WarSclerotic

The Media Line.

Written by Arieh O’Sullivan
Published Monday, October 24, 2011

Exporting turmoil is Teheran’s key to survival, analysts say

Even with stern warnings from Washington not to “miscalculate” as American troops begin their pullout from Iraq,  Iran will be tempted to foment turmoil in the region, mainly as a diversion to its own internal problems, analysts say. 

American troops leave behind a volatile Iraq vulnerable to Iranian influence. Iraq’s Kurdish minority have already carved out a semi-autonomous region in the oil-rich north and Tehran may encourage the south, where the population shares Iran’s Shiite Islam. That would leave the Sunnis in control of a truncated state in the middle. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki recently bemoaned the modern day consequences of the colonial division of the Middle East during the First World War by British and French diplomats Sir Mark Sykes and Francois George-Picot.

“The Sykes-Picot Agreement divided us into states, and the premeditated Arab Spring, which is backed by foreign forces, is intended to divide these states into mini-states, so that the only effective large country in the region would be Israel…. Today everybody is saying that regime change  – especially in Syria – does not serve anyone’s interest,” Al-Maliki told Hizbullah-run Al-Manar television. 

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on Friday that nearly all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year, ending an invasion begun in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Ahead of the pullout, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the weekend gave numerous interviews that far from signaling a reduced American presence in the region, U.S. forces would now be freer operationally to act.

“No one should miscalculate America’s resolve and commitment to helping support the Iraqi democracy. We have paid too high a price to give the Iraqis this chance. And I hope that Iran and no one else miscalculates that,” Clinton told CNN’s State of the Union.

The Arab Spring and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq ostensibly sidelines the anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments traditionally used to garner popular support in the Arab street as a diversion to domestic unrest. But facing waning regional influence, exacerbated by its inability to save its Shiite ally Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad from a bloody Sunni-led revolution, Tehran still hopes to use its resistance narrative to prevail. 

“Iran is facing challenges internally, in Syria and in the Gulf, and it aims to export its problems to the outside. The best way to solidify its regime and unite its forces is by an external threat. There’s no greater external threat than the U.S. presence,” Sami al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies, told The Media Line.

Al-Faraj said Teheran believes correctly that the Arab Spring protests are contagious and that the only way to keep them from reaching Iran  is to export the problem to the outside by stirring up fights, like in Bahrain, Iraq and the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, where there are Shiite majorities have traditionally been subservient to Sunnis. 

“The Iranians want to create a crisis and they are desperate to set the stage for something really fantastic. They are looking for something really big,” Al-Faraj said.

Iran’s former president, Mohammad Khatami, recently warned the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the threats against Iran are real and that the stage is being set for an attack against Iran. He said the U.S. accusations that Iran was behind a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington has heightened the possibility of a U.S. military attack.

“Our political officials should be careful not to give the U.S. any pretext to target our security and territorial integrity,” Khatami told the opposition website Rahesabz.

“I don’t think the U.S. forces would be withdrawn to a level that would make it very weakened. They will position materiel all over the area. They will probably have a larger force over the horizon and will substitute large number numbers of troops with strategic capabilities such as naval forces. I assume that the U.S. will maintain its capabilities outside of Iraqi soil,” said Zaki Shalom, a senior researcher on contemporary history at Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

“Iran is instigating Shiite militias in Iraq to continue attacks against Americans and they are plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. In the U.S. there is an image of Iran as an offensive power in the region,” Shalom told The Media Line.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters on Sunday that some 40,000 troops would remain in the region “along with a large number of troops in other countries as well, along with the fact that we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. We will always have a force that will be present and that will deal with any threats from Iran.”

Nevertheless, Shalom said, Iran is engaging in a policy of brinkmanship and had a keen sense of never crossing red lines that would draw bold U.S. actions.

“Their assessment was that the Americans will not take action against Iran because they are concerned about the reaction against U.S. troops in Iraq. But I don’t think {withdrawal] will give the Obama administration bigger maneuvering power to take measures against Iran, and the Iranians know this very well,” Shalom said.

He said the U.S. was caught up in presidential elections and the Europeans were bogged down in economic distress, further restricting Western action against the ayatollahs’ regime.

“The Iranians are correct in assessing that they can go on with their offensive and provocative actions knowing the U.S. will not take military action against them at least until the U.S. elections are over,” he said. “The Obama administration would very much hesitate to take military action against Iran because it would likely cause chaos.”

 http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=242960

Photo by: REUTERS

By REUTERS
10/24/2011 13:2

Syrian regime behind incitement campaign against Robert Ford including series of incidents involving physical damage but no casualties.

