The Washington Post reports: After nearly two years of fighting, Syria’s vaunted war machine is showing serious cracks as emboldened rebels snap up more bases and airfields and force army units to retrench behind defensive lines in major cities, Western officials and military analysts say.

Bolstered by a steady flow of arms from foreign backers, opposition forces have scored a s eries of tactical victories in the Damascus suburbs in recent days and are advancing steadily toward the city’s airport, adding to what some analysts view as a sense of momentum that has been building since late summer.

Powerful antitank and antiaircraft weapons have helped level what was once a lopsided contest, the officials say, so much so that army commanders have been unable or unwilling to challenge rebel assaults on large military bases on the capital’s outskirts.

“The regime isn’t intervening to defend its positions,” said Jeffrey White, a former Middle East military analyst with the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency. “And when it does try to counterattack, it often fails.” [Continue reading…]

Haaretz reports: Syrian President Bashar Assad has been looking into the possibility of claiming political asylum for himself, his family and his associates in Latin America, in case he is forced to flee Damascus.

Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad held meetings in Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador over the past week, and brought with him classified personal letters from Assad to local leaders.

A source in the Venezuelan capital Caracas who spoke to Haaretz was not able to say what the response to the Syrian request was, but Venezuela’s foreign ministry confirmed to the El Universal newspaper that al-Miqdad did indeed bring a letter for President Hugo Chavez. Chavez received the letter just before he set out to Cuba last Wednesday to undergo further treatment for cancer.

All that the official spokesperson in Caracas could confirm was that Assad’s message touched on “the personal relationship between the two presidents,” and that the deputy foreign minister’s visit defines the close relationship between the two states.

Since the crisis in Syria began in March last year, Chavez has not hidden his support for the Assad regime. A number of times over the past year Venezuela has sent petrol and diesel fuel to Syria, so that the regime’s tanks and armored personnel carriers can continue to operate against what Chavez defines as terrorists. The Venezuelan leader’s close relationship with Iran, and his personal friendship with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, have turned him into a major player in efforts to save Assad.

Although the Syrian Ambassador in Venezuela, Ghassan Abbas, confirmed on Tuesday that al-Miqdad did hold talks with senior officials in Caracas, he claimed that he knows nothing about the content of Assad’s letter to Chavez. The deputy foreign minister had similar meetings last week in the Cuban capital, Havana, and the Ecuadorian capital, Quito.

A report in the New York Times on Monday said: A Russian political analyst with contacts at the [Syrian] Foreign Ministry said that “people sent by the Russian leadership” who had contact with Mr. Assad two weeks ago described a man who has lost all hope of victory or escape.

“His mood is that he will be killed anyway,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of a Russian foreign affairs journal and the head of an influential policy group, said in an interview in Moscow, adding that only an “extremely bold” diplomatic proposal could possibly convince Mr. Assad that he could leave power and survive.

“If he will try to go, to leave, to exit, he will be killed by his own people,” Mr. Lukyanov said, speculating that security forces dominated by Mr. Assad’s minority Alawite sect would not let him depart and leave them to face revenge. “If he stays, he will be killed by his opponents. He is in a trap. It is not about Russia or anybody else. It is about his physical survival.”

Jeffrey White writes: The regime could use chemical weapons in a variety of ways, from a limited or demonstration attack to large-scale offensive or defensive use to fundamentally change the military situation. At present, reports that the regime is weaponizing relatively small quantities of agent suggest the former. Limited CW use could be controlled better in terms of effects and visibility. The regime might also find it easier to explain away small-scale strikes as the work of “terrorists” or as a justifiable response to the military situation and the threat to the country.

One form of limited attack could be a strike against a specific military target, aimed at affecting a local but important tactical situation. Such an attack would also demonstrate that the regime was ready, willing, and able to carry out such actions.

The regime could also conduct small-scale strikes on civilian targets to intimidate the population or punish them for supporting the rebels. This would be an escalation from the regime’s routine use of explosives and incendiary weapons against civilians and could produce substantially greater casualties. It would undoubtedly have profound psychological effects on an essentially defenseless population.

As for broader CW use, the regime could employ such weapons to support ground offensives in key areas where its forces have been unable to achieve success via conventional tactics (e.g., around Maarrat al-Numan in Idlib province; in and around Aleppo city; in Deir al-Zour province, perhaps near Abu Kamal or Mayadin). It could use them to support defensive operations in places where rebel forces are on the offensive (e.g., the relatively remote Raqqa province) or have regime forces surrounded (as happened at the 46th Regiment base near Atareb in Aleppo province and the artillery fire base at Mayadin; in both cases, the positions fell to the rebels after prolonged siege and final assault). Using CW in close proximity to its own forces would be risky, but the military has some chemical defense equipment and training and might be able to provide a measure of protection.

