Why Muslim Governments Were Never Serious about Deposing Assad and Rescuing Aleppo or the Syrians

Recently, there was sad news of the fall of almost half of opposition held Aleppo, and the rising possibility of the return to subjugation of the Syrian people by a sectarian and tyrannical dictator.

Additionally, the Syrian regime has allied with Kurdish nationalists to take back Aleppo, and also attack the Turkish supported Syrian fighters currently besieging ISIS around Al Bab. The Syrian Army had been losing ground prior to the entry of Russian air, navy and ground forces (suspected in the thousands), and being bolstered by naive and misguided religious volunteer militias (the other kind of ‘Jihadists’ in Syria) from Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan. After the entry of the Russians, the National Socialist (Baath) government and army of Assad has made great strides recently.

In the face of criticism, many people have expressed that the regional Muslim governments are too weak to intervene and bring about a decisive conclusion, and have done the best they can to help the Syrian opposition. Others, among the pro-Assadists (and secular Kurdish nationalists) triumphantly argue that the recent success of Assad has come about despite the full resources of America and the Gulf States, Jordan and Turkey.

However this has never been the case. Quite simply, the Muslim governments in the region have never cared about the Syrians achieving a government purely determined by themselves, nor bringing the dictator Bashar al Assad to account. Here’s why:

The Agenda of the US and its allied Muslim Governments in the Middle East

The US has indeed been supporting *some* of the ‘vetted’ opposition groups it wants to work with (i.e. anti-Assad, but Secular), but it has also been holding back and limiting the support by Gulf states to the more Islamic opposition groups.

The US wants to depose Assad, but this is not primarily because it wants to weaken Iranian influence and Hezbollah. The fact that US eventually supported deposing Mubarak and Qaddafi, who previously were collaborators with Western interests, demonstrate that the US will depose dictators who are no longer useful in fulfilling their primary role – keeping the Muslim populations quiet and maintaining the stability of the Western imposed order in the middle east. When Assad began shooting protestors in Syria (which initially started in Kurdish majority areas), causing the protests to enlarge and soldiers to renounce Assad, the Western governments did what they always do, and sought to ensure a Middle Eastern government is replaced with one that will continue to maintain order.

However, like in Libya and Egypt, the US doesn’t want to see the rise of an Islamic government, and the US knew that if Assad collapses too quickly, the ensuing chaos would see Islamic groups rise and take over a strategic part of the Middle East, which they also see as threatening to Israel’s borders (which Assad had helped keep quiet and peaceful).

The US plan then, and now, was always to maintain a bloody stalemate between Assad and the rebels, to the point that Assad agrees to reforms that would see him quietly retired later in elections, while preserving the institutions of a continuing Secular government that the US can work with. This plan was carried out with the complicity of the regional Muslim governments.

One clear evidence of this, was the joint declaration in Geneva in 2015[i], whose FIRST article was:

“1) Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and secular character are fundamental.”

The second article was:

“2) State institutions will remain intact”.

The joint signatories to Syria’s ‘secular character’ included Turkey, Jordan, Russia and…Saudi Arabia & Iran.

Kerry reaffirmed this when he said:

“There was agreement that Syria should be a unified country, united, that it needs to be secular, that ISIL (Islamic State) needs to be taken on, and that there needs to be a managed transition” [ii]

In light of this strategic calculation, the US had for many years stopped the gulf states supplying resources to the rebels that would give them a decisive upper hand. For example, the US prevented supplying anti-tank weapons to the opposition lest it leads to them winning[iii]. But when the opposition began to flounder against Assad’s heavy armoured vehicles, the US allowed anti-tank weapons, but only to go to the secular opposition groups (however, some Islamic groups were able to take the weapons from the secular groups, much to the US’s chagrin). The US, used its influence within the Gulf States and Turkey, to maintain an equilibrium of force, where no one side was capable of winning, hoping it would bring everyone to the negotiations table.

The US later used the Gulf states, Jordan and Turkey to alternatively withhold[iv] and then give supplies as it saw was needed to control operations of the Islamic groups and limit their successes if they were winning too much against Assad.

For example, Jordan, with US and Russian diplomatic coordination, had prevented[v] opposition fighters from continuing their advances against Assad in the south, which relieved pressure off Assad, and prevented the fall of Damascus, allowing Assad to focus his forces against the Islamic opposition groups in the north. The opposition fighters in the southern front were in fact told only to focus on fighting Jabhat al Nusra, which is a key target of the US, meanwhile ignoring the biggest killers of Syrians, Assad (and even ISIS!).