Talkbacks ()

    The US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, was pulled out of the country because of threats against his personal safety, the State Department said on Monday.

Ford, who had upset Syrian leaders as protesters challenged 41 years of rule by the Assad family, has returned to Washington.

“Ambassador Robert Ford was brought back to Washington as a result of credible threats against his personal safety in Syria,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. “At this point, we can’t say when he will return to Syria. It will depend on our assessment of Syrian regime-led incitement and the security situation on the ground.”

Robert Ford left Syria over the weekend, the Western diplomats told Reuters, following a series of incidents that resulted in physical damage but no casualties.

Asked if the Obama administration would force Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha to leave the United States, a US official said: “Not at this time.”

Ford, a veteran diplomat, infuriated Syria’s rulers by getting in touch with a seven-month-old grassroots protest movement demanding an end to 41 years of Assad family rule.

Ford was cheered by protesters when he went in July to the anti-Assad hotbed city of Hama, which was later stormed by tanks. He also visited a town that had witnessed regular protests in the southern province of Deraa, ignoring a new ban on Western diplomats traveling outside the Damascus area.

Along with a group of mostly Western ambassadors, Ford later paid condolences to the family of Ghayath Matar, a 25-year-old protest leader who had distributed flowers to give to soldiers but was arrested and died of apparent torture, activists say.

Washington, seeking to convince Assad to scale back an alliance with US arch-foe Iran and backing for militant groups, acted to improve relations with Damascus after President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Obama sent Ford to Damascus in January to fill a diplomatic vacuum prevailing since Washington withdrew its ambassador in 2005.

But relations deteriorated anew after the uprising broke out and Assad ignored international calls to respond to protester demands that he dismantle the Syrian police state and allow political pluralism.

In an interview with Reuters last month, Ford said Assad was losing support among key constituents and risked plunging Syria into sectarian strife by intensifying a military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.

Time was running against Assad, he said at the time.

US: ‘credible threats’ in Syria ambassad… JPost – International.

Assad is next in line – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: If Syria’s president is wise, he will flee his country before the masses get to him

According to Judaism, we should not rejoice over our enemies’ downfall, yet it depends on the enemy: I was happy when Saddam Hussein fell, I’m happy to see Muammar Gaddafi fall, and I shall be happy when Bashar Assad falls.

In terms of historical justice, there is no difference between Saddam’s end and Gaddafi’s demise, except for the fact that the former was executed following a showcase trial while the latter was executed before such trial took place. Another difference is that toppling Saddam cost tens of thousands of lives while toppling Gaddafi was relatively “cheaper” in terms of human cost.

The domino effect works in the mad Middle East of all places. The next in line will be Syria’s ruler, a brutal dictator and hopeless psychopath. Sitting alone in his palace, Assad must have watched images of Gaddafi’s death with sadness and anxiety; intuitively, Syria’s leader knew that he and his family can expect the same fate.

Assad’s regime is finished, and if there is any sense left in him he must flee Damascus as early as tonight to a safe haven in Latin America. Assad and his guard dogs already murdered more protestors than the number of fatalities in the entire Libyan war.

It was not only Libya’s ruler who was murdered by armed fellow citizens. Along with him, we saw the murder of the last symbol a political system that dominated the Arab world for more than half a century: “Arab socialism.”

Arab socialism stirred the imagination of the Arab masses in the 1950s, upon their release from the chains of colonialism. It offered a blend of young, powerful Arab nationalism with a modern regime premised on a one-party system and a state-controlled economy. Arab socialism promised its followers a dual paradise, both on earth and in the afterlife. It turned to both the emotions and mind by presenting and implementing development and social modernization plans.

However, by the late 1970s it turned out that Arab socialism was hopeless. The social ideology completely evaporated from it and all that remained was the hunger for power shown by a narrow party and military elite, which was unwilling to give up its perks and clung to its chair until the last moment. Ultimately, the chair was broken by popular fury.

I believe in democracy

History shows that democratic states and even semi-democratic ones do not go to war against each other even when hostility prevails. Hence, Israel ostensibly should not regret the demise of dictators from the decayed “Arab socialism” school of thought or their successors. They fought us and were not among our fans, to put it mildly.

Yet what are the odds of democracy taking root in the Arab world, without being replaced by a zealous Muslim dictatorship? The fears that this could happen are not baseless, yet they are still not rooted in reality. The process of a dictatorial change through the ballot box has not yet occurred in any Arab Muslim state. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan and not in Sudan.

Indeed, some predict that in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian elections, Islamists shall exploit the democratic game in order to take power and later bury democracy. However, I subscribe to a different view: In my opinion, democracy has an amazing ability to protect itself from the moment it comes to life and takes over a human society.