McClatchy reports: In an apparent bid to isolate Islamist extremists and bolster a new Western-backed Syrian opposition alliance, the United States is moving to declare one of the most effective Syrian rebel groups a foreign terrorist organization because of its alleged ties to al Qaida.

The State Department originally planned to add the Nusra Front – Jabhat al Nusra in Arabic – to its list of international terrorist groups this week, McClatchy learned. The announcement was postponed, however, as officials discussed how to get the maximum impact from the designation.

The designation now is likely just before the United States and its European and Arab allies meet with leaders of the new opposition alliance at a conference Dec. 12 in Morocco, where a significant aid package for the new alliance is expected to be announced.

The impact of the terrorist designation for Nusra, whose members have been at the forefront of many of the rebels’ most recent victories, remains unclear. Many rebel sympathizers said they were concerned that the designation would make it impossible for rebel groups to coordinate in their fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. [Continue reading…]

McClatchy reports: When the group Jabhat al Nusra first claimed responsibility for car and suicide bombings in Damascus that killed dozens last January, many of Syria’s revolutionaries claimed that the organization was a creation of the Syrian government, designed to discredit those who opposed the regime of President Bashar Assad and to hide the regime’s own brutal tactics.

Nearly a year later, however, Jabhat al Nusra, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaida, has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad.

Not only does the group still conduct suicide bombings that have killed hundreds, but they’ve proved to be critical to the rebels’ military advance. In battle after battle across the country, Nusra and similar groups do the heaviest frontline fighting. Groups who call themselves the Free Syrian Army and report to military councils led by defected Syrian army officers move into the captured territory afterward.

The prominence of Nusra in the rebel cause worries U.S. and other Western officials, who say its operations rely on the same people and tactics that fueled al Qaida in Iraq – an assertion that is borne out by interviews with Nusra members in Syria.

Among Nusra fighters are many Syrians who say they fought with al Qaida in Iraq, which waged a bloody and violent campaign against the U.S. presence in that country and is still blamed for suicide and car bombings that have killed hundreds of Iraqis since the U.S. troops left a year ago.

According to Nusra members, some of the group’s leaders, including the emir, or top ruler, in Syria’s Deir al Zour province, are Iraqis.

The group’s prominence makes clear the dilemma of Syria’s revolutionaries, as well as those who might provide support to them. Though members of Nusra operate independently of the other rebel groups that have taken up arms — and particularly those that are calling for elections if Assad is deposed — it is increasingly clear that their operations are closely coordinated with more secular rebels. [Continue reading…]

Tareq al-Abed writes: “Beware the jihadists.” This is the phrase that the international community keeps repeating as an excuse to avoid supplying the Syrian opposition with arms. They mean to say that extremist elements are entering Syria and that they should not be given arms. But an examination of the Islamic groups in the Syrian north reveals the true situation.

The jihadists in this area are few, but the effectiveness of the Salafists and the quality of their operations has made society support them more than they do other combat battalions, which follow a more moderate discourse and which sometimes act as exclusive rulers.

“Not everyone with a beard is a Salafist.” This is how a media activist from the town of Bench, near Idlib, begins his discussion about Islamist fighters in the north. He said that calling most groups Salafists is inaccurate, and that this will eventually become clear. Even though most, if not all, battalions in Idlib and Aleppo and their countrysides have a religious bent, it is not accurate to characterize them as jihadists. In fact, they can be classified into three groups:

