[h=3]By NICHOLAS CASEY And RIMA ABUSHAKRA[/h] BEIRUT—Members of Syria's rebel forces, which have for two years pressured the U.S. for arms in their struggle against Bashar al-Assad, responded skeptically Friday to the U.S.'s announcement that it would start providing lethal assistance, questioning whether the promise would be enough to salvage their fight.
Reuters Civilians and Free Syrian Army fighters took part in a protest against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, in Aleppo Friday.
With U.S. officials offering no specifics on which weapons will be sent, Syrian rebels had doubts about the American government's resolve to back them. It was unclear when shipments might arrive, or which of the dozens of rebel groups would receive them.
Their feelings of urgency were underscored Friday as rebels in Aleppo, Syria's largest city, said they were fighting some of their heaviest battles in months.
Clashes intensified around a government airbase that has been surrounded by rebels for months and is seen as a key to controlling the region, said a rebel in the countryside to the north of the city. In Aleppo itself, fighters clashed in the eastern rebel-held neighborhood of Sakhour, said an activist reached Friday evening in the city. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights described the fighting as the most intense in recent months.
Aleppo, a commercial hub of 3 million, was a bastion of support for Mr. Assad until large parts of it fell to rebels last year. A rebel defeat there would give the regime a stronghold in the country's north. It would represent a symbolic victory, coming shortly after the regime captured the rebel center of Qusayr and made other ground gains after Iran-backed Hezbollah militants entered the battle on the regime's side.
On Friday, some rebel fighters wondered if assistance from the West would be enough to turn the tide against a regime they say has powerful foreign backers. "We wish that countries that claim to be our friends would stop talking and start acting in the real-world. the way Hezbollah, Iran and Russia are," said Abu Saleh, a fighter in the north of Damascus.
"Until we see weapons in our hands here in Syria, they are just words floating in the air," said an activist in Deraa province in Syria's southeast, citing months of deliberations over lethal assistance.
On Thursday, officials said the U.S. had agreed to send arms to Syrian rebels, a plan outlined in a classified order that directed the Central Intelligence Agency to reverse its policy of providing only nonlethal assistance. The plans also called for a limited no-fly zone to be established using Jordan as a base. The decision came after the U.S. determined that the country had used chemical weapons, what the U.S. long warned would trigger a reaction.
On Friday, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah blasted the U.S. for its assistance. "Talk of beginning to arm the Syrian rebels is lies," he said. "They started arming them long ago."
But the decision also came shortly after rebels began rapidly losing ground to government forces. On May 25, Mr. Nasrallah officially committed his forces to fight for Mr. Assad. In the days after, government forces captured the city of Qusayr, a key town on the Lebanese border.
[h=3]Syria in the Spotlight[/h] Track the latest events in a map, see the key players and a chronology of the unrest.
There was "a potential defeat of the rebellion, and the timing of the U.S. decision was a reaction to that," said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, a Beirut-based think tank.
Many observers joined the rebels in skepticism about the U.S. decision to join deeper with rebels in the conflict, saying that the U.S. had not made it clear what its priorities in the war were.
"The administration has set no goals for itself here," said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Landis said the question now will be how thoroughly the U.S. will arm the rebels—with lighter munitions that would allow them to maintain their positions in cities like Aleppo, or with more powerful ones, like weapons capable of attacking low-flying aircraft, which could allow for incursions into Ms. Assad's capital at Damascus. The latter option has been unpalatable to the U.S., which is wary of having such arms fall into the hands of Islamist factions who are prominent in the rebel forces.
The decision seemed less about tipping the balance for a rebel victory as evening the playing field in a way that would allow the two sides to negotiate diplomatically, said Nadim Shehadi, a fellow at the think tank Chatham House. Washington and Moscow spent the spring in attempts to organize a peace conference in Geneva this summer, but the rebels' ability to negotiate has been undercut by Mr. Assad's gains. It remains unclear if they will participate.
Mr. Shehadi was pessimistic that the late-hour decision by the U.S. to arm the rebels, along with lack of publicized specifics, would give it higher ground in negotiations. "If you are really playing poker and hesitate, it's not a good bluff," he said.
A C.I.A. delivery of arms, even if timely, also won't address what could be a larger challenge, the factionalism that has divided rebel groups. Many of rebel groups aren't in regular contact with each other, say intelligence officials, and disagreements have erupted between secular fighters and Islamists linked to al Qaeda. Mr. Assad's army, by contrast, is more cohesive and has strong backing by Russia and Iran.
"They are up against a robust war machine and it's not clear if anyone can give the rebel groups what they would need to win," said Ayham Kamel, a Middle East expert at think-tank Eurasia Group.
Human-rights groups expressed concerns over whether the weapons might fall into hands of groups interested in entering the growing sectarian war that has engulfed the Syria fight. Recent weeks have seen grisly scenes including a videos of mutilations and revenge attacks between Sunni and Shiite fighters.
"The key is the issue of how do you hold your fighters accountable? How do you ensure that there are no human-rights violations?" said Nadim Houry, of Human Rights Watch.
One fighter under siege in Homs with the Farouk Battalion, one of the Islamist groups, appeared disinterested in the prospect of the U.S. weapons.
