As the terrible carnage in Syria continues unabated, the region in question continues to hang on the verge of a major global confrontation. The conflict in Syria has unmistakably taken on an international flavor. Unfortunately for Damascus, Washington, London, Tel Aviv, Paris, Ankara and Riyadh have converging national interests in Syria; Fortunately for Damascus, so does Moscow and Tehran. The bitter war we have been witnessing in Syria during the past two years has little to do with the people's said desire to free themselves from a dictatorial government. This war is purely geopolitical in nature. In fact, this war can accurately be described as a proxy war being fought between the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance and their friends one side and the Moscow-Tehran axis on the other.
Syria has become the blood-soaked battlefield upon which the Western alliance and friends have been trying to remake the strategically important region, as Moscow and Tehran feverishly try to salvage their presence in Syria. Therefore, it's a misnomer to call what's going on in Syria a civil war.
Interestingly, a recent Wall Street Journal article had this to say -
Beware of the Iranian arc
The growth of Iranian power and influence in the Middle East in recent decades has been keeping officials in Washington, London, Tel Aviv, Ankara and Riyadh awake up at nights. This is because, as mentioned above, Tehran threatens to disturb what the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance terms as "the balance of power" in the region. This is the "balance" in which Western powers, Turkey, subservient Arab monarchies and the Zionist state enjoy total supremacy over their regional adversaries. In other words, they are afraid of a real balance of power emerging because in such a political environment, they will not feel invincible and will no longer be able to act with impunity.
Ironically, their abject fear of Iran is one of the major motivations behind the international aggression we currently see taking place against Syria - because the road to Tehran starts in Damascus. Since Iran is a much tougher opponent to take on, they are going after Syria first.
Before they are able to take on a large and powerful nation like Iran, they must first stamp-out Iranian support in the region. Needless to say, Bashar Assad's regime and Tehran are strategic partners, and arming and training Lebanon's Hezbollah has been a strategic joint venture of theirs.
The Anglo-American-Zionist alliance and friends realize that if Damascus falls, Hezbollah will not survive in Lebanon. I personally think that as soon as Damascus falls Israel will attempt to finally crush the Hezbollah and exact revenge for the IDF's humiliating defeat in 2006. Therefore, as far as the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance is concerned, Damascus is a strategic gate to Iran and the Hezbollah. As the reader can see, once again, the Western world's geostrategic interests against Iran are behind the reasons why the Western alliance has been actively collaborating with Al-Qaeda types movements.
However, besides the Iran and Hezbollah factors there are also other good reasons why the Anglo-American-Zionist global order and friends are fixated on destroying the Assad regime in Syria. These are: Syria is seen as an ideal, cost effective overland route to divert Persian Gulf oil westward; Syria is a strategic outpost for a resurgent Russia; Finally, Damascus had in recent years been acquiring powerful, Russian-made missiles systems that threaten the Zionist state. The following are additional information about the three non-Shiite factors that have led to the international conspiracy against Syria -
The Russian factor in Syria has loomed large from the very beginning. Moscow is not sparing any effort in trying to preserve the Assad regime. Moscow is also not sparing any efforts in signaling that it is serious about preserving its military presence in Syria. The Russian navy has been very active in the eastern Mediterranean in recent months and Moscow is currently preparing to carry-out major naval exercises there. Moreover, there has been a lot of talk about Moscow shipping large quantities of modern arms to Damascus.
One of the interesting side-effects of the war in Syria has been closer cooperation between the region's Shiite populations. This development is exasperating the already explosive situation by increasing the level of urgency for Syria's enemies.
An Alawite dominated Syria; a Hezbollah dominated Lebanon; a Shiite dominated Iraq and a Shiite Iran is emerging as a sharp sickle, an Iranian arc as the Wall Street Journal calls it, cutting straight from Central Asia, through the fertile crescent and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. This Shiite dominated, Russian-backed arc cuts right through the heartland of the Western-backed Sunni/Turkish/Zionist world.
Western and Israeli policymakers are hoping that by smashing Syria they can also defeat the Hezbollah; by smashing Syria, Iran will become very vulnerable to aggression; by smashing Syria, Russia's military presence in the Mediterranean Sea will be eliminated; by smashing Syria, an excellent new route for oil distribution will open up. It is hoped that by smashing Syria the Iranian arc will be neutralized. Thus, Syria is a very important geostrategic prize, and this is why all the sides in the conflict are taking Syria very seriously.
Old Syria may be gone forever
Fortunately, the bloody battle for Damascus is being won by forces loyal to the Assad regime. Forces loyal to the regime, which include many secular Sunnis, have proven very resilient in the face of grave adversity. Barring any unforeseen setbacks such as the assassination of Assad or a military invasion of Syria, forces loyal to the Syrian regime are expected to win this war. But at what price?
Regardless of what happens going forward, we must all come to the realization that the old Syria may be forever gone. Therefore, in a sense, Syria's enemies may have already been successful. Even if Assad survives this horrible nightmare, Syria, as we knew it won't. Calls to break apart Syria had began even before the uprising began two years ago. The following prophetic words from a David Hirst was first published in 2010 -
As previously mentioned, what's happening in Syria has nothing to do with human rights, civilian deaths or democracy. Again, they are simply trying to break Syria into smaller pieces in an effort to neutralize a serious regional foe. The following are more
recent opinion pieces appearing in Jewish controlled propaganda organs
in the United State -
Therefore, the terrible fighting we see taking place in Syria today has become a fight over who will control what territory once an armistice is signed and the fighting subsides. In other words, this is a life and death struggle for Syria's Alawites and Christians. Alawites, in particular, are literally fighting to secure their right of existence, and Tehran and Moscow are doing everything in their power to give them a fighting chance. It's increasingly looking as if Syria's death, if it happens, will give birth to an Alawite nation.
In my opinion, a better alternative would be if Syria transforms into a federation consisting of multiple cantons or republics.
Nevertheless, in their blind pursuit of Western fairytales (i.e. democracy) and Islamic dreams (i.e. slaughtering Shiite infidels), Sunni Syrians have effectively managed to give their real enemies a helping hand by destroying their nation themselves. At this point, the only thing major powers (including the Russian Federation and Iran) are vying for is not the survival of the current regime in Damascus but how Syria will be 'divided' after the bloodletting stops. At this point, Assad is not fighting to preserve the old Syria, he is fighting to preserve a territory within which his Alawite kin can establish a secure homeland of their own.
Because of the manner with which Syria was formed by colonial France between the first and second world wars, Syria is predisposed to fragmenting into four or five major religious/ethnic enclaves: Sunni, Alawite, Kurdish, Druze and Christian.
If Syria breaks up, Russia and Iran stand poised to be caretakers/sponsors of Alawites. The West, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar stand ready to be caretakers/sponsors the Sunnis. The Druze will most probably come under Israeli dominance. Kurds will most probably come under US and Israeli control. And the surviving remnants of the region's already dwindling Christian population (including Armenians) will most probably settle inside Alawite territory. The port city of Tartus seems to be a good candidate for an Alawite capitol. Sunnis seem to have their sights set upon Aleppo. Kurdish regions may unite with Iraqi Kurdistan with its administrative center at Erbil. The fate of the ancient city of Damascus remains unclear at this time.
At this point, the creation of an Alawite state on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean may be Moscow's and Tehran's best alternative if Damascus falls and Syria is partitioned.
Remaking the Middle East
While they normally use Western grants, opposition politicians, rights activists, economic blackmail and cultural invasion as a way of undermining nations that are not enslaved by them, the West has resorted to remaking the Middle East at the tip of a sharp bayonet. The old format put together by England and France between the two world wars less than a century ago no longer seems suitable for them.
If the world does not descend into yet another a major world war as a result of this cruel manipulation and exploitation of humanity, a best case outcome from all this bloodletting would be a much stronger Turkish, Islamic (i.e. Saudi Arabian), Zionist and Kurdish presence in the region.
History of the region during the past sixty years has taught us that the biggest threat the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance faces in the Middle East is the rise of secular Arab and Iranian/Shiite nationalism. From Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mohammad Mosaddegh to Saddam Husein, Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad, secular forms of nationalism in the region have been seen as a serious danger to Western designs. Therefore, for the West, Wahhabist, Salafist Islamic extremism is an effective antidote to Arab nationalism.
Of course there are other reasons why Islamic fundamentalism is being promoted in the region: Islamic societies tend to be tribal, backward, oppressive, economically primitive, culturally stagnant, militarily incompetent and thus easily manipulated and/or controlled. Moreover, Wahhabi or Salafist forms of Sunni Islam is an effective way to curb Iranian Shiism. Anyone familiar with the Arab world knows that Sunni Arabs have an almost instinctual disdain towards Iranians and Shiites and vis-versa. In fact, the historic rivalry between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam are much deeper and much bloodier than Islam's rivalry against Christianity or Judaism.
Therefore, as they go on pitting one group against the other, as they replace one leader with another, as they form and reform nations, as they divide and conquer... it could be said that the West is, simply put, managing the much troubled region.
Failed states are preferable
Failed states, in this case small/fragmented states are the Anglo-American-Zionist global order's best friend, not only in the Middle East but everywhere. Failed states are much easier to deal with than independent ones that don't want to cooperate. Failed states are easier to control and they pose no serious threat. Failed states such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are also good sources for cheep energy, cheep labor, narcotics and loot (e.g. precious metals and gems).
And what better way to create failed states than by democracy?
This should be the general perspective from which we need to observe the actions of the Western alliance around the world. As they seemingly champion the causes of "self-determination", "democracy" and "human rights" in various targeted nations, they are in fact covertly engaged in the systematic process of destroying nation-states that they no longer have any use for. This all brings to mind former US general and war criminal Wesely Clark's lucid public confession several years ago -
The Turkish factor
The Turkish factor in all this is quite interesting. The overall agenda for the region, including American and Israeli support for a Kurdish state in northern Iraq has been one of the main reasons of contention between Ankara and the Western alliance in recent years. Turkish leaders recognize that Western designs for the Middle East can potentially harm Ankara's state interests. However, being that Ankara is dependent on the Western world for survival and being that geopolitics is more-or-less a game of chess (or poker, depending on who's playing), Ankara seems to be cautiously going along with the current campaign against Syria, hoping to extract benefits from the situation along the way.
In other words, while Western officials have hegemonic fantasies on their minds, Ankara for its part, may be entertaining neo-Ottoman dreams.
However, by going along with the Western plot against Syria due to its designs, Ankara may eventually come into conflict with its two most powerful regional neighbors, Iran and Russia. Turkish blood lust, subservience to Western powers and a neo-Ottoman wet dream may be getting Ankara into a precarious position. Moreover, the Turkish street is turning against Ankara's involvement in the Syrian conflict. There have been serious anti-war protests and south eastern Turkey's significant Alawite population may be awakening. The Syrian conflict may yet prove politically disastrous for Ankara.
Regional Geopolitics
It's clear that Western powers, Israel and Turco-Islamic interests are pushing the envelope in the Levant. What Western powers may not have anticipated, however, was the degree of resistance it has been shown by forces loyal to Assad. Another factor that was unexpected for has been the steadfast support Tehran and Moscow have been providing the Assad regime. Having said that, I'd like to make one thing very clear. Had it not been for the Russian military presence in Syria, periodic threats from Moscow and advanced Russian-made arms in Syrian hands, I have no doubt NATO forces would have been operating inside Syrian territory by now.
The primary difference between Syria and Libya has therefore been the Russian factor.
Moscow's handling of the situation in Libya was cold and calculated. First, we must realize that Moscow had almost no levers with which to impact the reality on the ground in Libya. Moscow did not have a foothold in Libya. Moscow did not have a very close relationship with Tripoli. Moreover, Libya was relatively speaking too isolated and too surrounded by its enemies. More importantly, if seems that Moscow was hoping that by allowing NATO to invade Libya, NATO would get bogged down in a protracted fight (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan and Iraq). Finally, by sacrificing Libya (a low ranking chess piece on the grand chess board), Moscow would seek to use its plight as a legitimate excuse to protect Syria (seen by Moscow as a much important chess piece).
Policymakers in Moscow (and Tehran) know that Assad's defeat in Syria will eventually bring the prospect of future wars to their border. Based on this assessment, both Moscow and Tehran see Assad's preservation in Syria as crucially important to their geostrategic interests. And, thus far, the signals from Moscow have been very encouraging. Moscow continues to provide Damascus with modern, Russian-made anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile batteries, and the willingness of Assad's forces to use them is more-or-less what's keeping Syria's enemies out of Syrian territory.
Nevertheless, recognizing that the war now raging on in Syria has gone well beyond the point-of-no-return, Syria's enemies are continuing to place their emphasis on seeking weak spots in Syria's armor. They will fully exploit any vulnerabilities they find. They have invested too much into their grand agenda. Therefore, Assad's stubborn resistance is not about to discourage them. The agenda against Syria is simply too large to be abandoned. Realizing that Moscow and Tehran are the main obstacles against their agenda, they are also focusing on figuring out a way to neutralize the Russian and Iranian factors in the Syrian crisis. Simply put, Syria is the strategic chess piece that has to fall before they are able to continue their advance in the region.
Ironically, in the big picture, if Damascus falls, it won't be the doing of Western, Turkish or even Israeli forces, it will be the doing of Arabs themselves. Once the cradle of Arab nationalism, Syria has become a victim and a symbol of Arab treachery. Arabs remain amongst the world's most easily manipulated and sacrificed sheeples. The Western alliance has turned the stomping grounds of Mohammad into a brothel and it has done so with the willing participation of brain-dead Sunni Arabs. Ultimately, if Syrians themselves choose the path of self-destruction, there is only so much Moscow or anyone else for that matter can do to stop them. If a nation's self-destructive peasantry is determined to self-destruct, there is not much any outside power can do to stop them from doing so.
Having said that, much still remains dependent on Moscow and Tehran. How far will Moscow and Tehran go if NATO and its regional allies up-the-ante by invading Syria? It's easy to see how urgent this matter is for Tehran, but is Moscow's red line in the Middle East or in the south Caucasus? Will Kremlin officials decide to go to war in defense of Syria as it has been suggested by some Russian officials or will they continue supporting Damascus from the sidelines? How will Moscow respond if Russian assets in Syria get attacked? If NATO invades Syria will Moscow react by moving military units into say, Georgia? If Damascus is facing an imminent NATO military intervention will Iran respond by sending military units into Syria via Iraq? How will Iraq's Shiite majority government react to all this? Tensions between Iraq's Shiite majority and Sunni minority remain high and blood is again freely flowing in Iraqi streets. Will renewed fighting flareup between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah? What role will Kurds play in all this? What role will Turkey play? Why role will Sunni Arab dictatorships throughout the Arabian peninsula play?
These are not simple questions to answer or to forecast for in them lies the very seeds of a major global war. I am sure that questions such as these are what's keeping Kremlin strategists awake at nights. The massive powder-keg that is currently on the verge of exploding in the Middle East is at the very doorstep of the Russian Federation. Moscow is not taking any chances. Russian military units in Armenia have been bolstered and are currently playing a very important strategic role in the region. In the meanwhile, let's all hope that forces loyal to Bashar Assad are able to persevere and secure for themselves the right of existence for the day when Damascus will cease to be the administrative center of Syria.
Finally, all this should again be reminding us Armenians of the cruel and unforgiving nature of the region in which Armenia is located. We should also be reminded that we need to devote all our resources in developing closer ties with the Russian Federation. Recent years has clearly shown us that Yerevan's alliance with Moscow is Armenia's number one security guarantee.
Arevordi
May, 2013
Syria has become the blood-soaked battlefield upon which the Western alliance and friends have been trying to remake the strategically important region, as Moscow and Tehran feverishly try to salvage their presence in Syria. Therefore, it's a misnomer to call what's going on in Syria a civil war.
Interestingly, a recent Wall Street Journal article had this to say -
"The risks of a jihadist victory in Damascus are real, at least in the short-term, but they are containable by Turkey and Israel. The far greater risk to Middle East stability and U.S. interests is a victorious arc of Iranian terror from the Gulf to the Mediterranean backed by nuclear weapons."As the reader can clearly see, the above quote by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal explains things quite well. Jihadists in Syria are really not much of a concern for the West. As I have been telling my readers for a very long time, jihadists have never been a serious problem for them. A few dead Americans from time-to-time is a very small price to pay for utilizing a effective yet destructive tool such as Islamic extremism towards geostrategic gains. Their main current fear is that Iran will disturb what is termed as the "balance of power" in the region. As a result, the "reputable" Jewish controlled American daily in question has been quite vociferous in calling for a preemptive war against Iran (relevant article can be found on this page). In other words, they fear that they will no longer have the impunity to do as they will once Iran becomes a nuclear power and begins projecting its interests in the region.
Wall Street Journal, Review and Outlook, May 6, 2013
Beware of the Iranian arc
The growth of Iranian power and influence in the Middle East in recent decades has been keeping officials in Washington, London, Tel Aviv, Ankara and Riyadh awake up at nights. This is because, as mentioned above, Tehran threatens to disturb what the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance terms as "the balance of power" in the region. This is the "balance" in which Western powers, Turkey, subservient Arab monarchies and the Zionist state enjoy total supremacy over their regional adversaries. In other words, they are afraid of a real balance of power emerging because in such a political environment, they will not feel invincible and will no longer be able to act with impunity.
Ironically, their abject fear of Iran is one of the major motivations behind the international aggression we currently see taking place against Syria - because the road to Tehran starts in Damascus. Since Iran is a much tougher opponent to take on, they are going after Syria first.
Before they are able to take on a large and powerful nation like Iran, they must first stamp-out Iranian support in the region. Needless to say, Bashar Assad's regime and Tehran are strategic partners, and arming and training Lebanon's Hezbollah has been a strategic joint venture of theirs.
The Anglo-American-Zionist alliance and friends realize that if Damascus falls, Hezbollah will not survive in Lebanon. I personally think that as soon as Damascus falls Israel will attempt to finally crush the Hezbollah and exact revenge for the IDF's humiliating defeat in 2006. Therefore, as far as the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance is concerned, Damascus is a strategic gate to Iran and the Hezbollah. As the reader can see, once again, the Western world's geostrategic interests against Iran are behind the reasons why the Western alliance has been actively collaborating with Al-Qaeda types movements.
However, besides the Iran and Hezbollah factors there are also other good reasons why the Anglo-American-Zionist global order and friends are fixated on destroying the Assad regime in Syria. These are: Syria is seen as an ideal, cost effective overland route to divert Persian Gulf oil westward; Syria is a strategic outpost for a resurgent Russia; Finally, Damascus had in recent years been acquiring powerful, Russian-made missiles systems that threaten the Zionist state. The following are additional information about the three non-Shiite factors that have led to the international conspiracy against Syria -
As you can see, what's going on in Syria is much larger than what's being reported to the public by the mainstream news press.Oil Road Through Damascus (2012 Asia Times report): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak02.html
Syria: we'll host Russian missile system (2008 RT report): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNd5sznQo68&feature=fvwrel
Russian Navy to base warships at Syrian port after 2012 (2010 Ria Novosti report): http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100802/160041427.html
The Russian factor in Syria has loomed large from the very beginning. Moscow is not sparing any effort in trying to preserve the Assad regime. Moscow is also not sparing any efforts in signaling that it is serious about preserving its military presence in Syria. The Russian navy has been very active in the eastern Mediterranean in recent months and Moscow is currently preparing to carry-out major naval exercises there. Moreover, there has been a lot of talk about Moscow shipping large quantities of modern arms to Damascus.
One of the interesting side-effects of the war in Syria has been closer cooperation between the region's Shiite populations. This development is exasperating the already explosive situation by increasing the level of urgency for Syria's enemies.
An Alawite dominated Syria; a Hezbollah dominated Lebanon; a Shiite dominated Iraq and a Shiite Iran is emerging as a sharp sickle, an Iranian arc as the Wall Street Journal calls it, cutting straight from Central Asia, through the fertile crescent and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. This Shiite dominated, Russian-backed arc cuts right through the heartland of the Western-backed Sunni/Turkish/Zionist world.
Western and Israeli policymakers are hoping that by smashing Syria they can also defeat the Hezbollah; by smashing Syria, Iran will become very vulnerable to aggression; by smashing Syria, Russia's military presence in the Mediterranean Sea will be eliminated; by smashing Syria, an excellent new route for oil distribution will open up. It is hoped that by smashing Syria the Iranian arc will be neutralized. Thus, Syria is a very important geostrategic prize, and this is why all the sides in the conflict are taking Syria very seriously.
Old Syria may be gone forever
Fortunately, the bloody battle for Damascus is being won by forces loyal to the Assad regime. Forces loyal to the regime, which include many secular Sunnis, have proven very resilient in the face of grave adversity. Barring any unforeseen setbacks such as the assassination of Assad or a military invasion of Syria, forces loyal to the Syrian regime are expected to win this war. But at what price?
