syria as we did in Afghanistan,” he asserted, knowing that the US presence there is linked to the mission of fighting ISIS in Iraq.

There is a consensus in Washington to continue the fight against ISIS, which parallels the consent to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Biden administration does not want to appear as if it was retreating in the face of Russia and Iran, in addition to the Israeli factor and the pressure exerted by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett during his recent visit to Washington. There are two intertwined factors: Great sympathy for the Kurds in the US, and suspicion over Biden’s position toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Biden’s stance is different from that of his predecessor, Donald Trump, who wanted to “give the Kurds to Turkey” at the end of 2019.

Syria is among the top Russian priorities in the Middle East. In fact, Moscow is searching for a “successful model” for its vision of “nation-building” through the triad of centralization - decentralization – sovereignty.

But Syria occupies a different position among America’s priorities, with a focus on fighting ISIS and favoring the Kurds. This may be an entry point for an American-Russian intersection in Syria after the “Afghan disappointment.”

There is no doubt that the upcoming McGurk-Vershinin meeting will witness an evaluation of the results of the “historic humanitarian breakthrough” and the possibility of developing it into political deals and arrangements that serve both parties.



Israel’s Path of Destruction in Southern Lebanon Raises Fears of an Attempt to Create a Buffer Zone

 This Oct. 24 2024, satellite image from Planet Labs PBC shows the village of Ramyah in southern Lebanon. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This Oct. 24 2024, satellite image from Planet Labs PBC shows the village of Ramyah in southern Lebanon. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
TT

Israel’s Path of Destruction in Southern Lebanon Raises Fears of an Attempt to Create a Buffer Zone

 This Oct. 24 2024, satellite image from Planet Labs PBC shows the village of Ramyah in southern Lebanon. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This Oct. 24 2024, satellite image from Planet Labs PBC shows the village of Ramyah in southern Lebanon. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

Perched on a hilltop a short walk from the Israeli border, the tiny southern Lebanese village of Ramyah has almost been wiped off the map. In a neighboring village, satellite photos show a similar scene: a hill once covered with houses, now reduced to a gray smear of rubble.

Israeli warplanes and ground forces have blasted a trail of destruction through southern Lebanon the past month. The aim, Israel says, is to debilitate the Iran-backed Hezbollah armed group, push it away from the border and end more than a year of Hezbollah fire into northern Israel.

Even United Nations peacekeepers and Lebanese troops in the south have come under fire from Israeli forces, raising questions over whether they can remain in place.

More than 1 million people have fled bombardment, emptying much of the south. Some experts say Israel may be aiming to create a depopulated buffer zone, a strategy it has already deployed along its border with Gaza.

Some conditions for such a zone appear already in place, according to an Associated Press analysis of satellite imagery and data collected by mapping experts that show the breadth of destruction across 11 villages next to the border.

The Israeli military has said the bombardment is necessary to destroy Hezbollah tunnels and other infrastructure it says the group embedded within towns. The blasts have also destroyed homes, neighborhoods and sometimes entire villages, where families have lived for generations.

Israel says it aims to push Hezbollah far enough back that its citizens can return safely to homes in the north, but Israeli officials acknowledge they don’t have a concrete plan for ensuring Hezbollah stays away from the border long term. That is a key focus in attempts by the United States to broker a ceasefire.

Orna Mizrahi, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, said Israel's immediate aim is not to create a buffer zone — but that might change.

“Maybe we’ll have no other choice than staying there until we have an arrangement that promises us that Hezbollah will not come back to the zone,” she said.

A path of destruction

Troops pushed into southern Lebanon on Oct. 1, backed by heavy bombardment that has intensified since.

Using satellite images provided by Planet Labs PBC, AP identified a line of 11 villages — all within 4 miles (6.5 kilometers) of Lebanon's border with Israel — that have been severely damaged in the past month, either by strikes or detonations of explosives laid by Israeli soldiers.

Analysis found the most intense damage in the south came in villages closest to the border, with between 100 and 500 buildings likely destroyed or damaged in each, according to Corey Scher of CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Der Hoek of Oregon State University, experts in damage assessments.