Despite all the five years of chaos, deaths and destruction, the US and its allies stood by without decisively ending the conflict. Even if Assad fell ‘too quickly’ the resulting chaos still wouldn’t amount to the level of industrialised destruction that Syria has been through for 5 years, and the millions of refugees who have had to flee the country.

Could the US and Turkey have easily intervened in Syria against Assad?

Pro-Assadists like to believe that the US ‘has tried its best’ to get rid of Assad, but this is simply not true. The US could have struck Assad in 2013, long before the Russians had become involved, and destroy Assad’s entire air force on the ground after Assad was believed to have deployed chemical weapons against his own people (a fact he still is doing). There was massive international pressure on the US and Obama to intervene after this ‘red line’ was crossed. Instead, Assad gave the US a ‘way out’ and publicly offered to ‘destroy’ his chemical warhead arsenal – which the US accepted, relieving it of having to do anything else about Assad’s chemical attacks. Now, Assad’s continuing chemical attacks are ignored because 2013 demonstrated that the US doesn’t consider use of chemical weapons a ‘red line’ anymore (which it never really did when Saddam used it against Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s).

Turkey could have intervened in 2012 after Syria had shot down one of its planes. There was much anger and outrage in Turkish media, and many thought that the Turkish people would’ve supported any action against the Syrian regime.

Syria’s foreign affairs spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, showed Assad’s fear, when he publicly said that “We do not want any tension with Ankara…Hopefully, we can transcend this issue swiftly. All I can say is that the announcement I have made is Syria’s official stance; there is in no way any animosity felt towards Turkey and the Turkish public.”

However, nothing happened. The UK helped give Turkey a face-saving ‘way out’ against Turkish public pressure for military action, when the UK foreign minister William Hague publicly declared:

“The Assad regime should not make the mistake of believing that it can act with impunity. It will be held to account for its behaviour. The UK stands ready to pursue robust action at the United Nations Security Council…This deplorable incident underlines the urgent need to find a solution to the current crisis in Syria in order to bring an end to the violence and to achieve a genuine political transition”

Soli Ozel, a columnist at the Haberturk newspaper and Professor of International Relations at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University, said that despite “plenty of people who have written in media that we should retaliate and attack” the Turkish government wouldn’t declare the shooting down of the Turkish pilot as an act of war, because “If you deem it is an act of war you will go to war. That is why I do not think they will deem it an act of war”

The Turkish EU Affairs Minister Egemen Bagis said in October 2012 that “Turkey’s military power today is at the point where it could destroy Syria[‘s government] within a few hours”

I had mentioned this in an article I wrote in November 2012 that the Turkish army could’ve stopped the suffering of the Syrian people, but chose to remain silent due to the US’s agenda.

Turkey and Assad’s Sub-Plots

Because of the ‘human element’, the US plans are not going smoothly. Assad wants to return Syria back to how it was prior to the rebellion and doesn’t intend to step down in future at all, even by fair and open elections (which Syria hasn’t had since the Baathist, and then Alawite coup decades ago). Assad has long covertly allowed, and even helped its former Iraqi Baathist allies during the Iraq war, to grow in Iraq under the guise of an Al Qaeda offshoot, ISI, and enter Syria in 2013 causing the rebels to lose all of eastern and most of central Syria to ISI, becoming ISIS.

ISIS *strangely* seems to devote most of its resources in fighting the Syrian rebels, and severely defeating the chances of the Syrian rebels to attain success. Meanwhile, Assad funds infrastructure in ISIS-occupied areas in Syria, and even reportedly provides air support to ISIS when they are attacked by Syrian rebels.

The fact that Assad was able to maintain a siege around Aleppo despite ISIS only a few kilometres away (and behind the Syrian army) should be evidence enough. ISIS hasn’t attempted a single operation to attack regime positions around Aleppo, despite launching continuing attacks against rebels throughout that period. Only in Deir al Zor, where the oilfields are located, and Palmyra (where email leaks showed ISIS giving it back to the Syrian army), has there been any reported clashes between ISIS soldiers on the ground, and the Syrian regime.

Against popular expectation, Assad protested against the sending of Iraqi Kurds from Turkey in an operation to liberate Kobani city from ISIS, and accused Turkey of sending foreign ‘terrorists’ into Turkey. This is because Assad’s strategy is to let ISIS take the non-strategic areas of Syria, rather than anyone else, because it would be easier politically on the international scene, to roll them back up again after Assad wins the strategic areas, rather than facing popular and strong secular forces backed by USA and the international community.