Regardless of what happens going forward, we must all come to the realization that the old Syria may be forever gone. Therefore, in a sense, Syria's enemies may have already been successful. Even if Assad survives this horrible nightmare, Syria, as we knew it won't. Calls to break apart Syria had began even before the uprising began two years ago. The following prophetic words from a David Hirst was first published in 2010 -
"The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional, localized governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world... The dissolution of Syria, and later Iraq, into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is Israel's main long-rage objective on the Eastern Front. The present military wreaking of these states is the short-range objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and sectarian structure... As a result there will be a Shiite Alawi state, the district of Aleppo will be a Sunni state, and the district of Damascus another state which will be hostile to the northern one. The Druze-even those in Golan - should form a state in Huaran and in northern Jordan... The oil rich but very divided and internally strife-ridden Iraq is certainly a candidate to fit Israel's goal... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation... will hasten the achievement of the supreme goal, namely breaking up Iraq into elements like Syria and Lebanon. There will be there states or more around the three major cities, Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, while Shiite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni north, which is mostly Kurdish...The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for (dissolution)... Israel's policy in war or peace should be to bring about the elimination of Jordan..."As the reader can see, the intent has always been to divide and conquer. Therefore, claims that Western/Zionist policymakers primary intention is to see the smashing of Syria into smaller, weaker and more manageable bits of states is no longer a "conspiracy theory". For obvious reasons, Western powers and Tel Aviv would like to see the Lebanonization of Syria. The following is a RT report touches upon this topic -
Beware of small states, David Hirst, p. 125-126
Lebanonize and Conquer: 'CIA, Mossad on Syria front line':http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh7_z9nZsZQ&feature=plcp
They may be signalling that they are willing to consider an Alawite state if Bashar Assad's steps down and heads to the Syrian coast. With each passing week, the prospects of the Assad regime maintaining its hegemony in Syria is getting smaller and smaller. Therefore, the breaking-up of Syria is increasingly looking like a real possibility."When Assad loses Aleppo and Damascus—and this loss is almost a certainty—his Russian and Iranian patrons won't abandon him. They have no other horse to ride in Syria. Instead they will assist in establishing a sectarian militia, an Alawite analogue to Hezbollah. In fact, such a militia is already rising up naturally, as Sunni defections transform the Syrian military into an overtly Alawite force. If the rebels finally succeed in dislodging the regime from the main cities, it will retreat to the north, and the autonomous Alawite canton that Bashar al-Assad's grandfather envisioned will finally be born. "Alawistan," as the Mideast scholar Tony Badran called it, will join Hezbollah in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon as another sectarian island in the Iranian archipelago of influence."
Wall Street Journal, Michael Doran
"Should Damascus fall to the opposition, Tartus could become the heart of an attempt to create a different country. Some expect Mr. Assad and the security elite will try to survive the collapse by establishing a rump Alawite state along the coast, with Tartus as their new capital. There have been various signs of preparations."
New York Times
Therefore, the terrible fighting we see taking place in Syria today has become a fight over who will control what territory once an armistice is signed and the fighting subsides. In other words, this is a life and death struggle for Syria's Alawites and Christians. Alawites, in particular, are literally fighting to secure their right of existence, and Tehran and Moscow are doing everything in their power to give them a fighting chance. It's increasingly looking as if Syria's death, if it happens, will give birth to an Alawite nation.
In my opinion, a better alternative would be if Syria transforms into a federation consisting of multiple cantons or republics.
Nevertheless, in their blind pursuit of Western fairytales (i.e. democracy) and Islamic dreams (i.e. slaughtering Shiite infidels), Sunni Syrians have effectively managed to give their real enemies a helping hand by destroying their nation themselves. At this point, the only thing major powers (including the Russian Federation and Iran) are vying for is not the survival of the current regime in Damascus but how Syria will be 'divided' after the bloodletting stops. At this point, Assad is not fighting to preserve the old Syria, he is fighting to preserve a territory within which his Alawite kin can establish a secure homeland of their own.
Because of the manner with which Syria was formed by colonial France between the first and second world wars, Syria is predisposed to fragmenting into four or five major religious/ethnic enclaves: Sunni, Alawite, Kurdish, Druze and Christian.
If Syria breaks up, Russia and Iran stand poised to be caretakers/sponsors of Alawites. The West, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar stand ready to be caretakers/sponsors the Sunnis. The Druze will most probably come under Israeli dominance. Kurds will most probably come under US and Israeli control. And the surviving remnants of the region's already dwindling Christian population (including Armenians) will most probably settle inside Alawite territory. The port city of Tartus seems to be a good candidate for an Alawite capitol. Sunnis seem to have their sights set upon Aleppo. Kurdish regions may unite with Iraqi Kurdistan with its administrative center at Erbil. The fate of the ancient city of Damascus remains unclear at this time.
At this point, the creation of an Alawite state on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean may be Moscow's and Tehran's best alternative if Damascus falls and Syria is partitioned.
Remaking the Middle East
While they normally use Western grants, opposition politicians, rights activists, economic blackmail and cultural invasion as a way of undermining nations that are not enslaved by them, the West has resorted to remaking the Middle East at the tip of a sharp bayonet. The old format put together by England and France between the two world wars less than a century ago no longer seems suitable for them.
If the world does not descend into yet another a major world war as a result of this cruel manipulation and exploitation of humanity, a best case outcome from all this bloodletting would be a much stronger Turkish, Islamic (i.e. Saudi Arabian), Zionist and Kurdish presence in the region.
History of the region during the past sixty years has taught us that the biggest threat the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance faces in the Middle East is the rise of secular Arab and Iranian/Shiite nationalism. From Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mohammad Mosaddegh to Saddam Husein, Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad, secular forms of nationalism in the region have been seen as a serious danger to Western designs. Therefore, for the West, Wahhabist, Salafist Islamic extremism is an effective antidote to Arab nationalism.
Of course there are other reasons why Islamic fundamentalism is being promoted in the region: Islamic societies tend to be tribal, backward, oppressive, economically primitive, culturally stagnant, militarily incompetent and thus easily manipulated and/or controlled. Moreover, Wahhabi or Salafist forms of Sunni Islam is an effective way to curb Iranian Shiism. Anyone familiar with the Arab world knows that Sunni Arabs have an almost instinctual disdain towards Iranians and Shiites and vis-versa. In fact, the historic rivalry between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam are much deeper and much bloodier than Islam's rivalry against Christianity or Judaism.
Therefore, as they go on pitting one group against the other, as they replace one leader with another, as they form and reform nations, as they divide and conquer... it could be said that the West is, simply put, managing the much troubled region.
Failed states are preferable
Failed states, in this case small/fragmented states are the Anglo-American-Zionist global order's best friend, not only in the Middle East but everywhere. Failed states are much easier to deal with than independent ones that don't want to cooperate. Failed states are easier to control and they pose no serious threat. Failed states such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are also good sources for cheep energy, cheep labor, narcotics and loot (e.g. precious metals and gems).
And what better way to create failed states than by democracy?
This should be the general perspective from which we need to observe the actions of the Western alliance around the world. As they seemingly champion the causes of "self-determination", "democracy" and "human rights" in various targeted nations, they are in fact covertly engaged in the systematic process of destroying nation-states that they no longer have any use for. This all brings to mind former US general and war criminal Wesely Clark's lucid public confession several years ago -
General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGwHaving already conquered Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, senior officials in Washington in conjunction with the Western alliance's propaganda organs are now actively propagating military intervention against Syria and Iran. Zionist leaders and Jewish-American pundits, supported by legions of their Shabaz Goy in the US, have been fervently beating the war drums. There is a massive and well-coordinated information war being carried-out against Damascus, Tehran and Moscow. Despite Tehran's and Damascus' surprising resilience and the steadfast support they have been receiving from Russia, their enemies are out for blood and they are not showing any signs of backing down. This situation is a clear indicator that the multi-national agenda against Damascus and Tehran is indeed very serious and that they are in this for the long-term.
The Turkish factor
The Turkish factor in all this is quite interesting. The overall agenda for the region, including American and Israeli support for a Kurdish state in northern Iraq has been one of the main reasons of contention between Ankara and the Western alliance in recent years. Turkish leaders recognize that Western designs for the Middle East can potentially harm Ankara's state interests. However, being that Ankara is dependent on the Western world for survival and being that geopolitics is more-or-less a game of chess (or poker, depending on who's playing), Ankara seems to be cautiously going along with the current campaign against Syria, hoping to extract benefits from the situation along the way.
In other words, while Western officials have hegemonic fantasies on their minds, Ankara for its part, may be entertaining neo-Ottoman dreams.
However, by going along with the Western plot against Syria due to its designs, Ankara may eventually come into conflict with its two most powerful regional neighbors, Iran and Russia. Turkish blood lust, subservience to Western powers and a neo-Ottoman wet dream may be getting Ankara into a precarious position. Moreover, the Turkish street is turning against Ankara's involvement in the Syrian conflict. There have been serious anti-war protests and south eastern Turkey's significant Alawite population may be awakening. The Syrian conflict may yet prove politically disastrous for Ankara.
Regional Geopolitics
It's clear that Western powers, Israel and Turco-Islamic interests are pushing the envelope in the Levant. What Western powers may not have anticipated, however, was the degree of resistance it has been shown by forces loyal to Assad. Another factor that was unexpected for has been the steadfast support Tehran and Moscow have been providing the Assad regime. Having said that, I'd like to make one thing very clear. Had it not been for the Russian military presence in Syria, periodic threats from Moscow and advanced Russian-made arms in Syrian hands, I have no doubt NATO forces would have been operating inside Syrian territory by now.
The primary difference between Syria and Libya has therefore been the Russian factor.
Moscow's handling of the situation in Libya was cold and calculated. First, we must realize that Moscow had almost no levers with which to impact the reality on the ground in Libya. Moscow did not have a foothold in Libya. Moscow did not have a very close relationship with Tripoli. Moreover, Libya was relatively speaking too isolated and too surrounded by its enemies. More importantly, if seems that Moscow was hoping that by allowing NATO to invade Libya, NATO would get bogged down in a protracted fight (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan and Iraq). Finally, by sacrificing Libya (a low ranking chess piece on the grand chess board), Moscow would seek to use its plight as a legitimate excuse to protect Syria (seen by Moscow as a much important chess piece).
Policymakers in Moscow (and Tehran) know that Assad's defeat in Syria will eventually bring the prospect of future wars to their border. Based on this assessment, both Moscow and Tehran see Assad's preservation in Syria as crucially important to their geostrategic interests. And, thus far, the signals from Moscow have been very encouraging. Moscow continues to provide Damascus with modern, Russian-made anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile batteries, and the willingness of Assad's forces to use them is more-or-less what's keeping Syria's enemies out of Syrian territory.
Nevertheless, recognizing that the war now raging on in Syria has gone well beyond the point-of-no-return, Syria's enemies are continuing to place their emphasis on seeking weak spots in Syria's armor. They will fully exploit any vulnerabilities they find. They have invested too much into their grand agenda. Therefore, Assad's stubborn resistance is not about to discourage them. The agenda against Syria is simply too large to be abandoned. Realizing that Moscow and Tehran are the main obstacles against their agenda, they are also focusing on figuring out a way to neutralize the Russian and Iranian factors in the Syrian crisis. Simply put, Syria is the strategic chess piece that has to fall before they are able to continue their advance in the region.
Ironically, in the big picture, if Damascus falls, it won't be the doing of Western, Turkish or even Israeli forces, it will be the doing of Arabs themselves. Once the cradle of Arab nationalism, Syria has become a victim and a symbol of Arab treachery. Arabs remain amongst the world's most easily manipulated and sacrificed sheeples. The Western alliance has turned the stomping grounds of Mohammad into a brothel and it has done so with the willing participation of brain-dead Sunni Arabs. Ultimately, if Syrians themselves choose the path of self-destruction, there is only so much Moscow or anyone else for that matter can do to stop them. If a nation's self-destructive peasantry is determined to self-destruct, there is not much any outside power can do to stop them from doing so.
Having said that, much still remains dependent on Moscow and Tehran. How far will Moscow and Tehran go if NATO and its regional allies up-the-ante by invading Syria? It's easy to see how urgent this matter is for Tehran, but is Moscow's red line in the Middle East or in the south Caucasus? Will Kremlin officials decide to go to war in defense of Syria as it has been suggested by some Russian officials or will they continue supporting Damascus from the sidelines? How will Moscow respond if Russian assets in Syria get attacked? If NATO invades Syria will Moscow react by moving military units into say, Georgia? If Damascus is facing an imminent NATO military intervention will Iran respond by sending military units into Syria via Iraq? How will Iraq's Shiite majority government react to all this? Tensions between Iraq's Shiite majority and Sunni minority remain high and blood is again freely flowing in Iraqi streets. Will renewed fighting flareup between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah? What role will Kurds play in all this? What role will Turkey play? Why role will Sunni Arab dictatorships throughout the Arabian peninsula play?
These are not simple questions to answer or to forecast for in them lies the very seeds of a major global war. I am sure that questions such as these are what's keeping Kremlin strategists awake at nights. The massive powder-keg that is currently on the verge of exploding in the Middle East is at the very doorstep of the Russian Federation. Moscow is not taking any chances. Russian military units in Armenia have been bolstered and are currently playing a very important strategic role in the region. In the meanwhile, let's all hope that forces loyal to Bashar Assad are able to persevere and secure for themselves the right of existence for the day when Damascus will cease to be the administrative center of Syria.
Finally, all this should again be reminding us Armenians of the cruel and unforgiving nature of the region in which Armenia is located. We should also be reminded that we need to devote all our resources in developing closer ties with the Russian Federation. Recent years has clearly shown us that Yerevan's alliance with Moscow is Armenia's number one security guarantee.
Arevordi
May, 2013
***
West, Arab League and Turkey Supporting Armed Islamic Militants in Syria: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/12/nato-arab-league-and-turkey-supporting.html
CIA arms Islamic rebels, Syria downs Turkish warplane: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/06/cia-arms-islamic-rebels-syria-downs.html
NATO plans campaigns in Libya and Syria to tighten noose around Iran: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/09/nato-plans-campaigns-in-middle-east-to_03.html
Target Iran: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/12/target-iran-december-2011.html
Obituary: Libya 1951-2011: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/11/destruction-of-libya-november-2011.html
US Launches Cyber Spy Operation Against The World: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/04/us-launches-cyber-spy-operation-april.html
***
Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and
Eurasia
Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has
lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to
Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is
the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin
is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further
deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another
“world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve
active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the
so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.” It involves intense
diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door
diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a
long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with
an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife.
The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their
women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards,
especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women
are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian
population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and
Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to
fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi
Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant
organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv
and certainly not in either Russia or China.1
According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian
diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep
familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite
regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a
bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere
prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to
slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all,
20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2
That would be some 4 million Syrians. That ought to be food for
thought for those in the West cheering on a murky dubious opposition
“Syrian National Council” that is dominated by the ominous Muslim
Brotherhood, and an armed opposition “Free Syrian Army” that has been
reported even by the New York Times as rife with factional armed
splits. Moreover the conflict were it to descend into a Libya-like
internal bloodbath, would spill over across the Syrian border into
Turkey. Syrian coastal area has a significant Alawite population and a
large number of Alawites live in the adjoining Turkish provinces of
Hatay and Antakya.
To sort out fact from fiction inside Syria is daunting as media are
limited and opposition spokesmen have been repeatedly caught lying about
events. In one recent instance, a UK journalist claimed he was
deliberately led into a potential death trap by rebel opposition forces
to score propaganda against the Damascus regime. The UK Channel 4 News’s
chief correspondent, Alex Thomson, told AP that Syrian rebels set him
up to die in no man’s land near the Lebanese border, saying they wanted
to use his death at the hands of government forces to score propaganda
points.3 And in one brazen example of political manipulation, BBC was
recently caught publishing a photograph it claimed was of a massacre at
Al-Houla on 25 May 2012, in which 108 persons are known to have died
including 49 children. It turned out the picture had been taken by
Italian photo journalist, Marco Di Lauro in Iraq in 2003.4
The stakes in this geopolitical chess game are nothing less than
survival first of Syria as a sovereign nation, whatever its flaws and
defects. More, it ultimately involves the survival of Iran, Russia and
China as sovereign nations together with the other BRIC states Brazil,
India and South Africa. Longer term, it involves the matter of survival
of civilization as we know it and avoidance of a world war that would
decimate the world population not by tens of millions as seventy years
ago but likely this time by billions.
The Syria stakes for Moscow
Russia’s Putin has drawn a deep hard line in the sand around the
survival of Al-Assad and Syria as a stable state. Few ask why Russia is
warning of possible world war if Washington persists to demand immediate
regime change in Syria as Hillary Clinton is doing. It is not because
Russia is intent on advancing its own imperialist agenda in the Middle
East. It’s in little shape militarily and economically to do so even if
it had wanted. Rather, it is about preserving port rights to Russia’s
only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus, the only remaining Russian
military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only
Mediterranean fueling spot. In event of a showdown with NATO the base
becomes strategic to Russia.
Yet there is more at stake for Russia. Putin and Russia’s foreign
minister, Sergei Lavrov, have made clear were NATO and the USA to launch
military action against Assad’s Syria, the consequences would be
staggering. Reliable sources in Damascus have reported the presence of
at least 100,000 Russian “technical advisers” in the country. That’s a
lot, and a Russian freighter carrying rebuilt Russian Mi-25 attack
helicopters is reportedly bound for Syria, while several days earlier a
Russian naval flotilla sailed for Tartus led by the Russian destroyer,
Admiral Chabanenko.
An earlier attempt to send the rebuilt helicopters back to Syria
which had earlier purchased them, was blocked in June off Scotland’s
coast when it sailed under a non-Russian freighter flag. Now Moscow has
made clear it will tolerate no interference in its traffic with
Damascus. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Vyacheslav Dzirkaln,
announced that “The fleet will be sent on task to guarantee the safety
of our ships, to prevent anyone interfering with them in the event of a
blockade. I remind you there are no limits,” he soberly added.5 In so
many words, what Moscow is announcing is that it is willing to face a
21st Century version of the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis if NATO foolishly
persists in pressing regime change in Damascus.
As it has openly emerged that the so-called democratic opposition in
Syria is being dominated by the shadowy Muslim Brotherhood, hardly an
organization renowned for multi-ethnic democratic tendencies, a victory
for a US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, Moscow also
believes, would unleash a wave of Muslim-led destabilizations across
Central Asia into republics of the former Soviet Union. China is also
extremely sensitive about such a danger, only recently confronted with
bloody riots of Muslim organization in its oil-rich Xinjiang Uyghur
Autonomous Province, quietly sponsored by the US Government.6
Russia has joined firmly with China since both nations fell into a
catastrophic trap over abstaining in the UN Security Council from
vetoing the US Resolution. That US resolution opened the door to NATO
destruction of not only Mohammar Ghaddafi, but of Libya itself as a
functioning country. This author has spoken personally in Moscow and in
Beijing since the Libya debacle asking well-informed persons in both
places how in effect they could have been so short-sighted on Libya.
They both clearly have since concluded that further advance of
Washington’s agenda for what George W. Bush called the Greater Middle
East Project is diametrically opposed to the national interest of both
China and Russia, hence the iron opposition to the NATO agenda in Syria
for regime change. To date Russia and China, Permanent veto members of
the UN Security Council, have three times exercised their veto over new
US-sponsored sanctions against Syria, the latest on July 19.
Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insist on a strict
adherence to the proposed peace plan of former UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan. Unlike what Washington prefers to generously read into it, the
Six Point Annan Plan calls for no regime change, rather for a negotiated
settlement and end to the fighting on both sides, a ceasefire.
Washington’s Janus-faced duplicity
Aligned on the side of violent regime change in Syria are a bizarre
coalition that includes, in addition to Washington and its European
“vassal states” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski called European NATO members),7
most prominently Saudi Arabia, hardly a regime anyone would accuse of
being a paragon of democracy. Another lead role against Damascus is
being played by Qatar, home to US military as well as the blatantly
pro-NATO propaganda channel Al-Jazeera. In addition, the Turkish
government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is providing training and space to
prepare armed mercenaries and others to flow over the border into
neighboring Syria.
An attempt by the Erdogan government to send a Turkish Phantom air
force fighter jet into Syrian airspace flying provocatively low,
apparently in order to incite a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident to fan flames
of NATO intervention a la Libya two weeks ago, fell flat when Turkey’s
general staff issued a statement saying: “No traces of explosives or
flammable products were found on the debris recovered from the sea.”
