No, I'm talking about the land convoys, which are run by the Syrian Army. I don't think there's any serious threat for the weapons once they're on the ship.
Are you sure the rebels will stick to their demands? Their position is a lot weaker then it was a year ago.
Only if the alliance is winning. Otherwise he can easily claim that they're an irrelevant player that can't speak for the rebels as a whole.
The rebels have never abandoned the demand. Given the history of Assad's father dealing with rebellion they believe that they and their families will be killed by the regime if he stays in power. They really feel they do not have the alternative.
It seems the only possible scenario for a successful Geneva 2 is for both sides to renounce some of their demands. In my opinion, Assad agreeing to step down is a possibility if some conditions are met; say political asylum for him and his clan.
The civil war in Syria has the potential to destabilize the region. If it drags on, given the involvement of Hesbollah on one side, and Iraqi Sunni militants on another, we might see the civil wars in Lebannon an Iraq come back. If stability of the region is a high priority to Russians, might they not prefer the political asylum option for Assad?
There is another solution. Letting Assad win. And it looks like it may be a likely outcome yet. I agree that Assad won't be willing to step down. Not after the success of the last year.
Unfortunately the International Criminal Court does not recognize any agreement for immunity from prosecution, so that is the one thing that cannot be promised. In fact Assad is rumored to have explored the possibility when it looked like he was going to lose quickly, and was informed that Russia and China wouldn’t protect him from the ICC.
Already started, just look at the shootings and bombings. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are financing new equipment for the Lebanese military. Hezbollah has been a problem that Lebanon has wanted to eliminate for decades.
It think it would be more accurate to say that Hezbollah has been a problem that some segments of Lebanon would like to eliminate; as you're aware Hezbollah still has a lot of support from certain segments of the Lebanese population - some of which may not agree without everything Hezbollah does - that sees it as a legitimate resistance organisation. The last thing the Lebanese army wants to do is to ever find itself in a position where it would have to order the Sunni majority Lebanese army to go after Hezbollah as this would lead to a full scale civil war.
There has been a 'cold war' between the Sunni Arab Gulf states [led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the West] Iran for some time now: the Saudis are extremely anxious to see Assad go as this would severely weaken and further isolate Iran and Hezbollah. The last thing the Saudis want to see is a U.S./Iran rapprochement as this would complicate things for them and ease the pressure on the 'heretic' Iranians.
That isn't really a solution. Letting Assad win means crushing a popular rebellion. If the rebels are silenced now, then they will rise again in the near future. Look at Iraq.
Precisely because Assad is a brutal dictator instead of a flimsy pseudo-democracy, he might be able to crush the rebellion thoroughly. But it remains to be seen.
Syria's president says his departure is not up for discussion at Geneva talks | World news | theguardian.com
Assad can also argue that he gave diplomacy a chance but that the rebels were more interested in discussing his removal rather than discussing ways of scaling things back. He can also say that for things to scale back and before discussions can take place about limiting Hezbollah's involvement that the Saudis and Gulf states [all mates of the West off course] have to stop funding and supplying the extremists/jihadists/terrorists. And one has to ask: did Kerry make a smart move by announcing - at the opening of the talks - that Assad has to go and that there's no place for him in a future government? Sure, the most countries want Assad gone but couldn't that have been discused later after some progress had been made during the talks? From the perspective of many U.S. credibility has long been eroded and became eroded further when it spoke of strikes but failed to act and failed to gain popular support from its allies/friends.
Well the Saudis and other Gulf states would like to see this happen but what comes after that? Is there the political will to do more than strikes? Strikes will make Obama look tough and will degrade the ability of Assad to sustain his fight but will not solve all the pressing problems in the country; problems that will inevitably have an adverse affect on the region.
Assad knows that strikes are intended to be largely cosmestic; to show the world that the concerned West is doing something to 'punish' the 'regime' and more importantly he also knows that Uncle Sam and her allies have no political will or desire at present to push it further than that. The strikes - if they ever come - will only strenghten Assad's relationship with Russia and will only reinforce what he's probably been telling his loyalists, that all Uncle Sam and allies wants at the end of the day is to topple his government/regime irrespective of any cooperation or consessions his government may make.
Doubt this will happen with the 'moderates'; for one thing the moderates are slowly being pushed aside by other elements [those the West calls extremists and jihadists]. A nighmare scenario will be how to deal with a post-Assad Syria that is dominated by extremists and jihadists; one that poses a bigger danger to its neighbours than Assad's Syria ever did.