Cailean Bochanan
6th June, 2013
The defeat of the Western-backed insurgents in Qusayr is, in the words of Pepe Escobar “a monster strategic defeat for the NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council-Israel axis.” (According to Foreign Policy, the defence of Quasyr is the debut of Saudi Arabia as new rebel godfather in the place of Qatar, now sidelined by Obama.) And it is one in which Hezbollah has played an important role. In the Assessment of Pierre Khalad of the Centre d’Etudes Stratégiques Arabes et Internationales in Beirut “Le leadership de Bachar al-Assad dépasse le cadre de la Syrie et prend une dimension arabe. Il constitue, avec le chef de la Résistance sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, le symbole de la dignité arabe.” (The leadership of Bashar al Assad goes beyond Syria and has taken on an Arab dimension. He is, alongside head of the resistance Hassan Nasrallah, the symbol of Arab dignity)
Obama has for some time spearheaded a Western reassessment of the Syria crisis, one in which realism prevails over the “idealism” of the neo-cons who persisted in believing in the roll-back of each and all the enemies of Israel as a fundamental tenet of US foreign policy. But even more realism is required in laying the foundations of a successful peace conference: the Takfirist insurgents inside Syria, many or most of whom are not Syrian, have to be defeated since they are incapable of dialogue and cannot be expected to respect any cease-fire agreement. (In addition,the Western-sponsored opposition, the so-called Syrian National Coalition cannot participate in any conference whilst fighters on the ground expose their purely cosmetic leadership role.) With the taking of Qusayr this defeat comes ever closer and with it the prospects of a peace conference. The debate going on in Western circles about arming the “rebels” has, therefore, a largely academic character given that none of them are actually proposing the arming of the “rebels” now: and for the “rebels” it’s now or never. 80 Conservative MPs have written to Cameron expressing their concerns about the arming of Syrian “rebels” and, one source disclosed to the BBC that
“Those opposed (to arming the rebels) are saying Assad should win,”
Perhaps, after all, they have twigged that the “rebels” are to be left to their fate. That fate though was still to be determined on the battlefield and if Hezbollah have played a role in bringing the insurgents’ terror rampage, which amongst other things threatens the survival of the Christian community in Syria, to a conclusion they are to be congratulated.
As was to be expected Hezbollah’s intervention has been met with murmurings from certain quarters especially where strict silence was observed in response to Israel’s bombing of Syria. And, of course, on the left, all of whom were screaming “We are all Hezbollah now!” back in 2006, there is silence. Silence or consternation as in the case of Alex Callinicos of the SWP:
“Hizbollah and Assad have long been allied to the Islamic Republican regime in Iran.[Yes, it’s called the Axis of Resistance to Israel, comrade!] But Hizbollah has deep popular roots in Lebanon that stem above all from its role in resisting Israel. The growing intervention in the Syrian struggle is a disastrous decision by the Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.”
Disastrous for whom? For Western imperialism, of course!
So who now should be applauding the victory at Qusayr? All those who want to see a successful peace process in the Middle East starting with the international conference on Syria which shall begin as soon as conditions on the ground permit.
In These New Times 