With the scandal-ridden administration in major need of a geopolitical distraction, preferably of the exothermic variety, and with Syria still in desperate need of "liberation" by remote controlled-airborne units, the Senate may have put two and two together, and following today's introduction of the bipartisan "Syria Transition Support Act", at least one part of the US legislative process - the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - is set to vote as soon as next week on whether to arm Syrian rebels. The ultimate passage of such a move through Congress is guaranteed to finally escalate the regional mid-east conflict to the next stage with the inevitable involvement of Russia which as a reminder yesterday, in a very demonstrative and well-timed move, exposed a CIA agent operating in the heart of Moscow.
The Hill reports [6]:
The vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would mark the first time lawmakers have voted to approve arming Syrian rebels and could increase pressure on the Obama administration to take action in the 26-month-old civil war.
The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations panel announced they had introduced the Syria Transition Support Act on Wednesday. A vote on the bill is expected as early as Tuesday afternoon.
Panel Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) agreed to modify the bill he introduced last week in order to get ranking member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on board. Such bipartisan action would send the strongest signal yet to the Obama administration that Congress is demanding stronger action while giving a boost to similar legislation that the top Democrat on the equivalent House panel, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), introduced in March.
Specifically the bill would create a $250 million a year transition fund to assist the civilian opposition and sanction sales of weapons and oil to the Assad regime.
"The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region," Corker said in a statement announcing his co-sponsorship.
"Without authorizing the use of force or additional spending, this legislation will begin to implement a more coherent U.S. strategy, both now and for the day after Assad, that is focused on trying to shift the momentum on the ground toward moderate opposition groups while also helping them build support within and outside Syria for a new government,” he said.
So in order to prevent "an extremist takeover" which incidentally would mean the continuation of the status quo, the US would be willing to allow yet another extremist group to take control of the split nation: surely that worked out impeccably in Libya...
Most importantly, the White House, formerly a very theatrical opponent to the idea of arming the rebels, has thawed and warmed up substantially to the idea of the US officially entering the armed conflict:
The White House has balked at arming the rebels, saying U.S. weapons would add to the violence that has already killed almost 100,000 people. It also argues weapons could end up in the hands of Islamist militants opposed to the United States. Administration officials have said they are reconsidering their reservations in the wake of reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime may have used chemical
This is a claim which the UN already refuted, and in fact reported [7]that it was the rebels that had used chemical weapons, not Assad. The Al-Qaeda supported rebels [8]we may add. Although we can also add that it is a good thing the US is only deciding on whether to weaponize one particular group of Al-Qaeda supported militants. Because otherwise it might have to take a long, hard look at Egypt. Again.
Al Qaeda linked cell caught in Egypt was planning attacks on French and U.S. embassies - Egypt state news agency #breaking [9]
— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) May 15, 2013 [10]
Finally, we already heard [11]that John Kerry would "prefer that Russia is not supplying assistance to Syria." We will soon hear how Russia feels about the inverse.