"I don't think they care much about the Syrian people," the fighter, who gave his name as Nour, said when contacted Friday. "We are sick of their lies about advanced weapons. If they send us cigarettes, that would be great."
Reuters Civilians and Free Syrian Army fighters took part in a protest against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, in Aleppo Friday.
With U.S. officials offering no specifics on which weapons will be sent, Syrian rebels had doubts about the American government's resolve to back them. It was unclear when shipments might arrive, or which of the dozens of rebel groups would receive them.
Their feelings of urgency were underscored Friday as rebels in Aleppo, Syria's largest city, said they were fighting some of their heaviest battles in months.
Clashes intensified around a government airbase that has been surrounded by rebels for months and is seen as a key to controlling the region, said a rebel in the countryside to the north of the city. In Aleppo itself, fighters clashed in the eastern rebel-held neighborhood of Sakhour, said an activist reached Friday evening in the city. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights described the fighting as the most intense in recent months.
Aleppo, a commercial hub of 3 million, was a bastion of support for Mr. Assad until large parts of it fell to rebels last year. A rebel defeat there would give the regime a stronghold in the country's north. It would represent a symbolic victory, coming shortly after the regime captured the rebel center of Qusayr and made other ground gains after Iran-backed Hezbollah militants entered the battle on the regime's side.
On Friday, some rebel fighters wondered if assistance from the West would be enough to turn the tide against a regime they say has powerful foreign backers. "We wish that countries that claim to be our friends would stop talking and start acting in the real-world. the way Hezbollah, Iran and Russia are," said Abu Saleh, a fighter in the north of Damascus.
"Until we see weapons in our hands here in Syria, they are just words floating in the air," said an activist in Deraa province in Syria's southeast, citing months of deliberations over lethal assistance.
On Thursday, officials said the U.S. had agreed to send arms to Syrian rebels, a plan outlined in a classified order that directed the Central Intelligence Agency to reverse its policy of providing only nonlethal assistance. The plans also called for a limited no-fly zone to be established using Jordan as a base. The decision came after the U.S. determined that the country had used chemical weapons, what the U.S. long warned would trigger a reaction.
On Friday, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah blasted the U.S. for its assistance. "Talk of beginning to arm the Syrian rebels is lies," he said. "They started arming them long ago."
But the decision also came shortly after rebels began rapidly losing ground to government forces. On May 25, Mr. Nasrallah officially committed his forces to fight for Mr. Assad. In the days after, government forces captured the city of Qusayr, a key town on the Lebanese border.
[h=3]Syria in the Spotlight[/h] Track the latest events in a map, see the key players and a chronology of the unrest.
There was "a potential defeat of the rebellion, and the timing of the U.S. decision was a reaction to that," said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, a Beirut-based think tank.
Many observers joined the rebels in skepticism about the U.S. decision to join deeper with rebels in the conflict, saying that the U.S. had not made it clear what its priorities in the war were.
"The administration has set no goals for itself here," said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Landis said the question now will be how thoroughly the U.S. will arm the rebels—with lighter munitions that would allow them to maintain their positions in cities like Aleppo, or with more powerful ones, like weapons capable of attacking low-flying aircraft, which could allow for incursions into Ms. Assad's capital at Damascus. The latter option has been unpalatable to the U.S., which is wary of having such arms fall into the hands of Islamist factions who are prominent in the rebel forces.
The decision seemed less about tipping the balance for a rebel victory as evening the playing field in a way that would allow the two sides to negotiate diplomatically, said Nadim Shehadi, a fellow at the think tank Chatham House. Washington and Moscow spent the spring in attempts to organize a peace conference in Geneva this summer, but the rebels' ability to negotiate has been undercut by Mr. Assad's gains. It remains unclear if they will participate.
Mr. Shehadi was pessimistic that the late-hour decision by the U.S. to arm the rebels, along with lack of publicized specifics, would give it higher ground in negotiations. "If you are really playing poker and hesitate, it's not a good bluff," he said.
A C.I.A. delivery of arms, even if timely, also won't address what could be a larger challenge, the factionalism that has divided rebel groups. Many of rebel groups aren't in regular contact with each other, say intelligence officials, and disagreements have erupted between secular fighters and Islamists linked to al Qaeda. Mr. Assad's army, by contrast, is more cohesive and has strong backing by Russia and Iran.
"They are up against a robust war machine and it's not clear if anyone can give the rebel groups what they would need to win," said Ayham Kamel, a Middle East expert at think-tank Eurasia Group.
Human-rights groups expressed concerns over whether the weapons might fall into hands of groups interested in entering the growing sectarian war that has engulfed the Syria fight. Recent weeks have seen grisly scenes including a videos of mutilations and revenge attacks between Sunni and Shiite fighters.
"The key is the issue of how do you hold your fighters accountable? How do you ensure that there are no human-rights violations?" said Nadim Houry, of Human Rights Watch.
One fighter under siege in Homs with the Farouk Battalion, one of the Islamist groups, appeared disinterested in the prospect of the U.S. weapons.
"I don't think they care much about the Syrian people," the fighter, who gave his name as Nour, said when contacted Friday. "We are sick of their lies about advanced weapons. If they send us cigarettes, that would be great."