1. Battalions with a moderate Islamist philosophy. This is the philosophy of most of the north and in fact all of Syria. Many of these are not seeking leadership positions. They are civilians who had to take up arms. They formed military groups based on family or geographic ties. Despite the Islamist discourse which appears in their media declarations, many of those fighters don’t care about the jihadist/Salafist discourse when you get down to it. According to those we have met, many fighters have beards because it is a general symbol among the fighters, who know little about the jihadist doctrine, and even the Salafist ideology. Those military groups often have organizational and financing problems, particularly in Aleppo. They are sometimes joined by criminals, bandits, kidnappers and those who fight on the basis of regional or sectarian hatred. In some cases, these criminals use the banner of revolution to justify kidnapping, theft, killing and even mutilation, as was the case with the “Storm of the North Battalion” in Azaz.
2. Salafist Battalions. These battalions have a declared commitment to the Salafist philosophy. They also plan their operations without coordinating with the Free Syrian Army (FSA). These battalions are more organized and some of their fighters receive a monthly salary, such as the Storm of the North Battalion. Those battalions are wary of minorities. Each one of them has its own “Shariah officer” who issues religious edicts, or fatwas, regarding battles or jihad. Some of those “Shariah officers” have studied Islamic law but others hold that position simply because they are well read. Their fighters consider themselves “newcomers” to religious life but have devoted themselves for “jihad for Allah’s sake and for the establishment of the Islamic state.” The contact of those battalions with the outside are limited to financing by outside individuals or groups. They also have not declared their allegiance to al-Qaeda or any other organization. But there is a glaring contradiction when those groups say to the media that they want a civil state and that they will return to normal life once the conflict ends, while at other times they do not hesitate to assert their support for a religious state as they mount scathing attacks on liberals and other sects.
3. Al-Nusra Front. This battalion is thought to have fewer members than those described above, but it is highly organized. It is hard for volunteers to join it. It does not allow its fighters to smoke cigarettes. Its leaders refuse to talk to the media. It has declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda and its late leader Osama bin Laden. Some of its fighters have fought in Iraq during the American occupation and are therefore familiar with jihadist ideology, which they consider their main calling. Therefore, their uncompromising goal of establishing a religious state and their rejection of all opposition groups is not surprising. The battalion’s members have recently attacked the new opposition coalition for appointing Munther Majos as its ambassador to France on the grounds that he belongs to the Alawi sect. [Continue reading…]

The Cable reports: The Senate voted 92-6 today to require the Pentagon to report on options for using U.S. military assets to degrade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s ability to use air power against his own people.

The amendment, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) with Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), gives the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta 90 days after the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act to report back to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on military options in Syria. The principle purpose of the legislation is “to advance the goals of President Obama of stopping the killing of civilians in Syria and creating conditions for a transition to a democratic, pluralistic, political system in Syria.”

The resolution does not explicitly call for the Assad to step down in Syria, a matter of contention when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution on Syria earlier this year. It also explicitly does not authorize the use of military force in Syria.

The legislation does say that any U.S. military activity with regard to Syria should be done in conjunction with allies, should not involve U.S. boots on the ground, and should minimize the risk to U.S. forces as well as financial costs to U.S. taxpayers.

Brian Whitaker picks out six pointers suggesting Assad’s days are numbered:

Each day’s news brings more reasons to believe the Assad regime’s fall cannot be far away. Viewed individually these signs may not in themselves spell doom for the regime but collectively they do.

1. Withdrawal of UN and diplomatic personnel: The UN announced yesterday that it has cancelled all missions to Syria from abroad and suspended its activities inside the country. All non-essential staff are to be withdrawn because of the “prevailing security situation”. The European Union, which has a diplomatic office in Damascus, also said it will cut back activities ” to a minimum level due to the current security conditions”. In effect, the UN and EU are now only a step away from ordering a complete evacuation.

2. Jihad Makdissi flees: The foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, has fled Syria and yesterday was reported to have arrived in London. This may not be as big a loss as some of the earlier defections and assassinations but it does tell us how someone who was privy to a lot of regime information now views the situation.

Whether Makdissi actually has a political quarrel with the regime is unclear but the Washington Post, citing a friend of Makdissi,
says he is “taking a break from the pressure of being the official face of the government in the media while having no security protection for himself or his family”.

If we take this at face value and assume he has not fallen out with Assad, it’s a message of no confidence in the regime’s once-feared security apparatus.

3. Damascus airport: A capital city without a functioning airport isn’t really a capital city any more. Syrian officials insist the airport is still open, but to what extent it may be operating is a different matter. Travel to and from the airport is dangerous and very few of the few remaining scheduled flights appear to be arriving or leaving. Egyptair announced yesterday that it was resuming flights but then changed its mind. [Continue reading…]

The Guardian reports: The former Syrian foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, is on his way to the United States after apparently defecting, the Guardian has learned.

Makdissi, the most senior Christian official yet to abandon Bashar al-Assad’s regime, was reported on Monday to have variously been sacked or defected and to have arrived back in London, where he used to serve in the Syrian embassy.

But usually reliable diplomatic sources revealed on Tuesday that he is en route for – or already in – the US after managing to leave the capital, Damascus, for Beirut. He was not in the UK, British officials insisted. In Washington, a state department spokesman said: “We are not in a position to confirm his actions or whereabouts.”