Erdogan was forced to shift his line to cover face, no longer using the
phrase, “shot down by Syria” and instead referring to “our plane that
Syria claimed to have destroyed.”8 NATO has established a command and
control center in Iskenderun, in Turkey’s Hatay province, near the
Syrian border months ago to organize, train and arm the “anything but”
Free Syrian Army.9 The Obama Administration, not wanting a full Syria
war before US elections in November, reportedly also told Erdogan to
“cool it” for now.
Most westerners who take their knowledge of world affairs religiously
from the pages of the Washington Post or CNN or BBC are convinced the
Syrian mess is a clear cut case of “good guys” (the so-named Syrian
National Council and its rag-tag makeshift “Free Syrian Army”) versus
the “bad guys” (the Al-Assad dictatorship with its armed forces). For
more than a year western media has run footage, some as noted, not even
filmed in Syria, claiming that innocent, unarmed opposition civilian
pro-democracy populations are being massacred ruthlessly in a one-sided
butchery by the regime.
They never explain how it would serve Assad to alienate his strongest
asset to survival, namely the support of a majority of Syrians against
what he has accurately named foreign intervention into sovereign Syrian
affairs. Indeed numerous eyewitness journalist accounts from inside Turkey and
Syria including RT have alleged that from the beginning the “peaceful
democratic opposition” had secretly been provided with arms and
training, often inside camps across on the Turkish side. Professor
Ibrahim Alloush from Zaytouneh University in Jordan told RT,
“Weaponry is being smuggled into Syria in large quantities from all over the place. It is pretty clear that the rebels have been receiving arms from abroad and Syrian television has been showing almost daily shipments of arms being smuggled into Syria via Lebanon, Turkey and other border crossings. Since the rebels are being supported by the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and by NATO it is safe to assume that they are getting their financing and weaponry from the same sources that are offering them political cover and financial backing.” 10
One veteran Turkish journalist whom this author interviewed in Ankara
in April, just back from an extensive tour of Syria, gave his
eyewitness account of the capture of a small band of “opposition”
fighters. The journalist, fluent in Arabic, was astonished as he
witnessed the head of the rebels demand to know why their military
captors spoke Arabic. When told that was their native language, the
rebel leader blurted out, “But you should speak Hebrew, you’re with the
Israeli Army aren’t you?”
In short, the mercenaries had been blitz-trained across the border in
Turkey, given Kalashnikovs and a fistful of dollars and told they were
making a jihad against the Israeli Army. They did not even know who they
were fighting. In other instances, mercenaries recruited from
Afghanistan and elsewhere and financed by Saudi money, including alleged
members of Al Qaeda, make up the “democratic opposition” to the
established regime of Al-Assad.
Even the ultimate US establishment newspaper, The New York Times,
has been forced to admit that the CIA has been pouring arms into the
Syrian opposition. They reported, “C.I.A. officers are operating
secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian
opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the
Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled
grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled
mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of
intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”11
The International Committee for the Red Cross now classifies the
conflict as a civil war.12 Peter Wallensteen, a leading peace researcher
at the University of Uppsala and the director of the Uppsala Conflict
Data Program, stated that, “It’s increasingly an internationalized civil
war, and as we know from previous history, the more internationalized,
the longer the conflict will be…there is a civil war, but now so many
weapons are coming from the outside, that there is actually an
internationalized civil war.” 13
According to Mary Ellen O’Connell, a respected legal scholar and
professor of law and international dispute resolution at the University
of Notre Dame, “The International Committee of the Red Cross statement
means that the Assad regime is facing an organized armed opposition
engaging in military force, and it has the legal right to respond in
kind. The Syrian military will have more authority to kill persons based
on their being part of the armed opposition than when Assad was
restricted to using force under peacetime rules.”14 The rebel opposition
groups claim it means just the opposite.
While the US State Department makes pious pronouncements of their
supporting “democracy” and demanding Al-Assad step down and recognize
the dubious and factionalized opposition of the Syrian National Council,
an exile group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia is working
skillfully on the diplomatic front to weaken the Western march to war.
Putin’s shrewd diplomacy
Now, no sooner did Vladimir Putin again take the office as Russia’s
President on May 7 than he embarked on a complex series of diplomatic
missions to defuse or hopefully derail Washington’s Syrian game plan. On
July 16 Putin hosted a Moscow visit of Kofi Annan where he repeated
Moscow’s unflinching support for the Annan Peace Plan. 15
Because of the considerable media distortions it’s useful to read the actual text of the six-point Annan plan:
(1) commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;
(2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.
To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.
As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.
Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;
(3) ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level;
(4) intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;
(5) ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;
(6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.15
There is no demand in the Annan Plan for Bashar al-Assad to step down
before any ceasefire, contrary to what Hillary Clinton repeats after
insisting the US also backs the Annan Plan. The Annan Plan calls for a
diplomatic solution. The US clearly does not want a diplomatic solution.
It wants regime change and evidently widening war across the
Shi’ite-Sunni divide of the Muslim world.
Moscow and Beijing just as clearly want to draw the line and prevent
chaos spreading from Syria. On July 19, again Russia and China, both
veto members at the UN Security Council blocked a new US-backed
resolution on Syria they insisted was designed to open the door to a
Libya-like military intervention into Syria. The resolution had been
drafted by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and would have
opened the door for a Chapter 7 resolution of the UN Security Council on
Syria. Chapter 7 allows the 15-member council to authorize actions
ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military
intervention.17 The Hague resolution demanded that the Syrian government
in 10 days pull out all its heavy weapons from urban areas and return
troops to barracks. Nothing was said about disarming the “Free Syrian
Army.” Washington claimed it would only be interested in economic or
diplomatic sanctions, not military. Of course. Hmmmm…
Putin has more than a little leverage to use with Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan. Erdogan was in Moscow just prior to the July 19 UN
Security Council vote to discuss Syria with Putin.18 Turkey is the
second-largest buyer of Russian natural gas, some 80% of its natural gas
coming from Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom. 19 Turkey’s entire
“energy hub” strategy of playing a key role in gas flows from Eurasia,
the Middle east to Europe depends on gas from Russia and Iran. One year
ago a $10 billion pipeline deal was signed between Iran, Iraq and Syria
for a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s huge South Pars field to Iraq,
Syria and on to Turkey, eventually connecting to Europe.20
Putin had also gone to Tel Aviv on June 21 to meet with Israeli Prime
Minister Bibi Netanyahu.21 Russian influence inside Israel is not
minor. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union some six million
Russians, mostly Jews, have emigrated to Israel over the past two
decades. Ultimately Israel cannot be overjoyed at the prospect of a
Muslim Brotherhood-run Syrian opposition coming to power in neighboring
Syria. While few details emerged of the content of the talks, it is
clear that Putin delivered the message that a “destroyed, disoriented
and broken up Syria would not help Israel. Syria has the second, most
well-organized Muslim Brotherhood organization after Egypt,” according
to former Indian Ambassador K. Gajendra Singh.22
Then on July 11, Putin and Lavrov invited Abdel Basset Sayda, the new
head of the US-backed opposition organization, Syrian National Council,
to Moscow for “talks.” Sayda, who is from the Kurdish Syrian minority
and has lived twenty years in Swedish exile, is a curious figure as
opposition spokesman, from the Kurd minority in Syria, a man with little
or no active political experience, clearly chosen mainly to hide the
dominant Muslim Brotherhood profile of the SNC. Russia reportedly made
it clear to Sayda they would continue to block any attempts to oust
Assad and that the opposition need seriously adhere to the Annan Plan
and negotiate a settlement. Sayda for his part made clear no
negotiations until Assad is gone, a stance that is feeding the
bloodshed.23
There are signs in all the bloodshed and escalation of violence that
Putin reached some quiet deal as well with Obama to keep war off the
table until Obama is past the November elections. Russia recently agreed
to reopen supply lines for US military supplies in Afghanistan at the
same time Washington orchestrated an “apology” for the recent killings
of civilians in Pakistan with its drones.24
Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality:
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/putin-s-geopolitical-chess-game-with-washington-in-syria-and-eurasia/32019“Turkey will keep offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from “liberated” Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponize them. And Washington, London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus. Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly weaponized by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless. Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will remain in place – if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon.”24
Russian warships enter Mediterranean to form permanent task force
Warships from Russia’s Pacific Fleet have entered the Mediterranean
for the first time in decades. Russia’s Navy Chief says the task force
may be reinforced with nuclear submarines, as the country starts
building up a permanent fleet in the region.
“The task force has successfully passed through the Suez
Channel and entered the Mediterranean. It is the first time in
decades that Pacific Fleet warships enter this region,” the
Pacific Fleet spokesman, Capt. First Rank Roman Martov told
RIA.
The vessels are now heading to Cyprus and will make a port call
in the city of Limassol, he added. The group includes destroyer “Admiral Panteleyev,” two
amphibious warfare ships “Peresvet” and “Admiral Nevelskoi,” as
well as a tanker and a tugboat. The ships left the Far-Eastern port city of Vladivostok on March
19 to join Russia’s Mediterranean task force, which currently
consists of vessels from Northern, Baltic, and the Black Sea
Fleets, including a large anti-submarine ship, a frigate and a
Ropucha-II Class landing ship. Russian Navy Commander Adm. Viktor Chirkov on Sunday announced
plans for the Mediterranean task force and said that it may
“possibly” be enlarged to include nuclear submarines.
“Overall, already from this year, we plan to have 5-6
warships and support vessels [in the Mediterranean Sea], which will
be replaced on a rotating basis from each of the fleets – the Black
Sea, Baltic, Northern and, in some cases, even the Pacific Fleet.
Depending on the scope of assignments and their complexity, the
number of warships in the task force may be increased,” Chirkov
said, as quoted by RIA.
Russian submarines may be deployed in the region “in
perspective,” the Navy Commander said, reminding that both
nuclear and diesel submarines were present in the Soviet Union’s
5th Mediterranean Squadron.
“Everything will depend on the situation,” Chirkov said,
also leaving the door open for missions in the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans. The task force will be “comprehensively trained” to
meet situations that may arise in these regions too, he said.
The Russian Defense Ministry announced setting up a naval task
force in the Mediterranean in April, while the country’s Defense
Minister Sergey Shoigu has said a permanent naval task force was
needed to defend Russia’s interests in the region. The permanent fleet’s headquarters will be set up in the summer
of 2013, although their actual location is yet to be announced.
The Mediterranean has recently become a hotspot of military
muscle flexing as global powers seemingly vie for influence. NATO has been staging major naval war games involving several
countries, last October holding an exercise code-named Noble
Mariner 12. Russia held its largest naval exercises in the region
this January, with drills spanning both the Black and Mediterranean
Seas. The media quickly linked both the NATO and Russian war games
to the situation in Syria.
Another recent naval display, seen as provocative by Israel, was the deployment of the Iranian Navy’s 24th fleet to patrol the Mediterranean and convey a “message of peace.” Since then, Israel has acquired its fifth Dolphin-class submarine allegedly capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
China has also been increasing its involvement in the area, with the country’s warships sailing through the Suez Canal, and several key ports of the region becoming partially China-owned. Major naval groups serving in the Mediterranean Sea include NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 2, French Naval Action Force, and the US Navy 6th Fleet. The only Russian naval installation in the region has for decades been the maintenance facility in the Syrian city of Tartus.
Another recent naval display, seen as provocative by Israel, was the deployment of the Iranian Navy’s 24th fleet to patrol the Mediterranean and convey a “message of peace.” Since then, Israel has acquired its fifth Dolphin-class submarine allegedly capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
China has also been increasing its involvement in the area, with the country’s warships sailing through the Suez Canal, and several key ports of the region becoming partially China-owned. Major naval groups serving in the Mediterranean Sea include NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 2, French Naval Action Force, and the US Navy 6th Fleet. The only Russian naval installation in the region has for decades been the maintenance facility in the Syrian city of Tartus.
Source: http://rt.com/news/russian-pacific-fleet-mediterranean-374/
Russia Sends More Advanced Missiles to Aid
Assad in Syria
Russia has sent advanced antiship cruise missiles to Syria, a move that illustrates the depth of its support for the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad, American officials said Thursday.
Russia has previously provided a version of the missiles, called Yakhonts, to Syria. But those delivered recently are outfitted with an advanced radar that makes them more effective, according to American officials who are familiar with classified intelligence reports and would only discuss the shipment on the basis of anonymity.
Unlike Scud and other longer-range surface-to-surface missiles that the Assad government has used against opposition forces, the Yakhont antiship missile system provides the Syrian military a formidable weapon to counter any effort by international forces to reinforce Syrian opposition fighters by imposing a naval embargo, establishing a no-fly zone or carrying out limited airstrikes.
“It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or shipping embargo were to be declared at some point,” said Nick Brown, editor in chief of IHS Jane’s International Defense Review. “It’s a real ship killer.”
Jeffrey White, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior American intelligence official, said Syria’s strengthened arsenal would “tend to push Western or allied naval activity further off the coast” and was also “a signal of the Russian commitment to the Syrian government.”
The disclosure of the delivery comes as Russia and the United States are planning to convene an international conference that is aimed at ending the brutal conflict in Syria, which has killed more than 70,000. That conference is expected to be held in early June and to include representatives of the Assad government and the Syrian opposition.
Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly said that it is the United States’ hope to change Mr. Assad’s “calculations” about his ability to hold on to power so that he will allow negotiations for a political solution to the conflict. Mr. Kerry indicated that he had raised the issue of Russian arms deliveries to Syria during his recent visit to Moscow, but declined to provide details.
“I think we’ve made it crystal clear we would prefer that Russia was not supplying assistance,” he said. “That hasn’t changed.”
American officials have been concerned that the flow of Russian and Iranian arms to Syria will buttress Mr. Assad’s apparent belief that he can prevail militarily.
“This weapons transfer is obviously disappointing and will set back efforts to promote the political transition that is in the best interests of the Syrian people and the region,” Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on Thursday night. “There is now greater urgency for the U.S. to step up assistance to the moderate opposition forces who can lead Syria after Assad.”
Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and the committee chairman, added in a statement, “Russia is offering cover to a despotic ruler and defending a bankrupt regime.” Syria ordered the coastal defense version of the Yakhont system from Russia in 2007 and received the first batteries in early 2011, according to Jane’s. The initial order covered 72 missiles, 36 launcher vehicles, and support equipment, and the systems have been displayed in the country.
The batteries are mobile, which makes them more difficult to attack. Each consists of missiles, a three-missile launcher and a command-and-control vehicle. The missiles are about 22 feet long, carry either a high-explosive or armor-piercing warhead, and have a range of about 180 miles, according to Jane’s. They can be steered to a target’s general location by longer-range radars, but each missile has its own radar to help evade a ship’s defenses and home in as it approaches its target.
Two senior American officials said that the most recent shipment contained missiles with a more advanced guidance system than earlier shipments. Russia has longstanding interests in Syria, including a naval base at the Mediterranean port of Tartus.
As the Syria crisis has escalated, Russia has gradually augmented its naval presence in the region. In January, more than two dozen Russian warships sailed to the Black and Mediterranean Seas to take part in what the Defense Ministry said was to be the country’s largest naval exercise in decades, testing the ships’ ability to deploy outside Russian waters.
A month later, after the Black Sea exercises ended, the Russian Defense Ministry news agency said that four large landing vessels were on their way to operations off the coast of Syria. “Based on the results of the navy exercises in the Black and Mediterranean seas,” the ministry said at the time, “the ministry leadership has taken a decision to continue combat duty by Russian warships in the Mediterranean.”
Russia’s diplomatic support of Syria has also bolstered the Assad government. At the United Nations, the Russians recently blocked proposals that the Security Council mount a fact-finding trip to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon to investigate the burgeoning flood of refugees, according to Western diplomats. Jordan had sought the United Nations visit to make the point that the refugee situation was a threat to stability in the region, but Russia said that the trip was beyond the mandate of the Security Council, diplomats said.
When allegations that the Assad government had used chemical weapons surfaced, Russia also backed the Syrian government’s refusal to allow the United Nations to carry out a wide-ranging investigation inside Syria — which Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said was an attempt to “politicize the issue” and impose the “Iraqi scenario” on Syria.
Russian officials have repeatedly said that in selling arms to Syria, they are merely fulfilling old contracts. But some American officials worry that the deliveries are intended to limit the United States’ options should it choose to intervene to help the rebels.
Russia, for example, previously shipped SA-17 surface-to-air missiles to Syria. Israel carried out an airstrike against trucks that were transporting the weapons near Damascus in January. Israel has not officially acknowledged the raid but has said it is prepared to intervene militarily to prevent any “game changing” weapons from being shipped to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group.
More recently, Israeli and American officials have urged Russia not to proceed with the sale of advanced S-300 air defense weapons. The Kremlin has yielded to American entreaties not to provide S-300s to Iran. But the denial of that sale, analysts say, has increased the pressure within Russia’s military establishment to proceed with the delivery to Syria.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html?_r=0
Assad Ally Bolsters Warships in Region; U.S. Sees Warning
Russia has sent a dozen or more warships to patrol waters near its
naval base in Syria, a buildup that U.S. and European officials see as a
newly aggressive stance meant partly to warn the West and Israel not to
intervene in Syria's bloody civil war.
Russia's expanded presence in the
eastern Mediterranean, which began attracting U.S. officials' notice
three months ago, represents one of its largest sustained naval
deployments since the Cold War. While Western officials say they don't
fear an impending conflict with Russia's aged fleet, the presence adds a
new source of potential danger for miscalculation in an increasingly
combustible region.
"It is a show of force. It's muscle
flexing," a senior U.S. defense official said of the Russian
deployments. "It is about demonstrating their commitment to their
interests."
The buildup is seen as Moscow's way of
trying to strengthen its hand in any talks over Syria's future and
buttress its influence in the Middle East. It also provides options for
evacuating tens of thousands of Russians still in Syria.
The deployments come at a time of heightened tensions. U.S. officials said Thursday that another round of Israeli airstrikes could target a new transfer of advanced missiles, anti-ship weapons known as Yakhont missiles, in the near future. Israeli and Western intelligence services believe the missiles, which have been sold by Russia to Syria in recent years, could be transferred to the militant Hezbollah group within days. Russia has strongly protested previous Israeli strikes in Syria.
Yakhont missiles are an offensive
system. Moscow has told Western diplomats it will supply only defensive
weaponry to the Syrian regime. But U.S. and Israeli officials have long
been worried about Syria's existing stocks of the weapon. If transferred
to Hezbollah or other militant groups, they could provide a serious
threat to both Israeli and U.S. warships in the region.
Russian
Navy and foreign ministry officials didn't respond to requests for
comment about the deployments of the warships. Russia supports Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, while the U.S. has called for his removal.
Russian President Vladimir Putin
signaled this week that he is pushing ahead with the sale of an
advanced air-defense system to Syria, according to U.S. intelligence
reports, over Israeli and U.S. objections.
Hezbollah and its chief sponsor, Iran,
also have rallied around Mr. Assad, sharing Russia's interest in
keeping the regime in place. Recent Israeli airstrikes inside Syria have
targeted missiles believed to be bound from Tehran to Hezbollah,
Western intelligence officials have alleged.
Moscow and Washington have worked
publicly in recent days to assemble an international conference
involving Damascus. But expectations are low that the meeting could lead
to a political transition, as tensions have heightened around the
region, and with the U.S. and Russia backing opposing camps. Amid the strategic turmoil, U.S. and
European defense officials say Russia appears to be trying to project
power to deter outside intervention in Syria, which it sees as its
foothold in the Middle East.
U.S. and European officials believe Mr.
Putin wants to prevent the West from contemplating a Libya-style
military operation inside Syria. President Barack Obama
doesn't want to intervene militarily, but he has said the calculation
could be changed by suspected use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad's
forces. Likewise, the Pentagon has stepped up military contingency
planning in the event of spillover of fighting into neighboring Turkey
and Jordan, both close U.S. allies.
"It's not really a base," said Andrei
Frolov, an analyst at CAST, a Moscow military think tank. "It's more
like a service station" that can do limited resupply and very modest
repairs.
U.S.
officials say, however, that Russia has drawn up plans to expand the
base, which it negotiated with Mr. Assad. Washington's interest in the
base has
likewise grown—not because the U.S. sees it as a threat, but because
U.S. officials believe that by assuring Russia that the base will remain
under Moscow's control in a post-Assad Syria, the U.S. has a better
chance of convincing Mr. Putin to break with Mr. Assad. Mr. Obama held
out some hope Thursday
that the coming conference with Russia would help the major powers reach
a consensus on how to end the bloodshed in Syria.
"There's no magic formula for dealing
with an extraordinarily violent and difficult situation like Syria's,"
Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Washington with Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "I do think that the prospect of talks in
Geneva involving the Russians…may yield results."
Moscow's diplomacy notwithstanding,
U.S. officials believe that in addition to the naval deployments, Russia
is moving more quickly than previously thought to deliver S-300
surface-to-air defense systems to Syria. U.S. officials say the S-300 system,
which is capable of shooting down guided missiles and could make it more
risky for any warplanes to enter Syrian airspace, could leave Russia
for the port of Tartus by the end of May.
