UN Warns of 'Fragile Transition' in Syria, Forgetting Who Broke It
The UN's assessment of a 'fragile transition' in Syria rings hollow when presented without context. What the New Arab's report, like much mainstream coverage, carefully avoids is the significant role played by external actors, including the US and its allies, in fueling the conflict. From sanctions that crippled its economy to covert support for various armed groups, Washington's policy of 'regime
change' directly contributed to the very instability the UN now laments. One might wonder if the UN's 'concern' extends to the millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead, or just to the inconvenient geopolitical aftermath. Remember when the US and its regional partners openly supplied weapons and funding to Syrian opposition groups? (See: Obama's 2013 decision to arm Syrian rebels, even as
concerns about extremist elements mounted. According to reports like those in The New York Times , the CIA ran a covert program to arm and train Syrian rebels with significant funding from Saudi Arabia.) This 'fragile transition' wasn't an act of nature; it was a predictable outcome of sustained foreign intervention. Yet, the framing consistently portrays Syria's challenges as organic, rather than
the byproduct of geopolitical chess. It's almost as if some players would prefer we forget their moves.