The US airstrikes against ISIS, has been more about curbing a useful asset to Assad, than about defeating a regional militia with faux-religious slogans – which prior to the Western airstrikes against it, never initiated any attacks against the West. Again, the Assad regime protested at the US airstrikes on ISIS under the guise that its permission wasn’t requested.

Of course, while Turkey is obliging of most US demands, it is mistrustful about the establishment and expansion of Rojava on the other side of its border[vi] that it fears would cause instability and Kurdish nationalist insurgency on its side.

Despite being on Turkey’s border, ISIS were relatively untouched by Turkey until they started to lose territory to nationalist (and Communist) kurdish forces. Only then did this motivate Turkey’s hand to get involved. The nationalist Kurdish forces have decided to strategically align with Assad, in the hope of advancing regional autonomy for a Syrian kurds, and connecting the isolated Kurdish enclaves into a united region, Rojava (despite the fact that there are large Arab and Turkmen areas in between).

The argument that we should ignore this history and focus on what’s happening now is equally fallacious. Since history demonstrates intentions and agendas.

Five Things that Probably Would’ve Already Happened if the Muslim Governments Who Support the Syrian Opposition, Actually Wanted to Quickly Remove Assad

People argue that Turkey cannot intervene now because of Russian intervention, and that the Turkish supported force in Syria is facing problems and obstacles. However, this belies what a serious commitment from Turkey and the other Muslim governments would look like if it were really intended on rescuing the Syrians and deposing Assad. Turkey and the Gulf countries actually could undertake a number of actions that would defeat Assad and rescue the Syrians and bring the war to a quicker close, if they were actually serious. If the Muslim governments of the region were actually serious about deposing Assad and saving the Syrian people, they probably would’ve done some or all of the following things:

1) Full Mobilisation and Deployment of the Turkish and Jordanian Armed Forces in Syria

If Turkey was serious about saving Syrians, it could deploy its army en masse into Syria, by the tens of thousands, and not just some support vehicles and special forces alongside the Syrian FSA groups as it’s currently doing. Turkey (and Jordan) could easily cite humanitarian reasons for a basis to move their militaries into Aleppo and Damascus, and there is little Syria could do to stop them (Russia will not go to war with Turkey, and potentially risk NATO confrontation for an endeavour that has limited value to it).

The Turkish land forces number, 315,000 professional soldiers. This would outnumber the pre-war numbers of the Syrian land army at least 2-1, let alone now. Furthermore, Turkey could use its media to easily raise fervour for intervention in Syria (like happened in 2012), and mobilise Turkey’s considerable reservist force.

Turkey has almost four times the population of Syria. Due to mandatory conscription, the number of pre-trained and ‘fit for service’ Turkish army reservists are 35,000,000(!). The number of military trained turkish reservists outnumbers the entire Syrian population, men, women and children, 2-1!

In aircraft, helicopters and armoured fighting vehicles, the Turkish army would have outnumbered the undepleted Syrian army 2-1 in 2011, let alone against the depleted numbers[vii] of the army now.

While Syria and Turkey have comparable numbers of battle tanks, Turkish battle tanks are either purchased new model Western built tanks, or built upon old Western templates, with many of them recently upgraded. Syrian tanks are mostly old Soviet era designs, and would be outmatched and outclassed in any tank vs tank engagement, even if the older Western style tanks were used.

The recent Turkish coup attempt has not depleted the Turkish military numbers, and only affected the officer corps, after the Turkish government removed a small number of easy-to-replace high-echelon commanders.

The conclusion still remains, if the Turkish army fully mobilised its land forces, and attacked on a narrow front against Assad’s force around Aleppo, there is little the heavily depleted – and spread out – army of Assad could do to stop it, even with its religious volunteers and the nationalist/communist Syrian Kurds. This is especially easy since the Syrian army is also currently engaged throughout Syria fighting against an estimated 150,000 Syrian armed rebels.

Unlike Russia and Iran, Turkey shares a mutual border with Syria, and could quickly mobilise, deploy and re-supply its forces. Turkey and Jordan could also use their artillery assets to hit Assad ammunition dumps, bases and command and control, which up till now have not faced any serious collective threat from the rebels.

The army of Jordan too could also intervene in Syria’s south, with its 110,000-strong land force, together with over 3,000 armoured vehicles; it could take Damascus quite easily. While Turkey’s intervention alone would be enough to end the war, a joint operation by Turkey and Jordan would reduce the fighting to a matter of weeks.