Russia's delivery of such missiles
could create a new dilemma for Israel, which has carried out what
Western intelligence officials say are at least three airstrikes inside
Syria in recent months against suspected weapons shipments to Hezbollah.
Israel has yet to target Syrian forces directly, seeking to avoid
direct conflict with Mr. Assad, say U.S. and Israeli officials.
Russian officials first announced the
navy was deploying ships to the eastern Mediterranean near Syria
starting in late 2012, but few details about the deployments have been
made public.
In January, the Russian navy used
these and other ships to conduct what it billed as some of the largest
exercises in recent years in the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea for
a force that has had relatively low international presence since the
Cold War. State media reported that as many as 21 ships and three
submarines were involved, as well as planes and other forces.
Before the start of the Syrian civil
war, Russian ships stopped at the port only irregularly. But in the last
three months, 10 to 15 Russian ships have been near the Syrian port at
any one time, U.S. and European officials say. They say Russia currently
has 11 ships in the eastern Mediterranean, organized into three task
forces, that include destroyers, frigates, support vessels and
intelligence-collecting ships. Another three-ship group of amphibious
vessels is headed to the region. But U.S. officials said they expect
that group to replace one of the groups currently in the region.
"You have more and more warships"
concentrated between Cyprus, Lebanon and Turkey, a senior European
defense official said, adding that Russia is protecting its sphere of
influence in the Middle East and "staking its claim" to Tartus.
Many of the Russian ships in the
eastern Mediterranean have stopped in Syria, conducted exercises, port
visits or training in the area, and then moved on to the Gulf of Aden to
conduct counterpiracy missions, U.S. and European officials said.
Others in the aging fleet have returned to Black Sea ports for repairs
and resupply in recent weeks, Russian state media reported.
The stops in Syria, according to a
U.S. official, signal that Russia wants to show it remains a naval
power, even though its strength is diminished from the Soviet era and no
longer matches Western capabilities. "They are stretching their legs," the
official said. "They are very much interested in letting people know
they are a blue-water navy."
The Soviets had ships in the
Mediterranean during the Cold War whose mission was to counter the U.S.
Navy's 6th Fleet. The Russians ended that mission in 1992. But in the
last few months, the Russian navy has talked about reviving a similar
mission to signal Russia's influence in the region.
For
now, senior U.S. officials said the
Russian buildup "is not seen as threatening" to the U.S. Navy, which
has two destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean and an aircraft carrier
battle group in the Persian Gulf. "Nobody is forecasting the battle of
Midway in the eastern Med," the senior defense official said.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487333332405720.html
Russian Navy plans to reestablish Mediterranean presence
The Russian Navy is planning to
reinstate in the Mediterranean the squadron it dissolved 20 years ago. Its
presence should become a stabilizing factor for the region. “We are planning to assign five or six vessels
and support ships to the formation from this year. They will rotate from each
of our fleets in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Northern Sea, and in some
cases even the Pacific. Depending on the scope and complexity of our missions,
the number of vessels in the formation could increase," said
Commander-in-chief, Admiral Viktor Chirkov to RIA Novosti. Chirkov also told the news
source that the squadron could look forward to submarines.
“It’s possible – in the future. They used to be deployed there at the time of the Fifth Squadron. There were nuclear- and diesel-powered submarines there. Everything will depend on how the situation develops."
According to the Admiral, the
Navy Command is also considering including Mistral-class helicopter carriers as
staff vessels for the squadron.
A symbol of the rebirth of
Russia’s might
A Russian squadron in the
Mediterranean is a symbol of the rebirth of Russia’s military
might, according to Andrei Frolov, Editor-in-Chief of Eksport Vooruzheny (Arms Export) magazine. “Creating such a formation
makes sense because its vessels could be used in case of a crisis in the region
and also as a launch pad for sending ships further afield – to Somalia and
other parts of Africa. Our sailors are familiar with Tartus, which has the
necessary infrastructure for vessels to fuel up and restock on water while the crew
rests," Frolov told Kommersant.
Vladimir Batyuk, a military
expert with the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, believes that the idea
of establishing the squadron could only be viable if the situation in Syria,
its intended home base, becomes stable. Batyk shared that he believes
"a permanent strengthening of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean will
be perceived with understanding. An overwhelming majority will treat the
Russian Navy’s presence with understanding, because it will stabilize the
military and political situation there. Russia maintains constructive and even
friendly relations with some of those countries."
On the other hand, Irina
Melkumyan, a professor at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of
Oriental Studies, believes that the appearance of a Russian squadron in the
Mediterranean could cause anxiety in some of the region’s countries.
“I think this is probably
ill-conceived. I believe Russia should not become the object of criticism from
the region’s countries once again, because Russia’s position is known to
diverge from those of the Arab League, Turkey and, of course, Israel. Most
Middle Eastern countries have a different position, and right now such a step
by Russia will only worsen the situation and weaken Russia’s position in the
region,” she said.
Source: http://rbth.ru/international/2013/05/15/russian_navy_plans_to_reestablish_mediterranean_presence_25999.html
Are America and Russia Set for a Showdown in Syria?
A showdown between Russian and American forces has been talked about
during every confrontation between Russian and American interests. And
the closest we came to it was in Yugoslavia at Pristina Airport where a
demented Wesley Clark did his best to start WW3, before being relived of
duty prematurely by Clinton. But despite all the blustering from both
sides, Russia was unable to save Yugoslavia. Similarly the United States
was unable to save Georgia, which is back in the grip of the Russian
bear.
Russia has relied less on force, aside from Georgia, than on
subversion through its network of agents and on being the alternative to
the United States. That was why Russia could afford to lose Saddam
knowing that whoever replaced him would eventually come calling. And
that is what happened as Iraq’s Maliki has turned to Russia for weapons
and support as a member of the Shiite axis.
Syria is important to Russia, especially since Putin has bet big on
the Shiite axis of Iran, Syria and Iraq, because it’s the last remaining
Arab Socialist power which has old ties with Moscow dating back to the
Soviet era. It also has a large Russian emigre population, particularly
of women who married Syrian men. But Russia can afford to lose Syria.
The Cold War is over and China is on the way up, but the global map
is still divided in somewhat similar ways. You’re either dealing with
the United States or looking for alternatives. And Russia is the big
alternative. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, they will want
American weapons, but sooner or later they’ll also want Russian weapons
because they come with fewer restrictions which comes in handy when
using them against the United States or American allies. All that is important to keep in mind when reading stories like these about the gathering storm clouds of war.
Russia has concentrated five landing ships in the eastern Mediterranean in a show of force meant to deter Western nations from intervening militarily in Syria, The Sunday Times quoted a Russian diplomat as saying. According to the report, the ships are carrying military vehicles and hundreds of Russian marines, and are being accompanied by combat vessels. While officially Russia has claimed the ships have been deployed to partake in an exercise to “improve the management, maintenance and testing of the interaction of naval forces,” the Times quoted the diplomat as saying the marines were meant to deter the West from deploying ground forces in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
No doubt Russia does not mind doing a little extra intimidation. But
it’s even more likely that any such noises are an empty bluff.
However, a Russian intelligence source was quoted on Sunday as saying that the presence of over 300 marines on the ships was meant as a deterrent to keep countries hostile to the Bashar Assad regime — a key ally of the Kremlin — from landing special forces in the country.
300 Russian Marines aren’t likely to do much to stop even the Turkish
and Qatari special forces operating with Sunni terrorists in Syria.
It’s even less likely that Russia would try to use them against the
British and French special forces, or some of the CIA sneakers on the
ground, who are probably already in Syria. Even the USSR would have
hesitated at that. Still in 1967,
the Soviet Union apparently contemplated an invasion of the Israeli
city of Haifa during the Six Day War using its shipboard marines.
The British newspaper on Sunday quoted an Israeli source who said that it was conceivable that a Russian ground force would step in “to defend the Alawite corridor stretched between the Lebanese border in the south and the Turkish border in the north.”
Again that would take a sizable force for a messy fight and a
significant long term investment, which it is doubtful that Russia is
interested in making. If the Alawites lose Syria, then Russia may be willing to send them
some military supplies and use them for propaganda purposes, but any
kind of Russian military intervention is unrealistic. The USSR was at least somewhat motivated to protect politically
sympathetic states. Russia is no longer interested in a world
revolution. It knows that 10 years down the road, it will have a deal
with the new Syria.
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/are-america-and-russia-set-for-a-showdown-in-syria/
The US Is Waging An All-Out Proxy War With Russia In Syria
Let's call it what it is: a proxy war. Ben Brumfield of CNN reported that U.S. troops arrived in Turkey
today to man Patriot missile systems. The systems themselves are
officially NATO property, but the people with the finger on the trigger
are decidedly American.
From Brumfield's report:
In response [to Assad launching
Scud-B missiles on Allepo], the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands
deployed Patriot air defense missiles to the border region to intercept
any Syrian ballistic missiles.
Just across the border, manning similar systems, Russian military officers "pose a challenge" to U.S. intervention, according to the Guardian.
It's more than a "challenge," it means that if Assad drops chems, and
the U.S. launches an assault, America will see Russia on the
battlefield. Though Russia denies sending troops and resources to Syria (actually, they called the idea "nonsense" and said their Navy ships were rescuing Russian nationals), the country has a long history of arms shipments to Syria — it's become almost reflexive.
There's little reason they shouldn't arm the Syrians after Obama came out last month
and said that America has plans to ship heavy weapons systems from
Libya to rebels in Syria. The administration's announcement came
following a thwarted attempt by Russia to fly supplies (and personnel)
in to the embattled Assad regime using a Syrian jet liner. Turkey,
likely reacting to pressure from the U.S., forced down the Syrian
passenger plane over its air space in order to search them for "heavy
weapons."
The U.S. is also training Syrian rebel commandos in Jordan, which explains why some reports of Russia arming Syria with 24 Iskander surface-to-surface ballistic missiles also noted that 12 of them were pointed at Jordan while the other dozen were pointed north at Turkey. So there's a chance Russia and the U.S. will fill each other's
crosshairs, unless the U.S. responds to chemical weapon use by allowing
Russia enough time to exit prior to an assault.
Independent analysts have told BI that Russia is very focused on
"self preservation," and that chemical weapons would trigger withdrawal
of support — which is why Russia promptly denounces every report of
chemical weapon use or preparation. When the U.S. expressed concern,
to put it lightly, that Assad's movement of chemical weapons
constituted "mixing," "loading," and "preparation," Russia responded immediately, labeling the actions "securing" of the weapons, rather than prepping — and later referred to use of chemical weapons as "political suicide."
The suicide would be that Russia would pull its support, and the U.S.
(NATO) would have a free hand with Assad. It would also lose the proxy
war for Russia, who has officially expressed its goal is to 'protect
Syrian sovereignty' and in so doing wear down America's power (and its
ability to provoke regime change). From the BBC:
By standing up for Damascus, the
Kremlin is telling the world that neither the UN, nor any other body or
group of countries has the right to decide who should or should not
govern a sovereign state.
Then there's also the fact that arms shipments to Syria are big bucks.
Without Assad, with the rebel Free Syrian Army in place, those
contracts would likely go to the West, and Russia would lose influence
right in its own backyard.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-proxy-war-russia-syria-2013-1
The End of the EU-Russia Relationship As You Know It
The EU-Russia summit last week in Brussels seemed almost routine.
Gas, visas, Syria, and human rights were all on an agenda that proved
largely fruitless. Yet, something is different and no one seems to have
noticed. Relations between the European Union and its biggest neighbor
are changing fundamentally. The Europeans, of course, are focused on their own crisis and the
restructuring that’s necessary to pull the continent back from the
brink. Beyond their own union, they are mostly looking across the
Mediterranean toward the Middle East and North Africa.
The Eastern Partnership between the EU and Russia’s six former Soviet
neighbors is, frankly, languishing, and Ukraine is what the Russians
call a “suitcase without a handle. ” In other words, it can neither be
carried forward, nor abandoned. But it is Russia itself that is Europe’s biggest disappointment.
Until last fall, Europeans believed that then president Dmitry
Medvedev was taking Russia in the direction they themselves desired and
in the fashion they preferred by promoting modernization through
gradually introducing the rule of law, encouraging innovation, and
opening up more to the West. Chancellor Angela Merkel wanted Medvedev to
succeed so badly that she publicly called him a candidate in Russia’s
presidential elections in 2012 before Vladimir Putin had a chance to
announce his final decision.
After Putin announced his plan to reassume control, the political
mood in Europe began to sour. Europeans were briefly encouraged by the
sudden rise in Russian protests last winter, but this was quickly lost
when the Kremlin cracked down on protestors, opponents, and
foreign-funded NGOs. Merkel has turned openly critical of Moscow and this week’s Economist placed Putin right in the middle of hell in the unholy company of Kim Jong Un, Bashar al-Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Business
is running and gas is flowing, but Russia’s behavior is unacceptable in
Europe. Something fundamental has changed on the Russian side, too.
Putin
believes Europe—and the West more broadly—is in decline, and wants to
reposition Russia vis-à-vis the main centers of power in the
twenty-first century. Moscow’s “European choice” proclaimed by Putin
himself in the German parliament in 2001 has been replaced with a focus
on Russia’s near neighborhood.
The idea is not to create a new empire, as Hillary Clinton has
wrongly suggested—Moscow lacks the material resources, political will,
and social drive for that. But the plan is to improve Russia’s
bargaining positions with the two real centers of power in Eurasia: the
EU in the west and China in the east. Longer term, Putin hopes for a new
compact between the Eurasian Economic Union he is constructing and the
European Union. Such a compact, however, should in his view be based on
rough parity rather than a Russian association with the EU.
The change on the Kremlin side runs deeper than geopolitics or
geoeconomics. Not only is the EU no longer accepted as a mentor—or even a
model—but Moscow has also accepted the values gap argument that the
Europeans were using for a long time, simply turning it against its
critics. The decline of Europe, one hears in elite Russian circles, is
due to the Europeans becoming too “soft” and giving up their former
strengths that once made Europe the world’s leader in favor of
multiculturalism, mindless tolerance, and dilution of national or
religious identities.
The Kremlin harbors few illusions about Russia’s own values deficit
as Putin focused on it in his address to parliament several weeks ago,
but it has no appetite to follow what it considers a failed example.
Rather, Putin approvingly cites the handling by the attorney general of
Texas of a request from the OSCE to place its monitors at polling
stations during the U.S. presidential election in November. The
response: come to these stations and get any closer than 300 yards, and
you will be arrested.
Putin, always a Russian nationalist, recently mounted a major
campaign to stop or severely limit any political influence or
interference in Russia from abroad. Moscow is now busy dismantling
agreements with Western countries signed in the 1990s that Putin no
longer sees as equitable, from USAID assistance programs to the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to children’s adoption.
This is more than a response to the Magnitsky Act just passed by the
U.S. Congress, or a way to deter the Europeans from adopting anything
similar. In fact, Putin himself has amplified the U.S. legislation by
ordering government officials to transfer their private funds from
abroad and park the money in Russia. This kills two birds with one
stone—it reduces outsiders’ ability to pressure Moscow, and it places
Russian officials under even tighter control from the Kremlin.
Russia famously “left the West” politically in the mid-2000s by
veering off the U.S. orbit and reaffirming its strategic independence.
Now, Moscow is “leaving the West” mentally by finally stopping to
pretend that it shares the same values as EU countries and aspires to
join them in some creative way.
By clearly dissociating Russia from the West—and the response to the
Syrian crisis serves as a perfect example—Putin may be aiming to
position Moscow to hold inescapable influence as the world scene
reshuffles in the coming century. Russia is too weak to be a major power
center on its own, but with strategic independence it may try to tip
the scales of the global (or at least Eurasian) balance of power as it
wants. If so, this is a serious change and the policy implications need
to be carefully assessed.
Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/12/25/end-of-eu-russia-relationship-as-you-know-it/ewmq
Russia and Iran Prop Up Syria's War Machine, and Tell the West
to Butt Out
While Europe and the U.S. hem-and-haw about finding ways to support
Syria's rebel army—and get threatened for even considering it—Iran
appears to have no reservations about funneling money to their enemies.
On Wednesday, Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Larov, went to London to meet with his British counterpart, William Hague. But after the meeting Larov warned the UK
that any attempt to send weapons to "non-governmental actors" would be
considered a violation of international law. They seem less concerned
about the laws Bashar al-Assad might be breaking by bombing his own cities with SCUD missiles.
Russia also doesn't seem to have a problem with Assad apparently
getting most his weapons from Iran. Reuters reports today that the Iranians have increasingly become the Syrian government's military "lifeline"
in its ongoing civil war. The report says that Iran has been using
civilian aircraft to fly personnel and weapons to Assad, while
also funneling arms through their Shi'ite proxy groups in Lebanon and
Turkey, like Hezbollah. That actually would be a violation of
international law, since Iran would be breaking U.N. sanctions that bar
them from trading weapons.
Iranian support for the Assad regime has only grown in recent months, as the Syrian civil war morphs into a more sectarian battle,
with Shi'ites aligning with Assad's Alawite sect to target Sunni
militant groups (as well as minority Christians) and vice versa.
Meanwhile, Russia's concern about the West is mostly misplaced. Britain and the United States have made a lot of noise about supporting the rebel effort, but have shown few signs that they're willing to actually give weapons to the rebels.
So while Russia and Iran remain free to pump up the Assad regime, the
rebels are left mostly to their own devices, buying arms on the black
market, stealing them from the Army, and crafting their own makeshift
weapons—like this very real howitzer being towed by a Chinese-made smart
car. Effective, even it's not very intimidating.
Source: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/russia-and-iran-prop-syrias-war-machine-and-tell-west-butt-out/63101/
In Ravaged Syria, Beach Town May Be Loyalists’ Last Resort
Loyalists who support the government of President Bashar al-Assad
are flocking to the Mediterranean port of Tartus, creating an
overflowing boomtown far removed from the tangled, scorched rubble that
now mars most Syrian cities.
There are no shellings or air raids to interrupt the daily calm.
Families pack the cafes lining the town’s seaside corniche, usually
abandoned in December to the salty winter winds. The real estate market
is brisk. A small Russian naval base provides at least the impression
that salvation, if needed, is near.
Many of the new residents are members of the Alawite minority, the same
Shiite Muslim sect to which Mr. Assad belongs. The latest influx is
fleeing from Damascus, people who have decided that summer villas,
however chilly, are preferable to the looming battle for the capital.
“Going to Tartus is like going to a different country,” said a Syrian
journalist who recently met residents here. “It feels totally unaffected
and safe. The attitude is, ‘We are enjoying our lives while our army is
fighting overseas.’ ”
Should Damascus fall to the opposition, Tartus could become the heart of
an attempt to create a different country. Some expect Mr. Assad and the
security elite will try to survive the collapse by establishing a rump
Alawite state along the coast, with Tartus as their new capital.
There have been various signs of preparations. This month, the governor of Tartus Province announced that experts were
studying how to develop a tiny local airfield, now used mostly by
crop-dusters, into a full-fledged civilian airport “to boost
transportation, business, travel and tourism,” as the official Syrian
news agency, SANA, reported. The announcement coincided with the first
attacks on the airport in Damascus, forcing it to close temporarily to
international traffic.
More important, security forces are continuously tightening an extensive
ring of checkpoints around the potential borders of an Alawite canton.
The mountain heartland of the Alawites rises steeply to the east of
Tartus, separating it from much of Syria. Across the mountains, the
Orontes River creates a rough line separating Alawite territory from
central Syria. Rebel military commanders from adjoining Hama Province
said government soldiers vigorously maintain checkpoints on routes
leading up into the mountains.
“If we bomb a checkpoint, it is back in place sometimes within hours,”
said Basil al-Hamwi, a rebel fighter, speaking on the sidelines of a
meeting of opposition military commanders in Turkey. “Once, in Hama
Province, we destroyed five in one day and they were all back the next
day. This area is even more important for them than Damascus.”
Mr. Hamwi and other rebel leaders said there were about 40 government
checkpoints along more than 60 miles in Homs and Hama Provinces alone.
Many Alawite commanders of Mr. Assad’s army have sent their families to
their home villages, so they are particularly aggressive in protecting
the area, said Hassan M. al-Saloom, a rebel battalion commander. They
have formed committees to guard the outskirts of their villages, he
said, and often negotiate local truces.
“Nobody goes inside, and they don’t come out,” he said.
There are widespread suspicions within the opposition that the military
is shipping weapons into the Alawite hinterland, or has already
positioned them. “The mountains and the coast make it hard to raid,” Mr.
Saloom said.
Castles left by the Crusaders dot the coastal range, a testament to its strategic value.
