Obama's aides split on Syria

Obama administration officials are split over whether to arm Syria’s rebel forces or make other military moves that would deepen US involvement in the conflict.

President Barack Obama’s top national security advisers met at the White House yesterday to air their differences.

The administration’s caution persists despite its nearly two-year-old demand that President Bashar Assad step down, its vows to help the besieged Syrian rebels on the ground and its threats to respond to any chemical weapons use.

US officials had hoped this week to reach a decision on arming the rebels to halt the violence that has now killed some 80,000 people and motivate the government and the opposition to hold peace talks.

But they are still uncertain whether that is the best way to reshape a war that now includes Hezbollah and Iranian fighters backing Assad’s armed forces, and al Qaida-linked extremists backing the rebellion.

“Nobody wins in Syria the way things are going,” Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters yesterday after talks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague.

“The people lose and Syria as a country loses. And what we have been pushing for, all of us involved in this effort, is a political solution that ends the violence, saves Syria, stops the killing and destruction of the entire nation.”

Despite increased support in Congress and the administration for lethal aid, officials said those closest to the president are divided on whether to begin providing Syria’s armed opposition with weapons or to consider more drastic steps such as using US airpower to ground Assad’s gunships and jets.

Mr Obama’s moves throughout the 27-month civil war, from political support for the opposition to nonlethal aid for its more moderate fighters, have occurred in close concert with US partners in Europe. All agree at this point that the efforts have not done enough.

Mr Kerry, who postponed a trip this week to Israel and three other Middle East countries to participate in the White House talks, is believed to be among the most forward-leaning members of Mr Obama’s national security leadership.

Since becoming America’s top diplomat in February, he has spoken regularly about the need to change Assad’s calculation that he can win the war militarily, if only to get him into serious discussions with the opposition about establishing a transitional government.

Assad’s stunning military success last week at Qusair, near the Lebanese border, and preparations for offensives against Homs and Aleppo have made the matter more urgent.

Officials said some at the White House, the Pentagon and in the intelligence community remained hesitant about providing weapons, ammunition or other lethal support to a rebellion increasingly defined by extremists who, along with Assad, have turned a political insurrection into a sectarian war.

Instead, they have focused on nonlethal support, such as yesterday’s decision by the Treasury Department to ease restrictions on Syrian telecommunications, agricultural and petroleum transactions that benefit the opposition.

“We have refocused our efforts on figuring out what to do to help the opposition on the ground,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, citing the battle at Qusair as well as the influx of Lebanese Hezbollah and other foreign fighters as reasons for why the US was rethinking its approach.

Even if nothing is decided this week, officials said the US, Britain and France, who together spearheaded the international intervention that helped overthrow Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, were trying to co-ordinate a common approach before Mr Obama meets his colleagues at next week’s G8 gathering of world leaders.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad’s most powerful military and political backer, also will be present at the Northern Ireland summit.

Yesterday, activists said Syrian rebels fought Shiites in a village in the country’s east, killing more than 60 people, including civilians.