Question:
Al-Hayat website, quoting AFP on 08/03/2014, reported: "The Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army ratified the appointment of Brigadier General Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir al-Nuaimi as its Chief of Staff, replacing Major General Salim Idris..." This came as part of the "completion of the Supreme Military Council's structure..." which included other appointments within the General Staff. These events coincided with leaked reports about Turkey closing the Syrian National Coalition offices and the possibility of moving them to Cairo. The question is: Are these changes and leaked reports related to Obama’s visit, particularly to Saudi Arabia at the end of this month, given Saudi Arabia's role in the fighting fronts in Syria, especially the southern front? And what is the intent behind closing the offices? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia at the end of this month and the completion of the Supreme Military Council’s structure—by relieving Major General Salim Idris and appointing Brigadier General Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir in his place—are two paths that meet in the broad outlines of American policy in Syria, but differ in details. Each path achieves specific purposes. To clarify, we explain the following:
First: Regarding Obama’s visit to the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, at the end of this month:
- IIP Digital (a page of the U.S. State Department on 21/01/2014) quoted a statement by the White House Press Secretary’s office stating that President Obama would be in the Netherlands on March 24-25 to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit to discuss progress in securing nuclear materials and the commitment to future steps to prevent nuclear terrorism. He would then move to Brussels on March 26 to attend the U.S.-EU Summit, continue his tour to the Vatican to meet Pope Francis on March 27, and meet with the Italian President and Prime Minister. On 03/02/2014—more than ten days later—the White House Press Secretary’s office issued a statement saying: "As part of regular consultations between our two countries, President Obama will travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in March..." The statement added: "The President looks forward to discussing with the Saudi King the strong ties between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as ongoing cooperation to enhance shared interests related to Gulf security, regional security, peace in the Middle East, countering violent extremism, and issues related to prosperity and security. The President's visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia follows his European tour, which includes the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy." (IIP Digital, U.S. State Department page, 03/02/2014).
It is clear from the above that the visit to Saudi Arabia will be at the end of this month, following Obama’s visit to Italy on 27/03/2014.
- The American CNN page reported on 03/02/2014 that it received a statement indicating that "the American President will hold talks with the Saudi King next March amidst differences between Washington and Riyadh regarding the recently reached agreement on Iran's nuclear program." The page quoted White House spokesperson Jay Carney saying: "Whatever differences of opinion we may have, this does not change the fact that it is a very important and very close partnership."
The Washington Post (February 3) reported that Jay Carney, the White House official spokesperson, said in his press conference: "Saudi Arabia is close to the United States, and we have a broad and deep bilateral relationship that covers wide issues. The President eagerly looks forward to that visit, where all these issues will be discussed in his meetings... and whatever differences there may be between us, it does not change the fact that this is a very important and close partnership."
The American Wall Street Journal reported on 01/02/2014 that President Obama intends to visit Saudi Arabia next month to hold a summit with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz to calm strained relations due to the policies adopted by the U.S. administration toward the Middle East, specifically regarding the Iranian nuclear program and its lack of readiness for military intervention in the Syrian civil war. The newspaper quoted an Arab official saying this summit would be extremely important and aims to align American and Saudi policies, adding that the visit "pertains to a deteriorating relationship and shrinking trust."
This means there are matters that pushed America to add Saudi Arabia to the visit in a statement issued more than ten days after the initial announcement of Obama’s scheduled visit to the three European regions. To understand these matters and their motives, we review the following:
a. America's rapprochement with Iran after the nuclear agreement on 24/11/2013, which almost reached the point of giving Iran a free hand in the region, along with America's stance on events in Syria—which showed direct and indirect support for Bashar—all affected Saudi Arabia. This is especially true regarding giving Iran a free hand, as Iran is known for using sectarianism to stir tensions in any country it has sectarian ties with. Saudi Arabia sees what happened in Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen and fears Iranian movements in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which could destabilize the security of the regime. All this made Saudi Arabia tense, leading it to decline its seat on the UN Security Council in protest against the actions of the international community—by which it naturally meant the United States. This is in addition to statements by some Saudi officials criticizing America’s positions.
