[Midden-Oosten] Syria Endgame: Crushing Daraa, the Russia-Israel deal & the Geopolitics of Counterrevolution

[Jeff]

[Michael Karadjis has analyzed the international forces involved in 
defeating the Syrian revolution. His lengthy article is available 
through the following link. The article's introduction is reproduced 
below.]

https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/syria-endgame-crushing-daraa-the-russia-israel-deal-the-geopolitics-of-counterrevolution/

Syria Endgame: Crushing Daraa, the Russia-Israel deal & the Geopolitics 
of Counterrevolution
by Michael Karadjis
August 23, 2018

As the forces of Bashar al-Assad, backed by the Russian air force, 
reconquered Daraa city, the birthplace of the Syrian revolution, an aid 
worker reported to Kareem Shaheen in The Guardian that “people have 
accepted the reality that the entire world is fighting against the 
revolution, and therefore it cannot continue.”

Shaheen is correct; the realisation however is late. The “the entire 
world” – all the major imperialist and regional reactionary powers – has 
been against the revolution since its outbreak in March 2011. Their 
differences have been entirely tactical.

The crushing of heroic Daraa involved an unwritten agreement between the 
Assad regime, Russia, the US and Israel. Four ‘heroes’ of today’s global 
‘alt-right’ – Assad, Netanyahu, Trump and Putin – have emerged 
triumphant over the corpse of the Syrian revolution.

Much commentary proclaims that all global and regional powers are 
responsible for the catastrophe, backing “different sides” to pursue 
their “rival interests.” All these powers are indeed responsible, but 
the direct and massive Russian and Iranian intervention on the side of 
the regime contrasts sharply with the indirect role of the United 
States, the pretence of friendship to the anti-Assad opposition by 
neighbouring Arab regimes, and the cynical connivance of Israel, in 
bringing about the same goal. “Rivalry” and “different sides” had 
remarkably little to do with it.

The end game shows that inter-imperialist cooperation, rather than the 
much heralded “inter-imperialist rivalry,” was the major dimension of 
the foreign intervention in Syria. While it is understandable for 
beleaguered and outgunned revolutionary forces to take advantage of 
whatever tactical differences existed among the global and regional 
powers, there was never any real doubt that they were all ultimately on 
the same side, that of counterrevolution.

Conventional “geopolitics” emphasises rivalry between imperialist and 
sub-imperialist powers as the driving force of world politics. This 
leads to the conclusion that the US was “weak” or “hesitant” for 
allegedly “giving in” to Russia or “letting Assad off lightly” over his 
genocide. Repeated ad-nauseum for seven years, this entirely misses the 
point.

Inter-imperialist rivalry is a major factor in world politics, but 
confronted with revolution – like the region-wide Arab Spring – states 
that otherwise hate each other quite easily join forces against their 
common enemy – the revolutionary populace.

The Linux Beach blog of writer Clay Claiborne ends each piece with the 
slogan: “Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!”. This analogy 
is relevant here; the rival ruling classes of France and Germany, after 
their Franco-Prussian war, united to smash the insurgent working class 
of Paris. “Love of Nation” is good when the ruling class wants workers 
to kill each other, but its hollowness is revealed when their 
fundamental interests are challenged.

The geopolitics of counterrevolution trumps other issues that divide 
rival powers. Regardless of whether or not US imperialism is “in 
retreat” globally, this has been irrelevant to the Syria issue; there 
was never any US “weakness” or “hesitance” over Syria; rather, under 
both the Obama and Trump administrations, the alliance with Russia over 
Syria has been an alliance for counterrevolution; the US has acted 
consistently in its own interests. The differences have been over the 
tactical approach to counterrevolution.

Despite some early US rhetoric about taking “firm and appropriate 
measures” if Assad were to violate the US-Russian declared 
“de-escalation zone” in southern Syria, once the offensive got underway 
the US made clear to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that “you should not 
base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military 
intervention by us.” The US also told the rebels not to “be provoked” by 
the regime’s barrel bombs into responding.

As for Israel, it has made clear all along that it is fine with Assad 
retaking the south as long as Iran and Hezbollah are not involved. Some 
anti-Assad Syrians and their supporters had developed illusions that the 
early US language, and Israel’s interest in keeping Iranian forces away 
from occupied Golan, might for the one and only time in the war restrain 
Assad’s hand. It is understandable to want to have hope; moreover, 
illusions were rarely expressed about any US or Israeli “humanitarian” 
motivation, but rather a belief that their pragmatic interests may 
intersect with the needs of Syrian people in the south.

As we will see, however, it was precisely strategic agreements between 
Israel and Russia, with US approval, that paved the way for this Assad 
offensive. A major part of this essay, therefore, is concerned with the 
evolution of Israeli policy on Syria. This is not because Israel can be 
assigned blame for the Syrian disaster; Assad, Russia and Iran are fully 
responsible for their actions, just as the US and Israel, not Russia or 
Iran, are primarily responsible for the Palestinian catastrophe. But the 
agreement between Israel and Russia – powers popularly thought to be in 
“different blocs” – will be the main case study through which the 
broader counterrevolutionary agreement will be demonstrated.

Israel has always preferred dictators to democracy in the Arab world; 
only a democratic Arab world can really challenge Israel’s 
anti-democratic rule over Palestine. And in the first few years, Israeli 
policy was resolutely pro-Assad and hostile to the Arab Spring 
generally.

Yet some Israeli interests did have the potential to bring about 
conflict with Assad: the desire to keep Iranian forces away from the 
Golan, to prevent any mass influx of refugees from Syria, or to build 
support on the Syrian side of the Golan among civilians terrified of 
Assad, in order to use them as a “border force” to protect the stolen 
Golan. Yet none of this ultimately led to any Israeli aid in preventing 
the fall of Daraa; on the contrary, an even more open embrace of Assad 
than previously manifested itself, highlighting again the tendency of 
revolution to push oppressive powers to line upon the same side.

First, however, the essay will look at the centrality of Daraa to the 
Syrian revolution, and the loyalty which the revolutionary forces there 
maintained to the original goals of the revolution – as well as the 
starkness of their betrayal by alleged “supporters,” beginning several 
years before the final act.....

(Continued)

FULL ARTICLE:
https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/syria-endgame-crushing-daraa-the-russia-israel-deal-the-geopolitics-of-counterrevolution/