Of course, this won’t happen because Muslim governments in the region are not serious about quickly and decisively deposing Assad and ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

2) Turkey Could Establish a No-Fly Zone, but over most of skies of Syria

While it is true that Russia has deployed SA-400 air defence system that could prevent Turkish aircraft from supporting any Turkish military offensive, Turkey also has the means to prevent any Russian or Syrian aircraft from flying too. In 2015, Turkish medium altitude air defence units successfully shot down a Russian aircraft. Syrian aircraft have even less trained pilots and defences against anti-air weapons. Turkey merely extending its anti-air umbrella across Syria would deny Assad’s air superiority and would reverse the course of the war just by itself.

While this still might happen in a limited part of Syria, namely the part that Turkish forces occupy to deny a Socialist Rojava, however, even this would only be if the US gives Turkey permission and only if Assad gets too much out of control. Of course, a full extension of the no-fly zone, like that which was imposed upon Saddam Hussein, won’t happen because Muslim governments in the region are not serious about quickly and decisively deposing Assad and ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

Additionally, Turkey (and Jordan) could use their artillery to hit military airfields and syrian planes on the ground, thereby preventing them from flying, and effectively creating a no-fly zone without having to shoot planes out of the sky.

3) Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf governments have not matched Assad’s strategy in bringing volunteers (and professional soldiers) from their countries into Syria

Currently Assad uses religious fighters who volunteer (or are conscripted) from Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan to bolster his forces and fight against his own people. If the Muslim countries supporting the Syrian opposition were using all means available to them to topple Assad, as the Assad propaganda would have everyone believe, it would have been expected that they would’ve adopted a strategy similar to Assad’s strategy of importing volunteers from Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, by using volunteers (and professional soldiers) from their own countries to bolster the defence of the Syrian people.

However, the opposite is true. A cleric of the highest Saudi Islamic council issued a fatwa as far back as 2012, declaring that no Saudi should go to Jihad in Syria, neither can a Jihad be declared[viii], without the decision of the Saudi government. To date, the Saudi government has not made any such declaration, and travel to Syria is banned for Saudi citizens[ix]. The propaganda by pro-Assadists, that these countries are using all means to fight Assad, is simply not true. The international mobilisation of volunteers to fight the Soviets in occupied Afghanistan would be what a serious attempt to use all means by Muslim countries would look like.

It has been argued that the Muslim countries supporting the Syrian opposition are not allowing or encouraging volunteers to travel because they are worried about these recruits becoming radicalised into terrorism[x].

However, Professor John Davenport, of Fordham University suggested that a way around this problem would be for governments to: ‘create a new volunteer force specifically for this mission to destroy ISIS, end Assad’s reign, and restore decent order to both Syria and western Iraq. We already have westerners joining the Kurds to fight ISIS. Many of the young men (and a few women) who might go to ISIS would instead join this new humanitarian army, along with many of their peers who are not Islamic but who share the just passion to rid of us of ISIS and Assad’ [xi].

According to Davenport’s argument, the volunteers can be easily controlled and prevented from joining terrorists by inducting them into a kind of Turkish controlled version of the French foreign legion. This formation could easily be under the command structure of the Turkish army and used as an auxiliary, commanded by their army officers. Such a formation has already been imagined by Saudi Arabia, albeit to combat only ‘terror groups’[xii]. This avenue would provide a way to prevent terror groups from attracting naive and deluded volunteers, effectively cutting off the supply of recruits to those groups. Surely this would be a ‘win-win’ scenario for those whose concern is ending terrorism and the plight of the Syrian peoples?

However, from the start, the US had directed its ‘allies’[xiii] to prevent the travel of volunteers to join any rebel groups (not just the terror groups). While at the same time, Assad (and the Socialist Kurds of Rojava[xiv]) are continuing to gather numerous volunteers (and conscripts) from a number of countries, to use against his own people.

Therefore, despite the Gulf countries support of the FSA and other rebel groups with funding and weapons, the pro-Assadist propaganda is false, the US, its allies and the Muslim governments are not aiming to quickly depose Assad by all available means, for there are no attempts to recruit volunteers or soldiers from Muslim countries to come to Syria and depose Assad – in fact the opposite is true – any volunteers that have come to Syria, have done so despite the travel restrictions and legal threats of their countries.

The fact that none of the Gulf States, Turkey or Jordan are even considering using non-Syrian volunteers, is a clear indication that they are not using all means at their disposal to depose Assad, and never had any intention to.