If Mr. Assad fled to Tartus, he could seek protection from the Russian
naval base here, or flee aboard a Russian vessel. Russia announced
Tuesday that it was sending a small flotilla toward Tartus, possibly to
evacuate its citizens who live in Syria. But Tartus residents said that
the Russian families from the naval base had already left, while the
officers do not leave the base, which is little more than an enclosure
near the civilian port.
There is a precedent for a rump state. France, the colonial power in the
region in the early 20th century, fostered an Alawite state from 1920
to 1936, but it eventually merged with what became an independent Syria.
Opposition military commanders vow to block any attempt to create an Alawite state.
“We want to prevent the regime from leaving Damascus at all, to ensure
that when Damascus falls, the regime falls, too,” said a senior rebel
military commander from Homs, who asked not to be named for security
reasons. At a recent meeting of opposition military commanders in
southern Turkey, none showed up from the meager forces around Tartus.
The war has only augmented the reputation of people from Tartus for
living the indolent life of a relaxed resort. Unlike much of Syria, the
town still has bread, diesel fuel and electricity, with minimal power
cuts. The local cinema club maintains a robust schedule and recently
screened both “Finding Nemo” and “Cinema Paradiso.”
The city experienced a few small antigovernment demonstrations after the
revolution first started in March 2011, but none since. Abu Mohamed, 35, a real estate agent here, has tracked the fighting
elsewhere in Syria by the license plates showing up outside his office.
First they were from Homs, then Deir al-Zour, then Aleppo and now
Damascus. He gets 20 to 30 calls a day, he said, from people looking for houses to buy or rent.
“Most of them have never been here before, but they seem to be rich or
at least middle class because they have nice cars,” he said. Recently,
he said, more black government limousines have appeared, and middlemen
have materialized, telling him that they are looking for big houses for
some unidentified “important and influential figure who wants it for his
family.”
Ahmed Jibril, a Palestinian
commander still loyal to Mr. Assad, fled with his son to Tartus from
Damascus after rebels there gained the upper hand in the Palestinian
neighborhood of Yarmouk, activists said. “Usually at this time of year, the city is empty,” said Abu Mohammed,
using a nickname to avoid alienating any clients. “But now it is the
opposite. All the hotels, motels, small sea cottages, anything furnished
is full.”
Precise numbers are difficult to gauge. Azzam Dayoub, the head of the
political office for the underground revolutionary council of Tartus,
said there were at least 230,000 war refugees in the city. Others said
the population of the entire province, once around 1.2 million, was now
closer to two million. Most are Alawites, including countless government
employees who have returned to their home province. But many are
Sunnis, Christians or others close to the government who no longer felt
safe elsewhere.
Mr. Dayoub said Alawites in the town barred other minorities and members
of Syria’s Sunni majority from entering their neighborhoods, and the
two sides no longer frequent each other’s stores. The Sunni population
has been collecting weapons to fight any future attempt to drive them
out, he said.
The large presence of non-Alawites along the coast prompted many
residents to suggest that building an Alawite state would be impossible.
Latakia, for example, a larger coastal city to the north with an
international airport, would seem a more natural choice for a capital,
but it is considered less safe for its large Alawite population because
of repeated clashes there.
There are few public conversations in Tartus about the crisis enveloping
Syria, several residents said. “No one on either side discusses their
feelings openly,” said a 29-year-old woman who spoke on condition of
anonymity because of the tensions there. “They want to keep things calm
because both sides are scared.”
Privately, some Alawites dismiss the chances of having their own state.
Abu Haidar, 55, the owner of a small import and export business in
Tartus, said dreams were one thing, but reality was something else.
“What do we have in Tartus Province that would aid us to stand alone as a
state?” he asked. “We have neither the infrastructure, nor the
resources. It is basically lemon and olive orchards along with a small
city with simple services.”
But until the day of reckoning arrives, Tartus seems bent on blocking out the war raging over the horizon.
“The people who came to Tartus are looking to live their lives, not to
sit and remember what happened to their brothers and other relatives in
their hometowns,” Abu Mohamed said. Given the lavish wedding parties
here, the mobbed restaurants and the buzz of daily activity, he said,
“Sometimes, when I drive around the streets and squares of Tartus, I
forget what is happening in Syria.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/world/middleeast/syrian-resort-town-is-stronghold-for-alawites.html?ref=middleeast
Danny Ayalon: Syria, then Lebanon, will eventually fragment
Deputy
Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Friday that first Syria and then
Lebanon would eventually fragment, Army Radio reported. Speaking at a
meeting in Kibbutz Gavim, Ayalon added that he does not expect an Arab
alliance to form against Israel within the next decade, and that Arab
countries would come to see the advantages of cooperation with Israel.
Turning to Iran, Ayalon said he believes there is still time to stop
the country's nuclear program through economic pressure. "Even as of
now, the measures taken have placed significant internal pressure
within Iran," Ayalon said.
Source:http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=28080
Michael Doran: Syria's Coming Sectarian Crack-Up
The
Obama administration has been decrying the spread of sectarianism in
war-torn Syria and calling for the preservation of state institutions
there. A "managed transition" is the new mantra in Washington. This
isn't a policy but a prayer. Syrian state institutions are inherently
sectarian, and they are crumbling before our eyes. Syria is like Humpty
Dumpty. Made up of four or five diverse regions glued together after
World War I, the country is an accident of great-power politics. Like
neighboring Lebanon, it has now dissolved into its constituent parts.
The Free Syrian Army isn't a unified force but rather a network of
militias, each with its own regional power base and external patron.
Consider
Aleppo. Syria's largest city, its economic hub, is the central
battleground in the current civil war. In the early 1920s, the French
dragged Aleppo kicking and screaming into the new Syrian state, which
they created. Today, Bashar al-Assad's schools teach that Ibrahim
Hananu, the leader of the Aleppine rebellion against the French, was a
great patriot who fought for independence. He did fight the
imperialists, yes, but for Turkey—not Syria.
In
1920 Aleppo was closer—economically, socially, and geographically—to
Turkish Anatolia than to Arab Damascus. It was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
the founder of modern Turkey, who armed and equipped Hananu and his
men. When the Turks were forced to cut a deal with the French, Hananu's
rebellion collapsed. As a result, the border between Syria and Turkey
fell 40 miles north of Aleppo. It could just as easily have fallen much
further south, with Aleppo nestling comfortably in the bosom of modern
Turkey.
It
was anything but comfortable in the new Syria. In the decades that
followed, two parties dominated the country's political life—one
representing the interests of Aleppo, the other of Damascus. Each had
its own separate foreign policy: Aleppo aligned, naturally, with Turkey
and Iraq; Damascus with Egypt. By the mid-1950s, the Syrian state was
disintegrating. Iraq, with the help of Turkey, stood poised to take
control of the country—a development that would have privileged Aleppo
over Damascus.
Then Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt's
charismatic proponent of pan-Arab nationalism, came to the rescue of
his Damascene allies (just as, today, Iran is rescuing Assad). Nasser
quickly founded the United Arab Republic, a Syrian-Egyptian
amalgamation, in 1958. Within four years, the Syrians bolted from the
union. The country descended into a period of turmoil that ended only
in 1970, when Hafez al-Assad imposed a new order with an iron fist. The
core of the new regime was a group of close associates of Assad,
almost all of them from the Alawite sect, a despised religious minority
concentrated in the mountains of the north, above Latakia. The
Alawites, who were marginal to the life of the main cities of Syria,
rose to power through the military.
The
new regime disguised its sectarian character by, among other tactics,
stressing its pan-Arab credentials and its hostility to Zionism. There
is no little irony in the fact that Assad, an Alawite, played the
scourge of Israel. Historically, his sect was immune to the call of
Arab nationalism. In 1936, for instance, Hafez al-Assad's father joined
a delegation of notables who petitioned the French to establish an
autonomous Alawite canton—one centered on the mountains of the north,
the minority's heartland.
The delegation
justified their demand as a necessary defense against Muslim
intolerance. As evidence, the Alawite notables cited the unjust
treatment that the "good Jews" of Palestine were receiving. The Jews,
their petition stated, "scattered gold, and established prosperity in
Palestine without harming anyone or taking anything by force, yet the
Muslims declare holy war against them and never hesitated in
slaughtering their women and children." As a result, "a dark fate
awaits the Jews and other minorities" when the Muslims would receive
their independence.
By the time Hafez al-Assad
took control of the Syrian state, he and his fellow Alawites had
learned to embrace the anti-Israeli norms that prevailed among their
Sunni neighbors. But beneath this veneer of agreement, the fear of the
Muslim majority remained. The sectarian nucleus of the state has always
been a defining characteristic of the Assad regime. But the Alawite
order is collapsing today, and it will never be reconstituted. Syria is
now a regional battleground, with Tehran and Moscow backing Assad
while Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan back the rebels.
When
Assad loses Aleppo and Damascus—and this loss is almost a
certainty—his Russian and Iranian patrons won't abandon him. They have
no other horse to ride in Syria. Instead they will assist in
establishing a sectarian militia, an Alawite analogue to Hezbollah. In
fact, such a militia is already rising up naturally, as Sunni defections
transform the Syrian military into an overtly Alawite force. If the
rebels finally succeed in dislodging the regime from the main cities,
it will retreat to the north, and the autonomous Alawite canton that
Bashar al-Assad's grandfather envisioned will finally be born.
"Alawistan," as the Mideast scholar Tony Badran called it, will join
Hezbollah in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon as another sectarian island in
the Iranian archipelago of influence.
If the
breakup of Syria and the rise of an Iranian-backed canton are indeed
undesirable, then Washington must get to work immediately to create an
alternative. The planning should begin in Turkey, which borders not
just Aleppo but also the future canton of Alawistan.
Mr. Doran, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense from 2007-08, is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577580820175784572.html
Anxious Turks suspect US plot is behind Syria's implosion
In an empty coffee house in Antakya, local tradesman
Ahmet Sari's face crumples in anger as he speaks about Syria. “What's happening in Syria is all part of America's great project to reshape the borders of the Middle East. America and its allies don't care about bringing democracy to the Syrian people. Look at what happened to Iraq!” he fumes. “The imperialist countries are only after oil and mineral resources.”
Nineteen months into Syria's conflict, resentment of Ankara
and anti-US sentiment simmer in Antakya, which lies just over the
border with Syria. The province is grappling with an ailing trade and
tourism sector and an influx of refugees and rebel fighters. Locals
blame the Turkish government for dragging them into the conflict by
backing the Syrian opposition and aligning Turkey with the opposition's Western allies.
The
current administration's "zero problems with neighbors" foreign policy,
which stood strong for several years, now rings hollow as Turkey's
diplomatic ties with Syria and its ally Iran
sour due to Ankara's support for the rebels. And many say that all of
these problems can be traced back to the US, who they are convinced got
involved with, and perhaps even fomented, the Syrian unrest to loosen up
regional powers' grip on oil, enlisting Turkey as a pawn in the
process. It had little to do with support for democracy, they believe.
Stirring up the 'beehive'
The
beliefs stem in part from a bold Bush administration political proposal
that has faded into obscurity in the West, but remains lodged in the
minds of many here. Known as the Greater Middle East Initiative, it was
formally introduced by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in
2006 at a conference in Tel Aviv. Her references to "the birth pangs of a New Middle East" and the unveiling there of a new map of the region featuring a "Free Kurdistan" are still remembered with resentment.
Even with a new administration in the White House
that has sought to distance itself from the previous administration's
Middle East policies, many in the region are suspicious of US motives
and don't believe that the various uprisings began as indigenous,
people-driven movements, independent of any US involvement.
Refik Eryilmaz,
a Turkish parliamentarian from Antakya with the opposition Republican
People's Party, says that Western superpowers are trying to incite a
sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites so that countries in the
region fragment along ethno-religious lines, becoming weaker in the
process. Syria is predominantly Sunni, but President Bashar al-Assad is an Alawite, a Shiite offshoot, as is most of his government.
"The
access to oil will be made easier when people in these regions are
divided and fighting amongst themselves. Both the US and Israel
want to weaken Iran and strengthen their own position in the Middle
East. But to do this, first they must weaken Syria and replace the
current government with someone who supports them instead of Iran,"
says Mr. Eryilmaz.
This suspicion – that outside intervention is
stirring up sectarian strife in Syria – is a view shared by many in
Antakya, Turkey's most ethno-religiously diverse province. Although Nihat Yenmis, president of the Alevi Cultural Foundation (AKAD) in Iskenderun,
is convinced that sectarian violence will not seep into Turkey, he
laments the plight of Syrian civilians, caught up in the cross-fire of a
conflict that he interprets as planned and stoked by outside
intervention.
“All ethno-religious groups have lived side by side
in this region for centuries. But if someone hits a beehive from the
outside, they will destroy the peace within the hive. All the bees
inside the hive will fight with one another. That's exactly what the US
is doing in the Middle East,” says Mr. Yenmis.
Gilbert Achcar, a
professor of international relations at the School of Oriental and
African Studies in London, says that the Greater Middle East Initiative
has long since been abandoned, and all that remains is the deep
skepticism of US motives that it spurred. Those in the Middle East tend
to attribute more power to the US than it actually has, he says.
“The
US is overwhelmed by the situation in the Middle East and is not in
control, let alone plotting something. The GMEI never took root. It just
provided a grand name that fueled people's imaginations, and conspiracy
theories were invented," he says.
A penchant for conspiracies
The
region's penchant for Western conspiracy theories is long-standing,
beginning with the then-secret 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided
up the region between the British and the French, Mr. Achcar says.
That
history influenced the perception of the Bush administration's Greater
Middle East Partnership Initiative, later renamed the New Middle East
Project, that was drawn up in 2004 in response to potential "threats of
terrorism" in the wake of 9/11. The mission was to bolster democracy
and socio-economic development in the Middle East and North Africa and build a bulwark against the expansion of radical terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda.
But
the initiative stalled in the face of heightened anti-American
sentiment in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Prominent Arab
figures were quick to criticize it as another US attempt to "reform" a
region it did not fully understand. In an article published in pan-Arab
newspaper Al-Hayat in 2004,
the chief editor of the Arab Human Development Report, Nader Fergany,
criticized the "arrogant" worldview of the the Bush administration which
"causes it to behave as if it can decide the fate of states and
peoples.”
Tasked with alleviating Arab mistrust, the US selected Turkey as a key bridge between the US and the Middle East. The ruling Justice and Development Party's
promotion of "conservative democracy" appealed to the West because of
its reformist stance, and to Islamic countries in the Middle East due to
its emphasis on a traditional Muslim identity.
But today,
Turkey's role as a bridge between the West and the Arab world on the
Syrian conflict has again raised suspicions. Its alliances with the US
and autocratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
who have also come out as strong backers of the Syrian opposition, have
provoked accusations that Turkey is more intent on weakening secular
Syria and reinstating a Sunni government than in democracy.
While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
confirmed last year on a live broadcast that the US initiative never
took root, some in the Middle East still refer back to Mr. Erdogan's
older statements of being GMEI's co-chairman, and remain convinced that a
US-inspired scheme – with Turkey taking the lead – is underway.
“Perhaps
the US is doing what's right for its own country and implementing a
foreign policy that will protect its dominance in the world, but we have
to inquisition the countries that are acting as a US pawn. Many people
in Turkey think that Turkey is merely serving US interests in the
region to its own detriment,” says Eryilmaz.
Back in
Antakya's coffee house, with no end in sight to the Syrian conflict,
local trader Ahmet Sari shows how deeply this sentiment reaches.
“So
many people have died unnecessarily in Syria – children are dying," he
says, wearily. "We just want this war to stop and for there to be peace.
We don't hate the American people. We just want the US administration
to stop trying to spread its expansionist policies.”
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1020/Anxious-Turks-suspect-US-plot-is-behind-Syria-s-implosion
Turkish
Public Sours on Syrian Uprising
As the war in Syria
rages next door, Turks have grown increasingly weary of nearly daily
reports of troubles at home: Iranian spies working with Kurdish
insurgents, soldiers ambushed and killed, millions spent caring for a
flood of refugees, lost trade and havoc in border villages.
“This is how we start our morning,” Mehment Krasuleymanoglu, a
bookseller in a narrow alley in central Istanbul, said recently as he
laid out several newspapers, each with a blaring headline about an explosion at a munitions depot
that killed more than two dozen soldiers. The government called it an
accident, but in the current environment, many Turks, including Mr.
Krasuleymanoglu, are not so sure.
“What do we have to do with Syria?” he said. “The prime minister and his wife used to go there for tea and coffee.”
The Turkish government is facing a spasm of reproach from its own people
over its policy of supporting Syria’s uprising; hosting fighters in the
south, opposition figures in Istanbul and refugees on the border; and
helping to ferry arms to the opposition. While many Turks at first
supported the policy as a stand for democracy and change, many now
believe that it is leading to instability at home, undermining Turkey’s own economy and security.
Turkey’s call for military intervention, which much of the international
community opposes, has only added to the domestic frustration. Now, in
the wake of the anti-American protests that have convulsed the Muslim
world in reaction to a film that denigrated Islam, it seems less likely
that Turkey will find partners in the West to join its call for military
action in Syria.
The souring mood presents the first obvious setback for the foreign policy of Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
who has ridden the turmoil of the Arab Spring to promote Turkey’s
influence abroad and his standing at home. Suddenly, Turkey appears
vulnerable on multiple fronts.
“A lot of Turks are seeing this as a direct result of Turkey’s
aggressive posture against Assad,” said Soner Cagaptay, the director of
the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, referring to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
In the face of criticism from columnists and opposition politicians, and
signs of rising public opposition to its Syria policy, the country is
being compelled to reassess its overall strategy for spreading its
influence and interests across the Middle East, including Egypt, Iraq
and Iran. Increasingly frustrated with its efforts to join the European
Union, Turkey turned noticeably toward regaining and elevating its
standing in the Muslim world, especially amid the chaos and reordering
of alliances caused by the Arab Spring.
“Turkey’s Syria policy has failed,” wrote Dogan Heper, a columnist for
the newspaper Milliyet. “It has turned our neighbors into enemies. We
have been left alone in the world.”
Selcuk Unal, the spokesman for Turkey’s Foreign Ministry, acknowledged
that the Syria policy had become a domestic policy issue. Even though it
may not be popular, he said, “that doesn’t mean it is wrong.” “I don’t
think we are wrong so far,” Mr. Unal said. “Turkey is on the right side
of history on this.”
Before the Arab uprisings, economic and political engagement with Syria
was a centerpiece of Turkey’s regional strategy, which some described as
an effort to integrate the Middle East along the lines of the European
Union. Visa restrictions were lifted and trade increased. Mr. Erdogan
and Mr. Assad even vacationed together. Initially, Turkey urged dialogue
and reform in Syria, but as the killing increased, Turkey turned
against the government.
That shift was part of its broader regional strategy. Last year
Prime
Minister Erdogan toured Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, offering Turkey’s
support for the democratic aspirations of the Arab world’s
revolutionaries, and holding up Turkey’s mix of Islam, democracy and
economic prosperity as an inspiration for those countries in
turmoil.Turkey, it seemed, was ascendant, and the public was largely
supportive.
“We loved it,” said Soli Ozel, an academic and columnist. “It was
like, we’re back. The empire is back.” Perhaps causing the greatest
unease for Turks these days is an increase
in violence by Turkey’s separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, or P.K.K.,
which seems emboldened by the success of Syria’s Kurds in gaining
territory. The P.K.K. has waged an insurgency against Turkey since the
1980s in a conflict that has claimed an estimated 40,000 lives.
More than 700 people have died in the past 14 months, the deadliest
level in 13 years, according to a report published last week by the
International Crisis Group. The P.K.K. has now set up daylight
checkpoints in villages in the southeast, carried out deadly ambushes
against Turkish forces and kidnapped lawmakers. Recently, the Turkish
military carried out an offensive involving F-16 fighter jets and 2,000
soldiers, Reuters reported.
The Assad government has effectively ceded some territory near the
Turkish border to Syria’s Kurds, who have not joined the opposition in
large numbers. These gains have fanned the flames of Kurds’ historical
ambitions for an independent state that would include Kurdish areas in
Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, analysts say.
“There has been a thunderbolt in the minds of people there,” said Sezgin
Tanrikulu, a Kurdish member of Turkey’s Parliament, referring to
Kurdish areas in southeast Turkey. P.K.K. fighters have become more
visible, he said. “They are trying to create the idea among Kurds there
that the authority in the area is the P.K.K.”
An influx of refugees
— more than 100,000 Syrians have sought safety in Turkey — has tested
government resources and raised tensions in border areas, prompting the
Turkish government to try to relocate refugees further inland. The
government has said it has spent $300 million providing for refugees and
has complained of a lack of support from the international community.