b. Saudi Arabia's supply of weapons to revolutionaries in the southern region of Syria via Jordan, particularly those shipments that bypass the American coordination room in Jordan (established to monitor weapons for southern rebels), annoys America. The French newspaper Le Figaro published a report by journalist Georges Malbrunot on 28/10/2013, stating that "every week, 15 tons of weapons arrive at the warehouses of the Free Syrian Army, noting that weapons are purchased with Saudi funding from black markets in Ukraine and Bulgaria before being transported by Saudi planes to airports in southern Jordan." The report also notes that "during the first six months of this year, six hundred tons of weapons were delivered to the opponents of (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad via Jordan." The As-Safir newspaper reported on 21/02/2014: "...On January 29, three Saudi military cargo planes landed in Mafraq carrying weapons, including LAW missiles, encrypted communication devices, anti-tank missiles, light weapons, and armored vehicles... An Arab source says the Americans are still hesitant to provide the armed Syrian opposition with advanced Chinese-made missile systems." It also added: "Intersecting Western and Arab security sources say that during the battle of Eastern Ghouta and the weeks that followed, the Saudis transported shipments of weapons via Mafraq airport, some of which were purchased in Ukraine. Weekly convoys carrying 15 tons of weapons crossed the Jordanian-Syrian border through the desert to more than 15 centers in the area extending toward Eastern Ghouta." Further evidence of these weapon deliveries was reported by As-Safir on 06/02/2014: "The majority of armed factions in Daraa met yesterday and decided to unite under the banner of the 'Yarmouk Division,' which now includes 14 battalions and brigades, most notably 'Shield of the South,' 'Al-Baraa bin Malik,' and the 'Armored Battalion'." It added: "The unification of the militants took place simultaneously with a battle they launched in southern Syria, under the name 'Geneva Houran,' led by five operations rooms spread across the Daraa governorate."
All of this causes annoyance to America due to the possibility of some revolutionaries on the southern front slipping out of its control, especially since there are forces in Saudi Arabia that follow the British and walk in their footsteps to disrupt American plans, as is well known in British policy. All this made America fear Saudi activity on the southern front in Syria. Although America established the "Syria Revolutionaries Front"—affiliated with the Free Syrian Army with its main branch in the south—on December 13, 2013, in response to Saudi moves, America still takes Saudi actions in the south seriously, especially those that bypass coordination with the American room in Jordan.
c. Furthermore, there is another factor: while the Saudi royal family is currently led by men aligned with the British, like King Abdullah and his associates, it also contains men considered close to America. America needs to ensure that its enmity with Saudi Arabia does not become overt, in an attempt to cultivate its men there and return the government to its influence as it was during King Fahd's era. Simultaneously, the pro-American men in the royal family are concerned with maintaining good relations with America.
- Thus, both parties share a desire to resolve the dispute. This desire has translated into practical measures from both sides as preparatory steps for Obama’s expected visit later this month. These measures were as follows:
a. As for Saudi Arabia, it issued the "Law for Punishing Fighters Abroad and Those Belonging to Extremist Trends" (Al-Eqtisadiah, 03/02/2014). Naturally, this refers to fighting in Syria. This law was issued on 03/02/2014, coinciding with Obama's decision to add Saudi Arabia to his travel schedule as mentioned earlier—all to please America. Additionally, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (Minister of Interior) met with the CIA and other intelligence heads in Washington to discuss various issues, including Syria. The Ro’ya News Network reported on 24/02/2014: "National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco met last Wednesday with Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi Minister of Interior. Following this meeting, a statement was issued by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden, clarifying that the three officials 'also exchanged views on regional issues and reaffirmed the commitment to strengthening cooperation between us across a range of shared interests'."
b. As for America, it sent Kerry twice in recent months: in November 2013 and January 2014. These visits were intended to reassure Saudi officials regarding America's policy toward Iran and Syria. Kerry repeated America's determination not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Kerry had mentioned before the meeting that Saudi Arabia plays a key role in the Arab region. (BBC Turkish, 06/11/2013).
- Then came Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia at the highest level to mend fences, reduce tension on both sides, and reassure the House of Saud about their regime, which is their only concern. Nothing else worries them. They are not concerned about what happens in Syria except to the extent that it might reflect on their regime. Therefore, they did not support the people of Syria; rather, they wanted America to settle the matter of the Syrian regime in the "Geneva 1 and 2" conferences, which the House of Saud supported. By doing so, they would be rid of the repercussions of the Syrian revolution. Their concern is for their thrones, not for the blood of Muslims or their victory in Syria.