4) Jordan, Turkey and the Gulf States would not be limiting supplies or operations of Syrian Opposition forces

Needless to say, if the Gulf countries, Jordan and Turkey stopped limiting the supply of resources to the opposition’s forces, and stopped halting operations of the opposition forces that they support, areas like the South front would restart operations against Assad and aid an eventual victory against him.

Of course, the fact that Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf countries are continuing to limit supplies and wait on the US’s permission, shows that decisively deposing Assad and protecting the Syrian people was never their primary concern.

5) The US could destroy all of Assad’s Air and Ground Command & Control Assets without using a single plane

While American interference in the Muslim world should stop, a point should be made purely for the pro-Assadists who believe Assad’s propaganda that he is part of the ‘axis of resistance’ against the US. If the US truly were serious about deposing Assad, they could’ve struck in 2013 after Assad deployed chemical weapons against the Syrian people. However even now, the US could still strike, and all they would have to do is launch unmanned cruise missiles and drones to destroy Assad’s aircraft on the ground, as well as his HQ military units. There is little the SA-400 anti-air units could do against large waves of directed strikes by unmanned weapons that the US has at its disposal.

The fact that the US doesn’t shows it has another agenda in mind than deposing Assad and defeating the ‘axis of resistance’.


Therefore, after seeing what is easily within the realms of possibility, it becomes clear that the plight of the Syrian people and the continued oppression by the Baathist Assad regime, is not only permitted to go on by America and the Muslim governments, but in someway consented to by these same governments, for the sake of preventing the Syrian people attaining an independently determined and Islamic government that rules with justice.

It is therefore incumbent upon Muslims in all these countries to politically hold their governments to account, and make this known through raising our voices. We should be clear that their token gestures, appeasements of the US and deceptive actions intended to look like a serious attempt to save the Syrian people, are only just that, empty gestures. Turkey already intervened in Syria in 2015, by sending Iraqi Peshmerga to save Kobane from ISIS, once Kurds in Turkey protested and demanded they take action. What of the rest of the Syrians? Who will save them? How many Muslims have demonstrated, lobbied, politically campaigned and petitioned their political leaders in the Muslim world to intervene in Syria?

Currently, the Syrian people have truly only Allah (swt) to depend on, but we who look on should be fearful that those who’ve been tortured, slain and oppressed by Assad,willmake accusations  against us on the day of judgement. And they will be accusations on the day of judgement.

[i] https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/5960/final-declaration-on-the-results-of-the-syria-talks-in-vienna-as-agreed-by-participants_en
[ii] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-usa-russia-idUSKCN0RT1DF20150929
[iii] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebels-report-new-shipments-of-heavy-weapons-credit-us-influence/2013/06/21/1c72f77e-da87-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html
[iv] https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/us-and-jordan-demand-southern-front-rebels-stop-fighting-assad-cut-off-support/
[v] https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/us-and-jordan-demand-southern-front-rebels-stop-fighting-assad-cut-off-support/
[vi] https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-never-allow-kurdish-state-syria-warns-erdogan-133603673.html
[vii] http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-19/271153-assads-army-stretched-but-still-seen-strong.ashx#axzz3E5YPzKAf
[viii] http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/8198
[ix] https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/04/13/Saudis-banned-from-travel-to-Syria.html
[x] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-syria-jihad-idUSBRE88B0XY20120912
[xi] http://faculty.fordham.edu/davenport/editorials/ISIS-Feb2015.html
[xii] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-proposes-nato-like-military-alliance-of-muslim-states-reports-say-a6933056.html
[xiii] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/move-curb-foreign-fighters-syria-2014424172354903949.html
[xiv] http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/17/kurdish-fighters-wed-really-appreciate-if-you-came-to-syria-to-help-fight-isis/


2 replies

  1. Jazak Allah Khairan for such analysis. I completely agree with all the points you raised bro Abdullah, points fully substantiated.

    Almost any alleged *neutral* analysis I came across and some from several researchers and think tank dudes kept saying that America and Russia were competing against each other in Syria.

    When in reality, it is all about America outsourcing its agenda (of protecting the Assad regime) to Russia so as to prevent any third party (like France+Britain) to have any say in this conflict.

    Also I believe Euphrates Shield is another ploy of America to divide the rebel forces thereby facilitating the fall of Aleppo to the Assad regime.


  2. Don’t forget US support for the Iranian take over of Iraq and Hezbollat who has a secret peace treaty with Israel. US is betraying the Gulf states by giving Iran green light to take over the Middle east. Iranian forces are attacking every Sunni civilian but not Israel. Assad had secret meetings with Israel for a peace treaty. It seems like Israel and Iran are sharing the Middle East.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: