To believe that simply getting the parties to the conference table would quickly lead to a settlement would be like believing that a giant rabbit would suddenly appear on top of the conference table and pull a full resolution to the conflict out of his giant hat.
…
In a word, while diplomats dither, al-Assad kills.

Barack Obama, the United States and the West, and the other civilized countries of the world have lost the first war in Syria, the war to bring Bashar al-Assad’s barbarism, his wanton commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, to an end.

After the fall of al-Qusair, with financing, materiel, sophisticated arms and aerial defense systems, advisers, and intelligence from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, al-Assad now seems to have gained the momentum and to be on the verge of methodically defeating the rebels, town by town.

It’s a one-sided fight, with munitions, cash, advisers, and even militiamen now flowing freely to Syria to support the regime, while the West, immobilized by the opposition of the United States to any forceful action, staggers blindly in the diplomatic fog (created by the Russians with U.S. complicity) swirling around the holding of a second Geneva conference. This would be a conference at a unknown future date, where the Syrian regime–united, wielding a powerful united army, would meet with the opposition, at the moment hopelessly divided in both the military and the political spheres, under terms of reference that imply that al-Assad will stay in power, or have a decisive voice in determining who remains in power.

To believe that simply getting the parties to the conference table would quickly lead to a settlement would be like believing that a giant rabbit would suddenly appear on top of the conference table and pull a full resolution to the conflict out of his giant hat.

Putin and Lavrov have achieved–again–a great advantage for themselves and for al-Assad in the sruggle for Syria: while the conference is endlessly delayed, the feckless leaders ofbthe West can hide behind an apparent justification for not proceeding boldly to provide arms to the rebels and to take direct military action against al-Assad, to halt the ongoing commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In a word, while diplomats dither, al-Assad kills.

Let us be clear: while diplomats dither, al-Assad and his supporters– Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah–kill. They kill, while China helps Russia block any effective action by the U.N. Security Council.

In June 2013, Obama and the Europeans debate whether to supply weapons to the insurgents, while essentially doing very little on the ground. They debate an option which may have made sense a year or 18 months ago, but which now though necessary will hardly be enough to turn the tide.

If this game continues to play out with no dramatic changes, al-Assad and his backers will continue to gain the upper hand on the battlefield, as the possibility of the armed opposition being routed or collapsing grows day by day.

So, al-Assad wins, and everyone returns home to resume normal relations?

This is hardly likely. What is likely is that after routing the West’s allies in Syria, iran will almost surely obtain nuclear weapons in the next few years.

If the West and the Arab countries could not stand up to Iran in Syria, does anyone seriously believe that Iran will drop its quest for nuclear weapons and the ultimate guaranty against foreign attack? Does anyone think now that Israel alone could by military means stop them? Or that the United States, led by Barack Obama–the same Barack Obama who is unwilling to engage even with their proxies in Syria, will decide to launch a war against Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons capability?

So, Assad wins. Iran gets nuclear weapons. What will the U.S. options look like then?

The Trenchant Observer

Tomorrow: The only effective option: Humanitarian Intervention through the direct use of military force