The visit is to reduce tension with Saudi Arabia and clarify that America's rapprochement with Iran and its position in Syria are not directed at destabilizing the Saudi regime. America knows that the priority for the House of Saud is that their rule in Saudi Arabia remains unaffected and their seats do not become vacant. This is what matters to them, far above the number of killed and wounded in Syria.
While it is possible that Obama might visit other places during his regional tour, his visit to Saudi Arabia is expected to be the centerpiece. Obama will try to reassure the Saudi rulers that their seats are safe and that his relations with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen are not directed against the Saudi regime, but rather against so-called "terrorism." In this context, he will praise Saudi Arabia's steps in prohibiting Saudis from going to fight in Syria.
Second: Regarding the dismissal of Salim Idris and reports about closing some offices and moving them to Cairo:
The matter is likely as follows:
On December 7, 2012, between 260 and 550 military leaders and representatives of the armed Syrian opposition met in Turkey. Security officials from Western and Arab countries also attended. The active role was for the United States. A new military council of thirty leaders of the Free Army was elected, and Brigadier General Salim Idris was elected as the new head of the Free Army, becoming the Chairman of the Supreme Military Council (SMC). (Associated Press, December 7, 2012).
The Washington Post reported on 07/05/2013 that "the U.S. administration led by Barack Obama is betting on Salim Idris," describing him as "the cornerstone of the new U.S. administration’s strategy, as his responsible and moderate positions were the factor that made the administration bet on him." It mentioned that "he sent a letter to President Obama expressing understanding of America’s cautious position toward intervention in Syria, requesting American financial, material, and training support, and showing readiness to confront jihadist groups." In this case, Idris could not be dismissed without America’s knowledge—rather, without its instruction—because it was America that appointed him and bet on him to provide services, and it was America that created his military council just as it created the Coalition.
Salim Idris failed to win over any of the rebel fronts and could not form a front for himself inside Syria despite his attempts. Moreover, he was unable to prevent fighters of the Free Syrian Army and some battalions from joining Islamic fighters. Reuters reported on 30/09/2013 regarding this joining: "Fighters are joining not just as individuals, but as entire battalions from small but powerful groups." What made matters worse for America was the Islamic Front's seizure of a border crossing and weapon warehouses from the Western-backed Free Syrian Army in December 2013. The American magazine Time reported that American officials confirmed the commander of the Free Syrian Army, Salim Idris, fled Syria. The magazine quoted American officials in a report on its website on 12/12/2013 saying: "Idris fled Syria to Turkey and then traveled to Qatar..." as if Salim Idris’s actions did not please them. It appears that the Americans were annoyed by the attack on the warehouses of their aid that they had entrusted to him, as America had set a condition that it should not reach the hands of rebels who had not declared they were following its path, had not recognized the Coalition, and had not accepted its project.
Regarding Salim Idris, America was the one who appointed him, as mentioned earlier. It bet on him to give the Free Army a standing inside Syria through notable actions that would attract some factions to the Free Army. However, its bet was a loss; he could not attract factions inside, and he could not even maintain his numbers as many left and joined other factions. The issue was exacerbated by his inability to protect the weapons America provided, which were seized by other factions. Rumors that Salim Idris fled to Qatar annoyed America even more. Thus, America failed through Salim Idris to give the Free Army significant roots inside. America was betting on this because its proxies in the Coalition are abroad; it thought the Free Army could establish itself inside through effective operations. When this failed, it decided to look for another leader with internal roots in terms of lineage—such as a clan or tribe—and field experience. Their eyes fell on Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir, and he was appointed in place of Salim Idris on 16/02/2014. The Military Council issued a decision to that effect. Colonel Haitham Afisa from Idlib province in the north was also appointed as Al-Bashir's deputy. Washington hopes that Al-Bashir in the south and Haitham in the north will be able to improve coordination between the two fronts by establishing bases for them inside. These newly appointed leaders have expressed readiness to work closely with the "Syria Revolutionaries Front," headed by Jamal Maarouf. Washington also hopes to use Al-Bashir’s connections in the south to form a force on the ground that serves as an internal pillar for the Coalition abroad, while simultaneously controlling the southern rebels backed by Saudi Arabia.
Salim Idris initially showed an angry reaction, accusing Ahmad Jarba, the Coalition president, of being a dictator. He issued a statement in the name of the front commanders and military councils, holding Jarba responsible for the Supreme Military Council's decision, saying: "The leaders of the formations do not trust him and accused him of financial corruption and of bribing the signatories of the decision." (AFP, 17/02/2014). It is well known that Jarba and those with him cannot make any decision without the approval or instruction of America!