According to Mr. Cagaptay of the Turkish Research Program, Turkey
remains “the only country that is economically and politically stable in
the region.” Turkey’s ambitious Middle East policy has been centered on
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s much-heralded vision of “no
problems” with neighbors. But that approach has stalled amid the hard
realities of the region and the limits of Turkish power, most evident in
its policy in Syria, where nearly 23,000 people have been killed and
the Assad government clings to power. Now the joke is that there are “no
neighbors without problems.”
Last year Mr. Davutoglu spoke expansively about a political, economic
and military alliance with Egypt that could serve as a linchpin of a new
regional order. Almost nothing has come of that, although a spokesman
for Mr. Davutoglu said Turkey would soon begin a high-level dialogue
with the government of Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s new president, who was a
member of the Sunni Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Now, the talk is more
about a rivalry between Egypt and Turkey over which will become the
region’s power broker.
“Egypt will try to restore its central role in Arab affairs, and it will
be interesting to see Morsi and Erdogan compete for influence in the
region,” Mr. Cagaptay said. Mr. Ozel, the columnist, was more emphatic. “The fact of the matter is
that when all is said and done, Turks are Turks and Arabs are Arabs,” he
said. “Egypt believes it is the crown jewel of the Arab world, and it
will not share the spotlight with anyone, including Turks.”
Analysts say Turkey has hardened sectarian divisions in the region by
working with Saudi Arabia and Qatar in backing Syria’s Sunni rebels
against Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and by
supporting Sunnis in Iraq against the government of Prime Minister Nuri
Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite. And tensions with Iran, the region’s largest
Shiite power, have been heightened since Turkey agreed to allow NATO to
place a radar station on its territory as part of a missile defense
system.
To its credit, analysts say, Turkey will quickly shift from policies it
deems mistaken. For example, it opposed NATO intervention in Libya and
then swiftly changed tack. But it may be too late to change course on Syria. “They are stuck in
this conflict so deeply, there is no way out,” said Mr. Tanrikulu, the
Kurdish lawmaker
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/turks-weary-of-leaders-support-for-syria-uprising.html?ref=middleeast&_moc.semityn.www
Turkey may be Obama's key to solving Syria crisis
Almost every American ally in the Middle East is desperately calling out for help, and we are ignoring them. Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain -- and behind closed doors, even Egypt -- want American involvement in Syria to stop the blood bath. But the twin ghosts of Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have paralyzed America in the Arab world.
On Thursday, Turkey's
prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will visit President Barack Obama
in Washington. This is an ideal opportunity to throw American weight
behind greater Turkish leadership in resolving the Syrian conflict --
and declare as much from the White House. The conflict is spreading fast
outside of Syria, and unless regional powers such as Turkey, Israel and
Saudi Arabia are empowered to act militarily, and swiftly, many more
lives will be lost and the Middle East further destabilized.
Only this weekend, Bashar al-Assad's intelligence agencies were linked to two car bombings in Hatay, Turkey,
that killed more than 50 people and injured more than 100. Syria is now
home to radical Sunni Islamists from across the globe who want to bring
down al-Assad, and Shiite fighters from Hezbollah who support the
Syrian president.
Beyond geopolitics and
games of nation states, Syria is a raw human disaster: Some 80,000
people have been killed, 1 million refugees have fled to neighboring
countries, and millions more are displaced inside Syria. For how much
longer will we stand by and watch?
I oppose direct U.S. military intervention in Syria, but recent actions by Israel,
daring attacks on Turkey and last month's rapprochement between these
two important nations means that there is now new scope for greater
regional involvement in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry is right to pursue a new diplomatic settlement
through Moscow, but his hand is only as strong as the force gathering
on al-Assad's doorsteps. In other words, let us say yes to diplomacy,
but not be naïve and think that al-Assad and his Iranian backers cannot
outmaneuver the wiliest diplomats. They have rebuffed at least five
other such attempts. Diplomacy must be backed by force. Al-Assad
understands the language of military strength -- of armies keeping
fighting factions apart, aircrafts enforcing a "no-fly" zone, bombs on
his runways, tanks outside his presidential palace, ships on the seas.
That is not to say that the killings continue. Erdogan has been sensitive when dealing with PKK terrorists in
not killing them for fear of collateral damage. That same spirit of
protecting human lives must inform Turkish leadership in Syria.
First, al-Assad and his
family need to leave Syria for Russia, Iran or elsewhere. Their days of
ruling like a mafia are over. Large segments of the Syrian people have
lost their fear of al-Assad, and will not settle for anything less than
his departure. He must either do so freely and immediately, or meet the
fate of Moammar Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein.
Second, al-Assad is not
the protector of Syria's minorities, as many mistakenly believe. He is
the cause of mass killings that are likely to get worse without external
intervention. Genocide of Syria's minorities will have a ripple effect
on tribes and religious minorities in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Turkey
and regional and NATO forces should make it their utmost priority to
prevent it.
Third, with all their
divisions and sectarian pettiness, it is the Syrian opposition that must
own Syria. Colin Powell's admonition that "If you break it, you own it"
cannot be applied to outside countries with Syria -- the owners must be
the Syrian opposition (with all its flaws), not Turkey, far less Israel
or Saudi Arabia or others who "break" al-Assad's grip.
Fourth, removing
al-Assad and safeguarding Syrian communities is not the end, but a new
beginning. Syria can go in any number of directions. The challenge from
Islamist radicalism and terrorism inside Syria is real -- they can be
confronted there, and prevented from traveling elsewhere and spreading
their virus of violence. As Syria works toward rebuilding its
infrastructure, economy, society and polity, the United States cannot
turn its back on a country that shares borders with Jordan, Turkey,
Iraq, Israel and Lebanon.
For now, Washington
needs to respond to the calls of our allies in the Middle East, and in
doing so, bring Turks, Israelis and Arabs closer in cooperation as they
seek to liberate Syria from the clutches of a corrupt clan and ensure it
remains free from the fanatics of Islamist fundamentalism. Closer
engagement by these three regional forces through U.S. assistance now
also puts in place roots for a post-al-Assad Syria that is less hostile
to Israel. America does not need to lead always; it can and must support
its allies.
Ed Husain is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The author of "The Islamist" can be followed on Twitter via @Ed_Husain.
Why Turkey won't go to war with Syria [alone]
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan never saw it coming. He knew he was in trouble when the Pentagon leaked
that the Turkish Phantom RF-4E shot down last week by Syrian
anti-aircraft artillery happened off the Syrian coastline, directly
contradicting Erdogan's account, who claimed it happened in
international air space.
And it got worse; Moscow, via Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, offered "objective radar data" as proof. There was not much to do except change the subject. That's when Ankara introduced a de facto
buffer zone of four miles (6.4km) along the Syrian-Turkish border - now
enforced by F-16s taking off from NATO's Incirlik base at regular
intervals. Ankara also dispatched tanks, missile batteries and heavy
artillery to the 500 mile (800km) border, right after Erdogan effectively branded Syria "a hostile state". What next? Shock and awe? Hold your (neo-Ottoman) horses.
Lord Balfour, I presume
The immediate future of Syria was designed in Geneva recently,
in one more of those absurdist "international community" plays when the
US, Britain, France, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council's Qatar
and Kuwait sat down to devise a "peaceful solution" for the Syrian
drama, even though most of them are reportedly weaponising the
opposition to Damascus. One would be
excused to believe it was all back to the Balfour Declaration days, when
foreign powers would decide the fate of a country without the merest
consultation of its people, who, by the way, never asked them to do it
on their behalf.
Anyway, in a nutshell: there won't be a NATO war on Syria - at least for now. Beyond the fact that Lavrov routinely eats US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for breakfast, Russia wins - for now. Predictably, Moscow won't force regime change on Assad; it fears the follow-up to be the absolute collapse of Syrian state machinery, with cataclysmic consequences. Washington's position boils down to accepting a very weak, but not necessarily out, Assad.
The problem is
the interpretation of "mutual consent", on which a "transitional
government" in Syria would be based - the vague formulation that emerged
in Geneva. For the Obama administration, this means Assad has to go.
For Moscow - and, crucially, for Beijing - this means the transition
must include Assad.
Expect major fireworks dancing around the interpretation. Because a case can be made that the new "no-fly zone" over Libya - turned by NATO into a 30,000-sortie bombing campaign - will become Syria's "transitional government", based on "mutual consent".
One thing is
certain: nothing happens before the US presidential election in
November. This means that for the next five months or so Moscow will be
trying to extract some sort of "transitional government" from the
bickering Syrian players. Afterwards, all bets are off. A Washington
under Mitt Romney may well order NATO to attack in early 2013.
A case can be made that a Putin-Obama or US-Russia deal may have been reached even before Geneva. Russia has eased up on NATO in Afghanistan. Then there was the highly choreographed move of the US offering a formal apology and Pakistan duly accepting it - thus reopening NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan.
It's crucial to keep in mind that Pakistan is an observer and inevitable future full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) - run by China and Russia, both BRICS members highly interested in seeing the US and NATO out of Afghanistan for good. The "price" paid by Washington is, of course, to go easy on Damascus - at least for now. There is not much Erdogan can do about it; he really was not in the loop.
Keep the division of labour intact
So here's the perverse essence of Geneva: the (foreign) players agreed to disagree - and to hell with Syrian civilians caught in the civil war crossfire. In the absence of a NATO attack, the question is how the Assad system may be able to contain or win what is, by all practical purposes, a foreign-sponsored civil war. Yes, because the division of labour will remain intact. Turkey will keep offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from "liberated" Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponise them. And Washington, London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus.
Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly weaponised by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless. Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will remain in place - if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon. Damascus may not have the power to strike the top Western actors in this drama. But it can certainly wreak havoc among the supporting actors - as in Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, Turkey.
Jordan, the weak link, a wobbly regime at best, has already closed off supply lines. Hezbollah sooner or later will do something about the Lebanese routes. Erdogan sooner or later will have to get real about what was decided in Geneva. Moreover, one can't forget that Saudi Arabia would be willing to fight only to the last dead American; it won't risk Saudis to fight Syrians. As for red alerts about Saudi troops getting closer to southern Syria through Jordan, that's a joke. The House of Saud military couldn't even defeat the ragtag Houthi rebels in neighbouring Yemen.
A final juicy point. The Russian naval base at Tartus - approximately a mere 55 miles (90km) away from where the Panthom RF-4E was shot down - now has its radar on 24/7. And it takes just a single Russian warship anchored in Syrian waters to send the message; if anyone comes up with funny ideas, just look at what happened to Georgia in 2008.
Time to shuffle those cards
Erdogan has very few cards left to play, if any. Assad, in an interview with Turkey's Cumhuriyet newspaper, regretted "100 per cent" the downing of the RF-4E, and argued, "the plane was flying in an area previously used by Israel's air force". The fact remains that impulsive Erdogan got an apology from wily Assad. By contrast, after the Mavi Marmara disaster, Erdogan didn't even get an unpeeled banana from Israel.
The real suicidal scenario would be for Erdogan to order another F4-style provocation and then declare war on Damascus on behalf of the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army. It won't happen. Damascus has already proved it is deploying a decent air defence network. Every self-respecting military analyst knows that war on Syria will be light years away from previous "piece of cake" Iraq and Libya operations. NATO commanders, for all their ineptitude, know they could easily collect full armouries of bloody noses.
As for the Turkish military, their supreme obsession is the Kurds in Anatolia, not Assad. They do receive some US military assistance. But what they really crave is an army of US drones to be unleashed over Anatolia. Turkey routinely crosses into Northern Iraq targeting Kurdish PKK guerrillas accused of killing Turkish security forces. Now, guerrillas based in Turkey are reportedly crossing the border into Syria and killing Syrian security forces, and even civilians. It would be too much to force Ankara to admit its hypocrisy.
Erdogan, anyway, should proceed with extreme caution. His rough tactics are isolating him; more than two-thirds of Turkish public opinion is against an attack on Syria. It's come to the point that Turkish magazine Radikal asked their readers whether Turkey should be a model for the new Middle East. Turkey used to be "the sick man of Europe"; now Turkey is "becoming the lonely man of the Middle East", says the article.
It's a gas, gas, gas
Most of all, Erdogan simply cannot afford to antagonise Russia. There are at least 100,000 Russians in Syria - doing everything from building dams to advising on the operation of those defence systems. And then there's the inescapable Pipelineistan angle. Turkey happens to be Gazprom's second-largest customer. Erdogan can't afford to antagonise Gazprom. The whole Turkish energy security architecture depends on gas from Russia - and Iran. Crucially, one year ago a $10bn Pipelineistan deal was clinched between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline from Iran's giant South Pars field to Iraq, Syria and further on towards Turkey and eventually connecting to Europe.
During the past 12 months, with Syria plunging into civil war, key players stopped talking about it. Not anymore. Any self-respecting analyst in Brussels admits that the EU's supreme paranoia is to be a hostage of Gazprom. The Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline would be essential to diversify Europe's energy supplies away from Russia.
For the US and the EU, this is the real game, and if it takes two or more years of Assad in power, so be it. And it must be done in a way that does not fully antagonise Russia. That's where reassurances in Geneva to Russia keeping its interests intact in a post-Assad Syria come in. No eyebrows should be raised. This is how ultra-hardcore geopolitics is played behind closed doors. It remains to be seen whether Erdogan will get the message.
Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His latest book is named Obama Does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/20127581333324728.html
Obama Signed Secret Order to Aid Syrian Rebels
Earlier this year, President Obama signed a secret order authorizing US support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to US officials. Obama’s
order, known as an intelligence “finding,” gives broad authority to the
CIA and other agencies to provide support that could help the rebels
oust Assad, like communications equipment, intelligence, and other kinds
of non-lethal assistance. According to reports, this specifically does not include directly
giving the Syrian rebels weapons. The Obama administration is, however,
using the CIA to help facilitate the delivery of weapons
to rebel militias from other allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
This
news doesn’t change what has been known for months about the
Obama administration’s approach to Syria, but it does emphasize how
explicit their goal of regime change by proxy is. This US support,
technically both lethal and non-lethal, is dangerous
policy. Al-Qaeda militants and other Sunni extremists are becoming a
greater and greater part of the opposition in Syria, which has been
shown to have committed human rights abuses. This has prompted criticism
from Russia and others that America is aiding terrorists.
The CIA is
supposedly employing a “vetting process” to avoid having
the aid get into the hands of Islamic extremists, but the process is
made up of untrustworthy, third-party sources and intelligence officials
have recently told the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times that the truth is that the US doesn’t know who is getting the money and weapons. Apparently, even arming and strengthening al-Qaeda isn’t enough to disrupt Washington’s plan to change the regime in Syria,
in order to
eliminate Iran’s main ally in the Middle East and to gain an even
stronger foothold in the region. But extremist infiltration of the
Syrian opposition carries other
problems.
The Obama administration runs the risk of helping to bring
these extremists to power if and when the Assad regime finally does
collapse. Moreover, as happened in Afghanistan after the US proxy war
there with the mujihadeens, the potential for deadly blowback is very real.
Source: http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/02/obama-signed-secret-order-to-aid-syrian-rebels/
Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From the CIA
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply
increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent
months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the
uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic
data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of
rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued
intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much
heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include
more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari
military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara,
and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within
Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last
year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give
more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A.
in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American
officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help
its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have
helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large
procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to
determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to
American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A.
declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.
The shipments also highlight the competition for Syria’s future between
Sunni Muslim states and Iran, the Shiite theocracy that remains Mr.
Assad’s main ally. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Iraq on Sunday
to do more to halt Iranian arms shipments through its airspace; he did
so even as the most recent military cargo flight from Qatar for the
rebels landed at Esenboga early Sunday night.
Syrian opposition figures and some American lawmakers and officials have
argued that Russian and Iranian arms shipments to support Mr. Assad’s
government have made arming the rebels more necessary.
Most of the cargo flights have occurred since November, after the
presidential election in the United States and as the Turkish and Arab
governments grew more frustrated by the rebels’ slow progress against
Mr. Assad’s well-equipped military. The flights also became more
frequent as the humanitarian crisis inside Syria deepened in the winter
and cascades of refugees crossed into neighboring countries.
The Turkish government has had oversight over much of the program, down
to affixing transponders to trucks ferrying the military goods through
Turkey so it might monitor shipments as they move by land into Syria,
officials said. The scale of shipments was very large, according to
officials familiar with the pipeline and to an arms-trafficking
investigator who assembled data on the cargo planes involved.
“A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500
tons of military equipment,” said Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute, who monitors illicit arms
transfers. “The intensity and frequency of these flights,” he added, are
“suggestive of a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military
logistics operation.”
Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi
Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition
since early and late 2012, respectively, a major hurdle was removed
late last fall after the Turkish government agreed to allow the pace of
air shipments to accelerate, officials said.
Simultaneously, arms and equipment were being purchased by Saudi Arabia in Croatia
and flown to Jordan on Jordanian cargo planes for rebels working in
southern Syria and for retransfer to Turkey for rebels groups operating
from there, several officials said. These multiple logistics streams throughout the winter formed what one
former American official who was briefed on the program called “a
cataract of weaponry.”
American officials, rebel commanders and a Turkish opposition politician
have described the Arab roles as an open secret, but have also said the
program is freighted with risk, including the possibility of drawing
Turkey or Jordan actively into the war and of provoking military action
by Iran. Still, rebel commanders have criticized the shipments as insufficient,
saying the quantities of weapons they receive are too small and the
types too light to fight Mr. Assad’s military effectively. They also
accused those distributing the weapons of being parsimonious or corrupt.
“The outside countries give us weapons and bullets little by little,”
said Abdel Rahman Ayachi, a commander in Soquor al-Sham, an Islamist
fighting group in northern Syria.
He made a gesture as if switching on and off a tap. “They open and they
close the way to the bullets like water,” he said. Two other commanders, Hassan Aboud of Soquor al-Sham and Abu Ayman of
Ahrar al-Sham, another Islamist group, said that whoever was vetting
which groups receive the weapons was doing an inadequate job.
“There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be
revolutionaries, and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade,”
Mr. Aboud said.
The former American official noted that the size of the shipments and the degree of distributions are voluminous.
“People hear the amounts flowing in, and it is huge,” he said. “But they
burn through a million rounds of ammo in two weeks.”
A Tentative Start
The airlift to Syrian rebels began slowly. On Jan. 3, 2012, months after
the crackdown by the Alawite-led government against antigovernment
demonstrators had morphed into a military campaign, a pair of Qatar
Emiri Air Force C-130 transport aircraft touched down in Istanbul,
according to air traffic data. They were a vanguard.
Weeks later, the Syrian Army besieged Homs, Syria’s third largest city.
Artillery and tanks pounded neighborhoods. Ground forces moved in. Across the country, the army and loyalist militias were trying to stamp
out the rebellion with force — further infuriating Syria’s Sunni Arab
majority, which was severely outgunned. The rebels called for
international help, and more weapons.
By late midspring the first stream of cargo flights from an Arab state
began, according to air traffic data and information from plane
spotters. On a string of nights from April 26 through May 4, a Qatari Air Force
C-17 — a huge American-made cargo plane — made six landings in Turkey,
at Esenboga Airport. By Aug. 8 the Qataris had made 14 more cargo
flights. All came from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a hub for American
military logistics in the Middle East.
Qatar has denied providing any arms to the rebels. A Qatari official,
who requested anonymity, said Qatar has shipped in only what he called
nonlethal aid. He declined to answer further questions. It is not clear
whether Qatar has purchased and supplied the arms alone or is also
providing air transportation service for other donors. But American and
other Western officials, and rebel commanders, have said Qatar has been
an active arms supplier — so much so that the United States became
concerned about some of the Islamist groups that Qatar has armed.
The Qatari flights aligned with the tide-turning military campaign by
rebel forces in the northern province of Idlib, as their campaign of
ambushes, roadside bombs and attacks on isolated outposts began driving
Mr. Assad’s military and supporting militias from parts of the
countryside. As flights continued into the summer, the rebels also opened an offensive in that city — a battle that soon bogged down.
The former American official said David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director
until November, had been instrumental in helping to get this aviation
network moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it.
Mr. Petraeus did not return multiple e-mails asking for comment.
The American government became involved, the former American official
said, in part because there was a sense that other states would arm the
rebels anyhow. The C.I.A. role in facilitating the shipments, he said,
gave the United States a degree of influence over the process, including
trying to steer weapons away from Islamist groups and persuading donors
to withhold portable antiaircraft missiles that might be used in future
terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft.
American officials have confirmed that senior White House officials were
regularly briefed on the shipments. “These countries were going to do
it one way or another,” the former official said. “They weren’t asking
for a ‘Mother, may I?’ from us. But if we could help them in certain
ways, they’d appreciate that.”
Through the fall, the Qatari Air Force cargo fleet became even more
busy, running flights almost every other day in October. But the rebels
were clamoring for even more weapons, continuing to assert that they
lacked the firepower to fight a military armed with tanks, artillery,
multiple rocket launchers and aircraft.