As democracy is the natural state of man, humans are not willing to renounce it easily, especially after tasting it. There is no reason for Arab world citizens to behave any differently.

EU leaders threaten Iran and Syria with further sanctions – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

European Union calls on Iran to engage in ‘constructive and substantial’ talks over nuclear issue, warns Syria over continued ‘repression of the civilian population.’

By Reuters

European leaders warned Iran on Sunday it would face tougher sanctions if it failed to address concerns about its nuclear program and said they would tighten restrictions on Syria if it continued to repress its population.

At a Brussels summit, the 27 EU states called on Iran to engage in “constructive and substantial talks” with Western powers to bring about a negotiated solution to the nuclear question “to avoid possible future restrictive measures.”

	German Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) gestures at French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a joint press conference as part of the European Council at the Justus Lipsius building, EU headquarters in Brus
	Photo by: AFP

EU leaders called in a statement for the preparation of new sanctions “to be implemented at the appropriate moment in the case that Iran continues not to cooperate seriously nor to meet its obligations.”

They also warned Syria the European Union “will impose further and more comprehensive measures against the regime as long as the repression of the civilian population continues.”

Washington and the European Union have already pushed four rounds of sanctions through the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear program, as well as unilateral measures that have deterred Western investment in Iran’s oil sector and made it harder to move money in and out of the country.

On Saturday, Iran dismissed a threat by Washington to impose sanctions on its central bank in response to an alleged assassination plot, saying the United Nations would block the plan and other central banks would not accept it.

Imposing sanctions on the central bank would make it more difficult for Iran to receive payment for exports, particularly oil, a vital source of hard currency for the world’s fifth biggest crude exporter.

However, any new UN action would require the assent of permanent Security Council members Russia and China, which backed previous rounds of sanctions but may be hard to persuade to go further on the basis of the allegations made so far.

The European warning to Iran came after EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton responded last week to an Iranian offer to resume talks by saying there must be no repeat of the last round in January, which ended with no progress.

Ashton has been leading efforts on behalf of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, as well as China and Russia, to negotiate with Tehran over its nuclear activities, which the West believes is aimed at building atomic bombs.

Iran has said it is willing to resume discussions, but insists that other countries recognize its right to enrich uranium, which the West sees as an unacceptable precondition.

Ashton said the six would be willing to resume talks in weeks if Iran was ready to discuss concrete confidence-building measures without pre-conditions. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful production of energy.

The European Union already tightened sanctions against Syria this month, adding the Commercial Bank of Syria to a list of entities sanctioned in protest against repression of dissent.

The United Nations says 3,000 people have died in the unrest in Syria, including at least 187 children. The UN human rights chief has demanded that the world act to stop the carnage and warned of full-blown civil war in the country.

The EU imposed an embargo on crude oil imports from Syria in September and banned EU firms from new investment in its oil industry. It also imposed sanctions on the main mobile phone firm, Syriatel, and the largest private company, Cham Holding.

However, the effect of the EU sanctions has been blunted by the blocking by Russia and China of a UN resolution that could have led to broader imposition of such steps.

The EU leaders urged “all members of the UN Security Council to assume their responsibilities in relation to the situation in Syria.”

U.S. ambassador leaves Syria in protest at ‘media incitement’ – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Ambassador Robert Ford expresses fears for his personal safety after a series of protests against him for his ‘interference in internal affairs’.

By DPA

The U.S. ambassador to Damascus left Syria on “vacation,” expressing fears for his personal safety amid a hate campaign launched against him by state media, a source at the embassy said on Monday.

Ambassador Robert Ford “has informed the Syrian foreign ministry of the dangers and the incitement campaign against him in local media, overseen by the government, before he left the country on Saturday,” the source told DPA.

	U.S. ambassador in Syria Robert Ford, covers his nose from the smell of the dead bodies during his visit with other foreign diplomats to a mass grave, in Jisr el-Shughour, Syria, June 20, 2011.
	Photo by: AP

Over the past few months, Ford has been outspoken against the Syrian government’s use of violence against pro-democracy protesters.

He was subjected to several attacks by loyalists to President Bashar Assad, who described Ford’s stances as “blatant interference in internal affairs and incitement against authorities.”

In July, supporters of Assad attacked the US and French embassies in Damascus. In September, Ford was pelted with tomatoes by a pro-government group, Washington said.

More than 3,000 people, including at least 187 children, have been killed in the government’s clampdown on the protests since they began in March, according to the United Nations.

Protesters have taken to the streets demanding greater freedoms and the ouster of Assad.