Analysts Say Russian Move Suits West at Risk of Bolstering Assad

Russia's dramatic intervention in the Syria crisis has succeeded in putting military action on hold because that suits almost everyone but the rebels fighting Bashar Assad's regime, analysts said Tuesday.

Despite widespread skepticism over whether Assad can be trusted to hand over his chemical weapons arsenal, the United States and its European allies have agreed to give Russia time to try and achieve that goal, at the risk of bolstering the Syrian dictator's grip on power.

The pause in the march to war suited U.S. President Barack Obama in particular because of mounting uncertainty over whether he would be able to secure the backing of Congress for military action in response to a deadly August 21 chemical attack that the U.S. has blamed on the Assad regime.

But Abdel Khaleq Abdallah, a political science professor at the UAE University in Dubai, said Russia's intervention was likely to help Assad cling on to power at the expense of the Syrian people.

"Nobody in the region wants strikes against Syria, especially without a U.N. resolution, but Assad has breached numerous red lines and not only with regard to chemical weapons," Abdallah said.

"The Syrian people have been waiting two and a half years to have a glimmer of hope but the international community has abandoned them. I think we have to fear the worst because this compromise saves Assad, helps keep his regime in power and gives him an international green light to continue to kill his people."

That theme was echoed by Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Israel's parliamentary foreign and defense committee.

"We have experience, including with Iran, of lots of good proposals that are used to buy time," he said. "Assad is simply buying time, and lots of it.

"Until recently he even denied he had chemical weapons, and the quantities are not clear. Can we trust Assad's intentions? Obviously not."

Alisa Lockwood, a Russia analyst at the IHS Jane's think-tank in London, said Moscow's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had played his diplomatic cards cleverly.

"Russia has essentially been handed a godsend, because this really corresponds to all of its key interests in Syria," Lockwood argued.

"It makes Russia look good -- internationally they look like the honest broker, in contrast with the U.S. being the aggressive war-monger. It also plays really well domestically.

"And fundamentally, Russia doesn't want U.S. strikes on Syria. It also doesn't want Assad using or having chemical weapons. So in every aspect this really suits Russia.

"It also suits the Americans in some ways: It looks increasingly like Congress may not vote for action in Syria, so this gives Obama quite a handy get-out clause if that doesn't happen. But you could say that as a result of this he does look like he's having to go back on his initial quite strong position."

Karl Dewey, a Jane's expert on weapons of mass destruction, said Russia had the facilities and expertise to destroy Syria's chemical arsenal, having had to incinerate large Soviet stockpiles.

But he warned that getting them out of the country would not be straightforward.

"Transporting them safely amidst a civil war will be a significant issue and may require co-operation with opposition forces," Dewey said.

Concern that the failure to follow through on the threat of airstrikes would backfire was expressed by many media commentators.

"In the great Middle East chess game between the United States and Russia, John Kerry has made a strategic error that could end up giving President Assad a lifeline," an analysis argued in London newspaper The Times.

"Moscow has hijacked this serious issue to prolong the dictatorship of its one remaining Middle Eastern ally, and Mr Kerry, visibly tired from a summer of intensive diplomacy, has let it do so," it added.

The Guardian was more optimistic. "If Russia does persuade Syria to surrender its chemical arsenal, it could put off the threat of direct U.S. military action for months at least, but it will also enmesh Damascus in new international obligations that could strengthen the case for outside intervention if it ever breaks the rules."