Many were also complaining, saying they were hearing from arms donors
that the Obama administration was limiting their supplies and blocking
the distribution of the antiaircraft and anti-armor weapons they most
sought. These complaints continue. “Arming or not arming, lethal or nonlethal — it all depends on what
America says,” said Mohammed Abu Ahmed, who leads a band of anti-Assad
fighters in Idlib Province.
The Breakout
Soon, other players joined the airlift: In November, three Royal
Jordanian Air Force C-130s landed in Esenboga, in a hint at what would
become a stepped-up Jordanian and Saudi role. Within three weeks, two other Jordanian cargo planes began making a
round-trip run between Amman, the capital of Jordan, and Zagreb, the
capital of Croatia, where, officials from several countries said, the
aircraft were picking up a large Saudi purchase of infantry arms from a
Croatian-controlled stockpile.
The first flight returned to Amman on Dec. 15, according to intercepts
of a transponder from one of the aircraft recorded by a plane spotter in
Cyprus and air traffic control data from an aviation official in the
region.
In all, records show that two Jordanian Ilyushins bearing the logo of
the Jordanian International Air Cargo firm but flying under Jordanian
military call signs made a combined 36 round-trip flights between Amman
and Croatia from December through February. The same two planes made
five flights between Amman and Turkey this January. As the Jordanian flights were under way, the Qatari flights continued
and the Royal Saudi Air Force began a busy schedule, too — making at
least 30 C-130 flights into Esenboga from mid-February to early March
this year, according to flight data provided by a regional air traffic
control official.
Several of the Saudi flights were spotted coming and going at Ankara by
civilians, who alerted opposition politicians in Turkey.
“The use of Turkish airspace at such a critical time, with the conflict
in Syria across our borders, and by foreign planes from countries that
are known to be central to the conflict, defines Turkey as a party in
the conflict,” said Attilla Kart, a member of the Turkish Parliament
from the C.H.P. opposition party, who confirmed details about several
Saudi shipments. “The government has the responsibility to respond to
these claims.”
Turkish and Saudi Arabian officials declined to discuss the flights or
any arms transfers. The Turkish government has not officially approved
military aid to Syrian rebels. Croatia and Jordan both denied any role in moving arms to the Syrian
rebels. Jordanian aviation officials went so far as to insist that no
cargo flights occurred. The director of cargo for Jordanian International Air Cargo, Muhammad
Jubour, insisted on March 7 that his firm had no knowledge of any
flights to or from Croatia. “This is all lies,” he said. “We never did any such thing.”
A regional air traffic official who has been researching the flights
confirmed the flight data, and offered an explanation. “Jordanian
International Air Cargo,” the official said, “is a front company for
Jordan’s air force.” After being informed of the air-traffic control and transponder data
that showed the plane’s routes, Mr. Jubour, from the cargo company,
claimed that his firm did not own any Ilyushin cargo planes.
Asked why his employer’s Web site still displayed images of two
Ilyushin-76MFs and text claiming they were part of the company fleet,
Mr. Jubour had no immediate reply. That night the company’s Web site was
taken down.
WSJ: The U.S. failure to lead on Syria has resulted in a wider regional conflict
When Syria's
uprising began two years ago, we were told that U.S.
intervention would lead to tens of thousands of casualties and refugees,
the rise of jihadists, the use of chemical weapons, and perhaps even a
wider regional war. President Obama refused to intervene—even overruling
his senior security advisers last year—and all of those bad results
have happened in triplicate. Welcome to the non-interventionist Middle
East.
By non-interventionist we mean those for whom the main lesson of Iraq
and Afghanistan was that the U.S. must shrink from world leadership,
defer to a U.N. chain of diplomatic custody, and above all not use
military force. This has been the guiding impulse of the Obama
Administration since 2009. America would engage dictators, not overthrow
them. The great test case of this strategy has been Syria. The result
is a widening conflict that threatens to become a regional war that
could damage U.S. interests from the Levant to the Persian Gulf and
perhaps even reach the homeland.
The attacks aren't likely to be the last, especially if Israel
concludes that Syria is transferring chemical weapons to Hezbollah.
These weapons should also greatly concern the U.S., because the Lebanese
militia and Iranian subsidiary could transfer such weapons to terror
groups to use against Americans.
Israel's calculation is that Syria won't retaliate given its struggle
to survive against the rebels. But Iran may not feel as constrained,
and Hezbollah is a giant missile force for hire. The point is that the
realists who thought the Syrian rebellion would be contained inside
Syria were mistaken. It was always a proxy war involving Iran, which
can't abide the loss of its ally in Damascus.
The biggest difference now, compared to two years ago, is that the
Syrian war is also evolving into a regional Sunni-Shiite conflict that
is helping al Qaeda. The Islamist al-Nusra front has become the
strongest rebel force in Syria, thanks to the U.S. refusal to help other
rebels. These al Qaeda allies aim to establish a caliphate in Damascus
and are already helping to revive sectarian strife in Iraq.
For all of its costs, the U.S.
intervention in Iraq did impose the worst defeat on al Qaeda since the
fall of the Taliban in 2001. The 2007 U.S. surge and the Sunni Awakening
killed thousands of jihadists and all but eliminated al Qaeda in Iraq
as a threat to the Baghdad government. Rather than leave a residual
antiterror force in Baghdad, however, Mr. Obama declared mission
accomplished and withdrew in toto.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad during the
surge, warned last week in the Washington Post that Iraq is heading back
to the terrible days of 2006 without active U.S. diplomacy. But Mr.
Obama gave up most of America's leverage when he withdrew from Iraq to
make a re-election campaign point. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly
look to Iran to help him stay in power.
Much of this might have been avoided had the U.S. marshalled a Syrian
coalition two years ago, armed the rebels, and set up a no-fly zone.
Bashar Assad may have fallen and the civil war might have been
contained. Now even the Obama Administration is rethinking its strategy
as it sees the results of its long abdication, but the costs and risks
of intervening will be that much higher.
The U.S. could still steer
this conflict toward a better outcome if Mr. Obama has the will. At
this stage this would require more than arming some rebels. It probably
means imposing a no-fly zone and air strikes against Assad's forces. We
would also not rule out the use of American and other ground troops to
secure the chemical weapons.
The immediate goal would be to limit
the proliferation of WMD, but the most important strategic goal
continues to be to defeat Iran, our main adversary in the region. The
risks of a jihadist victory in Damascus are real, at least in the
short-term, but they are containable by Turkey and Israel. The far
greater risk to Middle East stability and U.S. interests is a victorious
arc of Iranian terror from the Gulf to the Mediterranean backed by
nuclear weapons.
At this stage, too, any U.S. intervention would require a full
Presidential commitment. Mr. Obama couldn't merely make an announcement,
deploy some troops and drop the subject as he did on Libya and
Afghanistan. He has to make the case to the American public and commit
himself both to toppling Assad and to shaping the aftermath. Such a
commitment is not in Mr. Obama's political character, to put it mildly.
If nothing else, events in Syria are
proving once again that in the absence of U.S. leadership, bad actors
fill the vacuum. Sooner or later—usually sooner—the troubles they create
implicate U.S. interests. By striving so hard to avoid U.S.
intervention, the Obama Administration has made a wider war far more
likely.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323372504578466783346309210.html
WSJ: The Case for Pre-Emptive War, From Goliath to the Dardanelles
When—and it is most probably now a question of when, rather than
if—Israel is forced to bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, the
Israeli government will immediately face a cacophony of denunciation
from the press in America and abroad; the international left; the United
Nations General Assembly; 20 secretly delighted but fantastically
hypocritical Arab states; some Democratic legislators in Washington,
D.C.; and a large assortment of European politicians. Critics will
doubtless harp on about international law and claim that no right exists
for pre-emptive military action. So it would be wise for friends of
Israel to mug up on their ancient and modern history to refute this
claim.
The right, indeed the duty, of nations
to proactively defend themselves from foes who seek their destruction
with new and terrifying weaponry far pre-dates President George W. Bush
and Iraq. It goes back earlier than Israel's successful pre-emptive
attacks on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 (not to mention other
pre-emptive Israeli attacks like the one on the Syrian nuclear program
in 2007). It even predates Israel's 1967 pre-emption of massed Arab
armies, a move that saved the Jewish state. History is replete with
examples when pre-emption was successful, as well as occasions when,
because pre-emption wasn't employed, catastrophe struck.
When it became clear that the Emperor
Napoleon was about to commandeer the large and formidable Danish navy
stationed at Copenhagen in 1807, the British Royal Navy attacked without
a declaration of war and either sank, disabled or captured almost the
entire fleet. No one screamed about "international law" in those days,
of course, any more than statesmen would have cared if they had. Neither
did Winston Churchill give any warning to the Ottoman Empire, a German
ally, when he ordered the bombardment of the Dardanelles Outer Forts in
November 1914, also without a war declaration.
Similarly—though there were plenty of warnings given—Britain was
formally at peace with her former ally France in July 1940 when
Churchill ordered the sinking of the French fleet harbored near Oran in
French Algeria, for which he was rightly cheered to the echo in the
House of Commons. The sheer danger of a large naval force falling into
Hitler's hands when Britain was fighting for its survival during the
Battle of Britain justified the action, and the exigencies of
international law could rightly go hang.
Looking further back, and thinking counterfactually, as historians
are occasionally permitted to do, there have been several wars in which
devastating new weaponry spelled disaster for the victims of the power
developing them, and the victims would have been much better off using
pre-emption.
In the Middle Eastern context, Goliath ought to have charged down
David long before he was able to employ his slingshot and river pebbles
to such devastating effect. The Egyptians should have attacked the
Hittites as soon as the Egyptians suspected they were developing the
chariot as a weapon of war. Had the Mayans and Incas assaulted the
conquistadores as soon as they stepped ashore—and thus before the
Spaniards could deploy their muskets, horses, metal armor, hand-held
firearms and smallpox to crush them—they might not have seen their
civilizations wiped out.
The Mamelukes and Janisseries
shouldn't have waited to be slaughtered by Napoleon's cannon at the
battle of the Pyramids; the Khalifa needed to hit Kitchener on his way
to Omdurman in the River War of the late 19th century, not once he'd set
up his machine guns on the banks of the Nile; and so on.
Often in history, massive pre-emption has been the only sensible
strategy when facing a new weapon in the hands of one's sworn enemy,
regardless of international law—the sole effect of which has been to
hamper the West, since those countries that break it can only be
indicted if they lose, whereas civilized powers generally have to abide
by its restrictions.
Consider a counterfactual analogy that will weigh heavily on Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he struggles with his historic
decision. If the French Defense Minister André Maginot, instead of
investing so heavily in his defensive line in the mid-1930s, had thought
offensively about how to smash the German army the moment it crossed
the Versailles Treaty's "red lines" in the Saar and the Rhineland, some
six million Jews might have survived.
The slingshot, chariot, musket, cannon, machine-guns: All were used
to devastating effect against opponents that seemed to be stronger with
conventional weaponry but were overcome by the weaker power with new
weapons that weren't pre-emptively destroyed. Since President Obama's
second inaugural address has made it painfully obvious that the U.S.
will not act to prevent Iran from enriching more than 250 kilos of 20%
enriched uranium, enough for a nuclear bomb, Israel will have to.
Mr. Netanyahu might not have international bien pensant opinion on his side as he makes his choice, but he has something far more powerful: the witness of history.
Mr. Roberts, a historian, is the author, most
recently, of "The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War"
(Harper, 2011).
UN Sources Say Syrian Rebels - Not Assad - Used Sarin Gas
A member of the United Nations commission of inquiry announced on a Swiss-Italian television show that they believe the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons
on Assad's troops. "Our investigators have been in neighboring
countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and,
according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are
strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the
use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," said Carla Del
Ponte, a member of the commission. "This was use on the part of the
opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities."
Well, this complicates matters. It was just ten days ago that the United States shook its fist and officially declared that chemical weapons were being used
by the Assad regime against its own people. This indicated that the
Syrian government had crossed the "red line" that Obama determined last
year and opened the possibility of greater U.S. involvement.
But if it was the other way around — if the good guys sprayed sarin gas
on the bad guys? That makes assisting the rebels a much more
complicated transaction. Chemical weapons are horrible,
no doubt about that. And sarin gas is absolutely off limits, according
to the Geneva Protocol, and with three reported uses in Syria, it's not
like it was an accident. Also, chemical weapons are horrible.
Before anybody does anything, though, the U.N. commission's claims need
to be verified. There's been nothing but misinformation spewing out of
Syria, as the conflict turned to an all out civil war, and it's not
unimaginable that the Assad regime has been able to spin some
information to their advantage. Plus how in the world would the rebels even get sarin gas?
It doesn't grow on trees, and though the government does have a bunch
on hand, they've been guarding it heavily. That said, it's not like it's
the Syrian state news agency that's making the sarin claim. It's the
United Nations — or at least their sources. They seem like honest, human
rights-loving world citizens, right?
While it'll take a little more sleuthing before we can positively
confirm who's using what weapons, one thing is for sure: Things have
gone from bad to worse to really bad in Syria these past few months. And
now that Israel's started shelling the country, it'll probably keep getting worse before it gets better.
Source: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/un-sources-say-rebel-forces-not-assad-used-sarin-gas/64897/
Implosion of Syria Myths a 'Nervous Breakdown' for US, Allies
The New York Times has finally reported
what many watching the Syria insurgency have noticed all along:
US-facilitated weapons shipments are ending up in the hands of radical
jihadists. Of course while getting those facts right, the NYT,
blinded as it is by ideology, gets the conclusion wrong. The Times has
for some time been pushing the line that the US must act fast militarily
in Syria lest the mythical "people's uprising" be hikacked by radicals.
In short, they have been — surprise — distorting facts to propagandize
for war. The NYT line is that US "inaction" on Syria is leading to the radicalization of the rebels. Earlier this month the Times reported/opined that:
"Many Saudi and Qatari officials now fear that the fighting in Syria is awakening deep sectarian animosities and, barring such intervention, could turn into an uncontrollable popular jihad with consequences far more threatening to Arab governments than the Afghan war of the 1980s."
Now we get the news from the Times that:
"'The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,' said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
Then the Times pushes its propagandistic conclusion to color the facts according to its own ideology:
"That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments...casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States." (emphasis added)
Ah yes, the fault is all with the "minimal and indirect" intervention
of the US in the conflict. Surely a Libya-type operation would already
be reaping US foreign policy the same kinds of rewards we are getting in
Libya! So what is the truth? The truth is hard
to swallow for the propagandizing media and the propagandized public:
Assad was telling the truth when he told Barbara Walters in an interview earlier this year:
“Not everybody in the street was fighting for freedom. You have different components, you have extremists, religious extremists...like-minded people of Al Qaeda... [F]rom the very first few weeks we had those terrorists they are getting more and more aggressive, they have been killing. We have 1,000– over 1,100 soldiers and policeman killed, who killed them? peaceful demonstrators? This is not logical.”
Of course no one wanted to listen to him because he, like Saddam,
Milosevic, Gaddafi, etc before him, had been branded a "madman" in the
media. Who could listen to a madman? Who could possibly negotiate with a
madman? They only understand one thing, force. We have all heard this
interventionist neo-con garbage for decades but for some reason it still
seems to work. Likewise, Mother Agnes Miriam of the Cross, a Melkite
Greek Catholic nun, was telling the truth earlier this summer when she told the Irish Times that the rebels were targeting Christians in Syria. She continued:
“The West and Gulf states must not give finance to armed insurrectionists who are sectarian terrorists, most of whom are from al-Qaeda, according to a report presented to the German parliament. ... They bring terror, destruction, fear and nobody protects the civilians. [There were] very few Syrians among the rebels. ...Mercenaries should go home.”
The reason that the weapons being funneled to the Syrian rebels are
ending up in the hands of radical Islamists is because the rebels are radical Islamists. The founder of Doctors Without Borders noticed it after working with the wounded in Syria. German intelligence noticed it after an investigation suggested that up to 95 percent of the Syrian rebels are not Syrian.
It is a myth that the initial peaceful protests only turned violent
reluctantly after they were met with force by the regime. In fact we see
plans early on to turn events in Syria toward regime change. We saw it
early in the 1996 US neo-conservative "Clean Break" study for then-Prime
Minister Netanyahu, which urged him to "contain, destabilize, and
roll-back" Syria and other countries in the region. We saw it more
recently in numerous influential think tank studies like that of
Brookings' Saban Center's oft-cited report
early this year tellingly titled, "Saving Syria: Assessing Options for
Regime Change." Like the authors of the "Clean Break" paper, the Saban
Center is heavily neo-conservative and pro-Likud.
In conclusion, here is the really bad news: As the US Syria policy
falls apart, there is increasing danger that the built up tension in the
region — particularly the disastrous decision of the Turkish government
to support the rebels in Syria — is leading to a wider conflict that
threatens to spin out of control. Turkey and Armenia are at each others
throats, Armenia and Azerbaijan are preparing for war, Iraq warily
watches chaos on its borders, Russia is installing
its next-generation S-400 anti-aircraft missiles in its southern
military region near Turkey, and so on.
Backed into a corner by a failed
policy, the US as usual is doubling down on a bad bet, feeding Turkey
bogus intelligence about chimeral arms shipments aboard Syrian passenger
planes carrying Russian passengers, etc. Rebel mortars lobbed into
Turkey give a desperate Erdogan government the pretext it needs to
establish a buffer zone in Syria and hope for NATO reinforcements, which
are not coming. French observer Thierry Meyssan writes that "Turkey [is] on the verge of a nervous breakdown" after NATO "packs it in" on Syria.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/123392.html
Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?
According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air
strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by
4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1.
Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved
in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000
dead. A CBS/New York Times poll found that by 62-to-24 Americans want to
stay out of the Syrian war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that by 61-to-10
Americans oppose any U.S. intervention.
But the numbers shift when the public is asked if it would make a
difference if the Syrian regime used poison gas. In that case,
opposition to U.S. intervention drops to 44-to-27 in Reuters/Ipsos. Yet on the Sunday talk shows and cable news, the hawks are
over-represented. To have a senator call for arming the rebels and U.S.
air strikes is a better ratings “get” than to have on a senator who
wants to stay out of the war.
In that same CBS poll, however, the 10 percent of all Americans who
say they follow the Syrian situation closely were evenly divided,
47-to-48, on whether to intervene. The portrait of America that emerges is of a nation not overly
interested in what is going on in Syria, but which overwhelmingly wants
to stay out of the war.
But it is also a nation whose foreign policy elites are far more
interventionist and far more supportive of sending weapons to the rebels
and using U.S. air power. From these polls, it is hard not to escape
the conclusion that the Beltway elites who shape U.S. foreign policy no
longer represent the manifest will of Middle America. America has not gone isolationist, but has become
anti-interventionist. This country does not want its soldiers sent into
any more misbegotten adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, and does not
see any vital national interest in who comes out on top in Syria.
But who is speaking up for that great silent majority? Who in the
U.S. Senate is on national TV standing up to the interventionists? Who in the Republican Party is calling out the McCainiacs? Another story that came out this weekend, smothered by news of
Israeli air strikes on Syrian military installations and missile depots,
might cool elite enthusiasm — and kill any public desire to intervene.
“Syrian Rebels May Have Used Sarin Gas,” ran the headline in Monday’s New York Times. Datelined Geneva, the story began: “United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony
from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical workers indicating that
rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead
investigators said Sunday.”
The U.N. commission has found no evidence that the Syrian army used
chemical weapons. But Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general
and a commission member, stated:
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing
victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of
last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but
not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the
victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels.”
In short, the war criminals may be the people on whose behalf we are
supposed to intervene. And if it was the rebels who used sarin gas, and
not the forces of President Bashar Assad, more than a few questions
arise that need answering. For just two weeks ago, the White House informed Congress:
“Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of
confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small
scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin. A clamor then arose demanding Obama make good on his threat that the
Syrian regime’s use of poison gas would cross a “red line” and be a
“game changer,” calling forth “enormous consequences.”
If the Syrian military did not use sarin, but the rebels did, who in
the U.S. intelligence community blew this one? From whom did U.S.
agencies get their evidence that sarin had been used by Damascus? Were
we almost suckered by someone’s latest lies about weapons of mass
destruction into fighting yet another unnecessary war? When allegations of the Syrian government’s use of sarin arose, many
in Congress, especially in the Republican Party, denounced Obama for
fecklessness in backing off of his “red line” threat.
It now appears that Obama may have saved us from a strategic disaster
by not plunging ahead with military action. And the question should be
put to the war hawks: If Assad’s use of sarin should call forth U.S. air strikes, ought not
the use of sarin by the rebels, if confirmed, cause this country to
wash its hands of those war criminals?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will
America Survive to 2025?” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit
the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
Source: http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2013/05/06/who-are-the-war-criminals-in-syria/
NYT: "Nowhere in Rebel-Controlled Syria is There a Secular Fighting Force to Speak Of"
Time to end Western support for terrorists in Syria.