In Ramyah, barely a single structure still stands on the village’s central hilltop, after a controlled detonation that Israeli soldiers showed themselves carrying out in videos posted on social media. In the next town over, Aita al-Shaab — a village with strong Hezbollah influence — bombardment turned the hilltop with the highest concentration of buildings into a gray wasteland of rubble.

In other villages, the damage is more selective. In some, bombardment tore scars through blocks of houses; in others, certain homes were crushed while their neighbors remained intact.

Another controlled detonation leveled much of the village of Odeissah, with an explosion so strong it set off earthquake alerts in Israel.

In videos of the blast, Lubnan Baalbaki, conductor of the Lebanese Philharmonic Orchestra, watched in disbelief as his parents’ house — containing the art collection and a library his father had built up for years — was destroyed.

“This house was a project and a dream for both of my parents,” he told the AP. His parents’ graves in the garden are now lost.

When asked whether its intention was to create a buffer zone, Israel’s military said it was “conducting localized, limited, targeted raids based on precise intelligence" against Hezbollah targets. It said Hezbollah had “deliberately embedded” weapons in homes and villages.

Israeli journalist Danny Kushmaro even helped blow up a home that the military said was being used to store Hezbollah ammunition. In a television segment, Kushmaro and soldiers counted down before they pressed a button, setting off a massive explosion.

Videos posted online by Israel’s military and individual soldiers show Israeli troops planting flags on Lebanese soil. Still, Israel has not built any bases or managed to hold a permanent presence in southern Lebanon. Troops appear to move back and forth across the border, sometimes under heavy fire from Hezbollah.

October has been the deadliest month of 2024 for the Israeli military, with around 60 soldiers killed.

Attacks on UN peacekeeping troops and the Lebanese Army

The bombardment has been punctuated by Israeli attacks on UN troops and the Lebanese Army — forces which, under international law, are supposed to keep the peace in the area. Israel has long complained that their presence has not prevented Hezbollah from building up its infrastructure across the south.

Israel denies targeting either force.

The Lebanese military has said at least 11 of its soldiers were killed in eight Israeli strikes, either at their positions or while assisting evacuations.

The peacekeeping force, known as UNIFIL, said its forces and infrastructure have been harmed at least 30 times since late September, blaming Israeli military fire or actions for about 20 of them, “with seven being clearly deliberate.”

A rocket likely fired by Hezbollah or an allied group hit UNIFIL’s headquarters in Naqoura on Tuesday, causing some minor injuries, said UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti.

UNIFIL has refused to leave southern Lebanon, despite calls by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for them to go.

Experts warn that could change if peacekeepers come under greater fire.

“If you went from the UN taking casualties to the UN actually taking fatalities,” some nations contributing troops may “say ‘enough is enough,’ and you might see the mission start to crumble,” said Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group.

The future of the territory is uncertain

International ceasefire efforts appear to be centered on implementing UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

It specified that Israeli forces would fully withdraw from Lebanon while the Lebanese army and UNIFIL — not Hezbollah — would be the exclusive armed presence in a zone about 25 kilometers (15 miles) from the border.

But the resolution was not fully implemented. Hezbollah never left the border zone, and Lebanon accuses Israel of continuing to occupy small areas of its land and carrying out frequent military overflights above its territory.

During a recent visit to Beirut, US envoy Amos Hochstein said a new agreement was needed to enforce Resolution 1701.

Israel could be trying to pressure an agreement into existence through the destruction wreaked in southern Lebanon.

Yossi Yehoshua, military correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote that the military needs to “entrench further its operational achievements” to push Hezbollah, the Lebanese government and mediating countries “to accept an end (of the war) under conditions that are convenient for Israel.”

Some Lebanese fear that means an occupation of parts of the south, 25 years after Israel ended its occupation there.

Lebanese parliamentarian Mark Daou, a critic of both Hezbollah and of Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, said he believed Israel was trying to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities and turn the Lebanese public “against the will to resist Israeli incursions.”

Gowan, of the International Crisis Group, said one aim of Resolution 1701 was to give the Lebanese army enough credibility that it, not Hezbollah, would be seen “as the legitimate defender” in the south.

“That evaporates if they become (Israel’s) gendarmerie of southern Lebanon,” he said.