In any case, Idris calmed down afterward, especially when news was published on 06/03/2014 that "the president of the Syrian Coalition, Ahmad Jarba, the five military commanders in the General Staff, the revolutionary commander of the southern front, and the head of the military revolutionary council in Daraa agreed that Defense Minister Asaad Mustafa would submit his resignation to the Coalition president, and his deputies would be considered resigned... The leaders also agreed that Major General Salim Idris would submit his resignation from the General Staff and be appointed as a military advisor to the Coalition president, in addition to expanding the Supreme Military Council and increasing its members."
This was followed today, 08/03/2014, by confirmation of the news from 06/03/2014, as Al-Hayat website quoted AFP: "The Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army ratified the appointment of Brigadier General Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir al-Nuaimi as its Chief of Staff instead of Major General Salim Idris..."
- Brigadier General Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir al-Nuaimi, the new Chief of Staff of the "Free Syrian Army," is from the village of Al-Rafid in the Quneitra governorate (southwest) on the border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. He is one of the notables of the Al-Nuaimi tribe, which is one of the largest tribes in Syria. Al-Bashir defected from the Syrian regime forces in July 2012. Since then, he worked on founding the nucleus of the "Free Army" in Quneitra, eventually heading operations and the military council there. He personally led the operations room and organized the military plans that contributed to controlling over 90% of the southern countryside of the governorate under his command. A statement by Coalition president Ahmad Jarba regarding the Military Council's decision noted that the Coalition "received the decision of the Supreme Military Council to appoint Brigadier General Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir to the post of Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army and Colonel Haitham Afisa to the post of Deputy Chief of Staff with great satisfaction." (Al Jazeera + Agencies).
These qualities of Al-Bashir—being from a southern tribe and a field commander—are what made America appoint him, hoping he can establish internal roots for its foreign proxies. By Allah’s leave, its hope will be disappointed as it was before; indeed, Allah is Mighty and Wise.
Third: Regarding the closing of some offices in Turkey and the discussion of moving them to Cairo:
Yes, news regarding this appeared on the All4Syria website on 12/02/2014, and the Middle East Panorama website on 05/02/2014 also indicated the closure of some offices in Turkey.
However, these reports did not last long and were later denied. The Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on 25/02/2014: "The representative of the 'Syrian Coalition' in Turkey, Khaled Khoja, denied to Asharq Al-Awsat the reports that 'the Turkish government requested the Coalition to move its headquarters to Cairo,' revealing a 'meeting held yesterday between him and representatives of the Turkish Foreign Ministry who confirmed that Coalition members are welcome in Turkey based on a principled position linked to supporting the Syrian people's struggle against dictatorship'."
Similarly, the Rozana-Paris website reported on 24/02/2014: "Ms. Bahiyah Mardini, media advisor to the Syrian opposition Coalition, said that the Turkish government did not close the Coalition's offices in Turkey. Mardini confirmed in a private call with Radio Rozana that this news came as part of a campaign started by the Syrian regime against the Coalition before the Geneva 2 conference, promoted by websites affiliated with the Syrian regime. Mardini explained that the Coalition moved its offices from the 'Perpa' area to the 'Florya' area in Turkey due to information regarding threats from ISIS and the Syrian regime relayed by the Turkish government, and that security reasons led the Coalition to move its office to a quieter location after being in a densely populated area."
It seems that what was rumored about the subject actually happened, but it was a move from one location to another within Turkey. Then, there was a deliberate focus on the full transfer of the Coalition from Turkey to send a message to the Coalition and the National Council to reunite, or else they would be moved from Turkey to Cairo. Naturally, their transfer is terrifying for them because it distances them from Syria, which is equivalent to their political death, as it would mean creating a replacement coalition for them in Turkey after "expelling" the old ones to Cairo! This leaked news bore fruit, as the National Council announced its return to the Coalition. AFP reported on 01/03/2014: "The General Secretariat of the Syrian National Council decided in its meeting on February 27 and 28 in Istanbul to return the National Council bloc with all its components to the ranks of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces."
Fourth: This is likely my view on the three points of your question. We are following the matter, and if we find anything that calls for further explanation and clarification, we will do so, Allah willing. He, glorified be He, is the Guide to the straight path.