Image: (Edlib
News Network Enn, via Associated Press) Al Qaeda terrorists in Idlib,
Syria. It is now admitted by the New York Times that the entire armed
so-called "opposition" is comprised entirely of Al Qaeda, meaning the
torrent of cash and weapons sent to the "opposition" by the West and its
regional allies, were intentionally sent directly to listed terrorists
guilty of a multitude of unprecedented atrocities.
....
April 27, 2013 (LD) - In an astounding admission, the New York
Times confirms that the so-called "Syrian opposition" is entirely run by
Al Qaeda and literally states:
This was documented as early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which stated specifically (emphasis added):
However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."
How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted. In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:
Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.
Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.
While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not "pro-democracy" protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.
This was documented as early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which stated specifically (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.For the past two years the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey have sent billions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into Syria along side known-terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. In the Telegraph's article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:
It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November
The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.
The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.
Additionally, The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.And more recently the US State Department had announced hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, equipment and even armored vehicles to militants operating in Syria, along with demands of its allies to "match" the funding to reach a goal of over a billion dollars. The NYT would report in their article, "Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria," that:
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
With the pledge of fresh aid, the total amount of nonlethal assistance from the United States to the coalition and civic groups inside the country is $250 million. During the meeting here, Mr. Kerry urged other nations to step up their assistance, with the objective of providing $1 billion in international aid.And as this astronomical torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment was overtly sent by the West into Syria, the US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has known that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria was Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front. The US State Department's official press statement titled, "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," stated explicitly that:
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.The State Department admits that from the very beginning, Al Qaeda has been carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major city in Syria. Clearly for those who read the 2007 Hersh piece in the New Yorker, and then witnessed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, the explanation is quite simple - the West intentionally and systematically funded and armed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Syria, then overthrow the Syrian government in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath and subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, just as was planned years ago.
However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."
How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted. In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:
However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states:Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.To "secure regular arms supplies" from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying "mainstream rebel groups" with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry - and now according to the BBC, training as well.Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go? The NYT also admits (emphasis added):
Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin. More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC's "EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition"), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda - meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil. The NYT reports:
Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.And:
In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):
This last point, "and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running," is of extreme importance, because that "flour" they are "distributing" comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America. In the Washington Post's article, "U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly," it is claimed that:Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children’s hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city’s rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running.
In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda's al-Nusra with providing the aid:
“America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all,” said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour, flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department's own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.
Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.
Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.
While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.
Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/04/nyt-nowhere-in-rebel-controlled-syria.html?utm_source=BP_recent
Rebels film cannibalism and execution of Syrian soldiers, Obama continues anti-Assad rhetoric
As a new video is published showing fighters of the Al Qaeda-linked
Al-Nusra Front in Syria executing 11 men they say are Bashar Assad’s
soldiers, Obama talks to Turkey’s Erdogan, renewing threats of action
against the Syrian government. The video, which was posted on YouTube on Thursday, is believed
to have been filmed in the eastern Deir-al Zor province and appears
to date from some time in 2012, according to the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights, a monitoring group with a network of activists in
Syria.
The footage shows the commander, his face obscured in a black
balaclava, shooting each prisoner in the back of the head as they
kneel blindfolded lined up in the sand. The Islamic militants shout “God is great” each time a
man is shot. In some cases the executioner comes back and fires
more bullets to make sure they are dead. The Al Nusra Front, which
is thought to be behind the footage, has links to Al-Qaeda, and
itself has ended up on America’s terrorism list in December
2012.
Rami Abderrahman, the head of the Observatory, told Reuters that
the Al Nusra Front has been releasing several videos of their
gruesome operations. The Observatory said that such videos have become increasingly
common in Syria’s bloody civil war, which has now claimed 80,000
lives, according to latest UN estimates. The Nusra video is the second to appear online in the last two
days to show executions by fighters who claim links to
al-Qaeda.
It comes after horrific footage was released on Sunday of a
Syrian rebel commander apparently eating one of the lungs of a dead
government fighter. Time magazine said they had first seen the
footage in April and identified the man as Khaled al-Hamad. Hamad
admitted to the magazine that he had mutilated the corpse of the
soldier as an act of revenge for allegedly defiling a naked woman
and her daughter. The footage was swiftly condemned by the Syrian
opposition.
Nadim Houry of Human Rights Watch told the Guardian that it is
“not enough for Syria’s opposition to condemn such behavior or
blame it on violence by the government. The opposition forces need
to act firmly to stop such abuses.” But Hamad, who is also known as Abu Sakkar, has also received
support amongst the more hardline rebels in Syria. Sakkar’s
supporters often make portraits of him with the inscription “We
Love You”.
Obama repeats warnings of a ‘military option’
The controversy comes as a joint news conference with Turkish Prime
Minster, Tayyip Erdogan, and President Obama was held Thursday.
Obama said that the US reserves the right to resort to diplomatic
and military options if there is conclusive proof that Assad has
used chemical weapons.
"There are a whole range of options that the United States is
already engaged in… And I reserve the options of taking
additional steps, both diplomatic and military, because those
chemical weapons inside of Syria also threaten our security over
the long term as well as our allies and friends and
neighbors."
U
President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan hold a
joint press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House in
Washington, DC, May 16, 2013. (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
Erdogan, for his part, added that “ending this bloody process
in Syria and meeting the legitimate demands of the people by
establishing a new government are two areas where we are in full
agreement with the US. We also agree that we have to prevent Syria
from becoming an area for terrorist organizations. We also agree
that chemical weapons should not be used.”
But Aleksandr Lukashevich, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign
Ministry, said Monday that the accusation that the Syrian regime
has used chemical weapons could be a sign that public opinion is
being prepared for the possibility of military intervention in
Syria.
“A lot of reasoning appeared in a number of Arab and other
international mass media regarding the use of chemical weapons in
the standoff between the government forces and the opposition
guerrillas,” he warned.
Speaking to Lebanon's Al Mayadeen TV channel Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow will make no “backstage”
agreements on Syria in exchange for Western concessions on missile
defense or any other disputed issues.
“This is not serious. I think that those who try suggest that
indulge in wishful thinking,” Lavrov said in an interview with
Lebanon's Al Mayadeen TV channel.
“Everyone knows well that Russia’s stance on a whole range of crucial issues is not opportunistic,” the Russian top diplomat emphasized.
“Everyone knows well that Russia’s stance on a whole range of crucial issues is not opportunistic,” the Russian top diplomat emphasized.
On Wednesday, the UN passed resolution 6a, which has condemned
Assad’s regime for re-escalating the Syrian conflict. The document
was passed with a vote of 107 to 12, and with 59 abstaining. The support was far lower than a resolution last august, which
condemned Assad for cracking down on dissent. The decline in
support is seen as a sign of growing unease at increasing extremism
among Syria’s fractious rebels. Russia voted against this year’s resolution, saying it was
"counterproductive and irresponsible" to promote a one-sided
resolution when Moscow and Washington are trying to get the Syrian
government and opposition to agree to negotiations.
At a meeting in Geneva last year the major world powers reached a degree of consent between the positions of Russia and the West who do not often see eye to eye on Syria. They agreed that any future government in Syria could include members of the current regime as well as opposition groups. There was also no specific demand that Assad must step down – something the West has insisted on – and instead an agreement pushed by Russia and China that the future makeup of any Syrian government would be decided by the Syrian people. A follow-up meeting on the conference has been agreed by Lavrov and US State Secretary John Kerry; it is reported to be preliminary scheduled for June.
Source: http://rt.com/news/syria-rebel-execution-video-392/
Iraqi wing of al-Qaida says Syria's al-Nusra Front is part of its network
Al-Qaida in Iraq has said, for the first time, that the Syrian
jihadi group al-Nusra Front is a part of their network, AFP and the SITE Intelligence Group reported. According to SITE, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, announced in an audio message published on the Al-malahem and hanein jihadi websites that his group and Syria's al-Nusra Front would be merged.
"It is time to declare to the Levant [the people of Syria] and to the
world that the al-Nusra Front is simply a branch of the Islamic State of
Iraq " Baghdadi said, adding that the groups will now be united under
the name Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
Al-Baghdadi denied
any connection between the al-Nusra Front and any terrorist operation
inside Syria, as alleged by the Syrian regime, stressing that they are
fighting Shabiha gangs loyal to the Syrian regime. Baghdadi also
stressed that after the fall of dictatorial rule led by the Syrian
regime, his group will never fight to rule Syria, but will leave the
country to be ruled by a man or group who should be loyal to Islam and
the Syrian people. It is worth mentioning that the audio message
was issued by Furqan Foundation, which is the media arm of the Islamic
State of Iraq.
In response, the high command of the Free Syrian
Army has emphasized that the relationship with the al-Nusra Front
fighters on the ground was only tactical, local and time-limited,
highlighting that the FSA does not support the ideology of the al-Nusra
Front. "We don't support the ideology of al-Nusra," FSA spokesman Louay Meqdad told the AFP news agency.
"There has never been and there will never be a decision at the command
level to coordinate with al-Nusra. The situation on the ground is what
has imposed this."
Earlier, the Free Syrian Army refused to
consider the al-Nusra Front a terrorist organization. They also signed a
petition in support of them, as they share the same goal of fighting
the transgressing regime that is shedding the blood of Syrians. However, the al-Nusra Front, which emerged in mid-2012, has been
described as “the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force”
in Syria. They claimed many attacks which targeted the Syrian regime,
in particular, military bases and military institutions. In December, the US government officially declared the al-Nusra Front a foreign terrorist organization.
Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14380990-iraqi-wing-of-alqaida-admits-syrias-alnusra-as-part-of-its-network
Seventy-six killed in and outside Baghdad in a string of bombings
A series of blasts have rocked the Iraqi capital and its neighborhood
killing at least 76 people and wounding dozens. The biggest explosion
targeted a Sunni mosque in the town of Baquba - up to 40 fatalities were
reported there. In Baquba, a town 50 miles outside Baghdad, 41 people were
killed and 56 were wounded after Friday prayers. The blast was
followed by a second explosion tearing into the crowds of people
who rushed to the scene to help the victims, police told
Reuters.
“I was about 30 meters from the first explosion. When the
first exploded, I ran to help them, and the second one went off. I
saw bodies flying and I had shrapnel in my neck,” Hashim
Munjiz, a college student, told Reuters.
The second bombing, at a funeral south of the capital, killed
eight and wounded 11, AP said quoting medical sources. A fourth attack consisting of two bombs exploded in a commercial
area in a mainly Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, killing at
least 21 people and wounding 32. Another explosion struck a cafe in Fallujah, which killed wto
pople and wounded nine. The series of attacks targeting Sunnis follow two days of
attacks against Shiites, in which dozens also died. The string of
bombing are now following a pattern of tit for tat killings that
have already killed ten of thousands of people. No group claimed responsibility for the bombings.
The news comes after eleven people were killed in series of bomb
attacks in Baghdad and Kirkuk – Iraq’s two major cities – on
Thursday. In the Kirkuk attack, five people were killed after a suicide
bomber detonated his explosive vest at the entrance to a Shiite
mosque. While in the suburb of Sadr city in Baghdad three people and
killed and 17 injured. A further blast in Baghdad a car bomb blew
up outside a market in the Chukook neighborhood, which killed one
bystander.
Militant attacks on Sunni and Shiite mosques as well as against
security forces and tribal leaders have mushroomed since security
forces aided a Sunni protest camp in Kirkuk a month ago, fuelling
fear that Iraq may slide back into all out-sectarian war. Overall violence in Iraq has dropped since its peak in
2005-2007, but tensions between Sunnis and Shiites have remained
high since the US led invasion of the country in 2003. Since the end of 2011 when US combat troops finally left Iraq,
the Iraqi army and police force have been unable to prevent an
increase in insurgency and sectarian violence.
Al-Qaeda has been highly active in Iraq since the US led
invasion of 2003 and now is acknowledged as being behind much of
the Sunni insurgency and sectarian violence that is gripping most
of the country. Their targets have mostly been the Shia dominated security
forces and government. The fragile government coalition between Sunnis, Shia and
secularists is now in danger of collapse as violence grips Iraq and
many fear a return to the terrible violence of 2006-2007.
As well as spiralling sectarian violence, Iraqis have to deal
with a daily grind of power cuts, water shortages, and a lack of jobs and
schools.
Crumbling infrastructure is matched by rampant corruption. Transparency International recently ranked Iraq as the eighth most corrupt country in the world. In one of the latest scandals, the Electricity Ministry was involved in a 1.7 billion fraud.
Source: http://rt.com/news/iraq-blasts-sectarian-violence-424/comments/page-19/
The Oil Road Through Damascus
Middle East oil transit routes are
at risk from Islamist revolutions and Iranian
threats. Does Syria present an opportunity for the
West to bypass the most troubling oil chokepoints?
Is that a strong driver behind the West's interest
in the Syrian rebellion? Instability all along the
oil road is at its highest point in decades, and
Syria's history as a perennial spoiler and
location as a potential energy path cannot have
been missed. Consider the recent pressures on Middle
East oil shipping routes:
Iranian influence on the Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq has caused significant worry in Washington. Iran's influence in Iraq can be viewed, Stratfor notes, as a greater "arc of influence" from Iran to Iraq, extended through Syria and into Lebanon. The West's strategy is to contain Iran's foreign influence and prevent Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Syria would be a natural target for this strategy.
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to economic sanctions or military action aimed at its nuclear program. Over 17 million barrels of oil per day flow through the Strait , and the mere threat of closure has kept oil prices elevated.
Yemen, which sits in a key position on the Bab-el-Mandab strait, separating the Arabian peninsula from the horn of Africa, struggles with a rebellion against the Saleh regime. It has also been a hot zone of internecine conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite communities and has also been a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity and drone attacks against Islamist militants.
The Arab Spring in Egypt has seen the rise of Islamist interests inimical to the West and Israel, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which is highly-anti-Western. Since then, diplomatic tensions between Egypt and the US have risen dramatically. Because the Arab Spring was largely stoked and triggered by the explosion of food prices in a very poor part of the world, and they have not abated, the level of desperation and radicalism displayed in Egypt to the West is likely to worsen.
A single "Suezmax" tanker sunk in the Suez Canal would cause an explosion in world energy prices. If the Suez Canal and/or the SUMED pipeline, were closed, as the Suez was by Nasser in 1957 , then oil tankers would have to travel an additional 9,600 kilometers around Africa to reach its destination. This fact has never been lost on Western logisticians.
As a result, Middle
East oil shipping lanes have always attracted a
strong, expensive and provocative Western military
presence.
An overland alternative?
Good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics. - General Omar Bradley
The search for non-naval oil routes is not a new topic. In 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon requested a feasibility study on the possible revival of the long-defunct Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline route. This pipeline was activated by the British in 1935 to transfer Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean. It was shut down in 1948 by Iraq in the aftermath of Israel's founding.
While there was much discussion on the pipeline's revival, the general conclusion was that such an effort would be entirely infeasible, because such a pipeline would be a magnet for terrorist attacks due to the regional stigma attached to Israel. This concern is confirmed by the recent rash of pipeline attacks on Egyptian energy flows to Israel. Thus, most pipelines in the region entirely bypass Israel.
However,
properly secured, a pipeline through Israel, Syria
or Lebanon to the Mediterranean would be of
tremendous value. The important phrase here is
"properly secured". Otherwise, one choke point
would be exchanged for another, potentially more
vulnerable one. Such a route would only be
feasible if it were shielded from the blackmail
and sabotage so common to the region. Until now, a
major Syrian pipeline would have been a pipe
dream.
Why not Syria already?
Why not Syria already?
Although there are pipelines through Syria today, they are of miniscule importance compared to major arteries such as Egypt's SUMED and would do little to replace the Strait of Hormuz-Suez route. For decades, the Assad regime effectively locked itself out of any meaningful commercial links with the West through a combination of wars, dark alliances and support for terror groups across the region.
In the Cold War, Syria's strong alignment with the USSR, repeated attacks against Israel, both militarily and through its support and shelter of anti-Western terror groups, made it extremely unreliable as a host for pipelines upon which so many nations would depend. In particular, the alignment with the USSR was seen as a political threat by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council nations. [1]
During the Lebanese Civil War, Syria actively supported Shi'ite factions and came to dominate Lebanon in the aftermath of the country's civil war. Furthermore, the country harbored Imad Mugniyeh, the prime suspect in the 1983 bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, in which nearly 300 US and French servicemen were killed. He was finally assassinated in 2008, in Damascus.
After the Cold War, Syria continued to dominate Lebanon, and was allegedly a key player in the assassination of president Rafic Hariri, a Sunni. Though this led to the "Cedar Revolution" that drove most of Syria's uniformed troops out of Lebanon and loosened its grip on the country, Syria's continued support of terror organizations in Lebanon and the political wing of Hezbollah kept it at odds with the West.
Hopes that Bashar al-Assad would initiate a new era of peace and openness with the West were dashed early on. He sheltered a number of key leaders from Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Party, and did almost nothing to stem the flow of money, fighters and weapons back into Iraq.
Assad's Syria continued to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction, which included the attempt to construct a secret nuclear reactor, with the assistance of North Korea, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The reactor was destroyed by Israeli bombers on September 6, 2007 as part of Operation Orchard .
Syria worked hard to earn its status as a pariah nation, which is why even whispers of a super-pipeline route are so belated. Even with an Assad-dominated Syria, and there are feasibility studies underway to add significant additional crude oil pipeline capacity from Iraq through Syria, as well as an underwater pipeline to Turkey. There is also an opportunity for Syria in the natural gas transport space. Syria would be the logical choice to host a branch for Egyptian liquefied natural gas into the Nabucco pipeline network.
The dangerous road
ahead
At this point there is little Bashar can do to save his regime. The high food prices that lit the fires of the Arab Spring remain, and the slaughter of so many demonstrators has made untenable any hopes Assad would have to live peacefully in Syria even if he resigned. With the exceptions of Russia and Iran, Syria's traditional commercial partners, including oil companies, have unified to isolate and starve the regime.
The ultimate question for the outcome of the overland super-pipeline is what will fill the power vacuum after Assad's collapse? If Syria descends into sectarian civil war, it would be some time before such a project could proceed. Iran will fight for control of the country in the same way it did for Lebanon and Iraq - through a combination of supporting political movements and terror tactics. Some of these have allegedly already come into play to fight for the Assad regime.
Similarly, Turkey has a major stake in the outcome in Syria. Its most immediate interest there is to prevent a destabilizing tide of refugees from Syria, but the more strategic interests are manifold.
Turkey's leadership,
embodied by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, wants to see
Turkey re-assert a dominant economic and political
position in the region. To have that role in
Syria, Iranian influence would have to be driven
away. Likewise, Russian influence in Syria,
projected from its military hub of Tartus, is not
desirable from the Turkish point of view.
Add in the discovery of huge offshore natural gas reserves in Lebanon and Israel, and the precedent of Iranian natural gas embargos to Turkey , and the overall potential impact Syria can have on energy transport, and it becomes clear that Syria carries huge weight in Turkish foreign policy formulation.
How far will Turkey go? Is it prepared to offer its troops as peacekeepers? Will the US and its allies accept the costs of a long-term Turkish presence to contain Iran, and/or guard a critical energy artery as they guard naval routes from the Persian Gulf? The Syrian people - Alawi, Shiite, Sunni, Christian and Kurd alike, do not have fond memories of Ottoman domination. Whatever happens, the iron law remains: the spice must flow.
Note: 1. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates
Ronnie Blewer is an IT security and systems management professional with a strong interest in global economic and foreign policy issues. Mr. Blewer has degrees in Russian language and Political Science from Louisiana State University. To contact him via e-mail, he can be reached at ronnie.blewer@yahoo.com.
Add in the discovery of huge offshore natural gas reserves in Lebanon and Israel, and the precedent of Iranian natural gas embargos to Turkey , and the overall potential impact Syria can have on energy transport, and it becomes clear that Syria carries huge weight in Turkish foreign policy formulation.
How far will Turkey go? Is it prepared to offer its troops as peacekeepers? Will the US and its allies accept the costs of a long-term Turkish presence to contain Iran, and/or guard a critical energy artery as they guard naval routes from the Persian Gulf? The Syrian people - Alawi, Shiite, Sunni, Christian and Kurd alike, do not have fond memories of Ottoman domination. Whatever happens, the iron law remains: the spice must flow.
Note: 1. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates
Ronnie Blewer is an IT security and systems management professional with a strong interest in global economic and foreign policy issues. Mr. Blewer has degrees in Russian language and Political Science from Louisiana State University. To contact him via e-mail, he can be reached at ronnie.blewer@yahoo.com.
