WarSclerotic

Israel links Quds Force with attacks – Arab News.

Report: U.S. Believes Iran Attack Inevitable – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear program and believe that the U.S. will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so, the British Guardian reported on Friday.

According to the report, despite the fact that President Barack Obama has made it clear that he is determined to give sufficient time for measures such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the State Department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action.

An official who is knowledgeable on Middle East policy told the Guardian, “The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict. Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don’t matter, like their economy isn’t collapsing, like Israel isn’t going to do anything.”

The official added, “Sanctions are all we’ve got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it’s hard to see how we don’t move to the ‘in extremis’ option.”

Another official told the newspaper that some members in the administration “don’t see a way forward,” adding that “the record shows that there is nothing to work with.”

The Guardian said that if Obama concludes that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order such an attack before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question which remains, the report noted, is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this week he does not think Israel has made a decision to launch a military strike on Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions.

Earlier this month, however, Panetta told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June.

Colin Kahl, who was U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East until December, told the Guardian, “With the European oil embargo and U.S. sanctions on the central bank, the Israelis probably have to give some time now to let those crippling sanctions play out.

“If you look at the calendar,” he added, “it doesn’t make much sense that the Israelis would jump the gun. They probably need to provide a decent interval for those sanctions to be perceived as failing, because they care about whether an Israeli strike would be seen as philosophically legitimate; that is, as only having happened after other options were exhausted. So I think that will push them a little further into 2012.”

Kahl said part of Washington’s calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the U.S. and Europe into confronting Tehran.

“It’s not that the Israelis believe the Iranians are on the brink of a bomb,” he said. “It’s that the Israelis may fear that the Iranian program is on the brink of becoming out of reach of an Israeli military strike, which means it creates a ‘now-or-never’ moment.”

On Friday, polls produced by the Gallup Institute and the Pew Research Center revealed that 58 percent of Americans support using force to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

When it came to the question of supporting an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, 62 percent of the Republicans favored such support as compared with 33 percent for Democrats and Independents.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Terror wave: Iran seeks grand revenge – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Ynetnews special: Latest attacks against Israel prelude to major revenge operation planned by Iran; Tehran’s elite al-Quds force tasked with executing mega-attack

Alex Fishman

January 2010 marked the beginning of what appeared to be a wave of assassinations targeting Iranian nuclear scientists; three such experts were killed at the time. We can assume that after the killing of a fourth scientist, in July 2011, Iran’s political leadership decided to put an end to this trend and create counter-deterrence against the main suspect: Israel. Iran‘s Intelligence Ministry subsequently accelerated its preparations of the deterrence and revenge plan.

Statements made by senior Iranian officials in 2011 indicate that Tehran set its sights on grander targets than random employees at Israel’s embassies; that is, “high-quality” targets such as Israeli ambassadors, Israeli security officials, or Israeli delegations overseas.

However, assassinating such top-notch targets requires preparations of at least six months that include surveillance, identification of vulnerabilities, the planning of infiltration and escape routes, the facilitation of communication means, safe houses, contact persons and so on. There are no simple operations when it comes to assassinations in a foreign sovereign state, even if it is a friendly one.

Israeli embassy car targeted in New Delhi (Photo: AFP)

Intelligence experts are still debating whether the elimination of scientists indeed undermines Iran’s nuclear project. Operations against well guarded scientists at the heart of Tehran are highly sophisticated and require a long stay in the area in question, while risking human lives and intelligence sources cultivated for years. The argument pertains to the outcome: That is, will assassinations prompt scientists to make every effort to end their nuclear efforts?

The contractor: Al-Quds

The question remains open, yet what’s clear is that the Iranian regime is greatly bothered by the wave of assassinations, which portray it as vulnerable and weak. This prompts the conditioned reflex: Start assassinating senior Zionist figures, so we can also showcase photos of bodies and cries of pain on the other side. We can assume that Iran’s intelligence services have started to formulate a major operation that will leave an impression not only on the Iranian people and global media, but also on those behind the elimination of Iran’s scientists.

The natural contractor for such operations is the Revolutionary Guards’ al-Quds force, which comprises some 15,000 operatives. It boasts thousands of officers trained in diverse fields such as the formation of sleeper cells worldwide, smuggling operations, explosives, and so on.

The al-Quds force assumed greater importance in the eyes of Western spy agencies when it became a major player in securing Iran’s military nuclear project. The elite force has another role: It takes part in the effort to purchase nuke-related components in the West and transferring them to Iran. Hence, it won’t be a wild guess to assume that the US intelligence community, along with other spy agencies, invests regular efforts in monitoring the al-Quds force. This further limits Iran’s freedom to act.

Suspected Bangkok terrorist after explosion (Photo: Twitter – CC motorcyrubjang)

So was the latest attack thwarted in Bangkoksupposed to be that high-profile operation being prepared by Iranian intelligence officers for months to avenge the killing of Tehran’s nuclear scientists? Or was it yet another terror bid in the series of rash attacks – like the ones in Tbilisi and New Delhi earlier this week – carried out on urgent orders to al-Quds cells in order to achieve an immediate effect?

Iranian pride

The pressure on Iran grew when a fifth nuclear scientist was assassinated in December of 2011. At that point, Iran’s clerics lost their composure and pressed the al-Quds force’s operational units to carry out attacks. It was no coincidence that the urgent operations focused on states such as India, Thailand, Azerbaijan and Georgia, where al-Quds boasts local cells that regularly gather intelligence information on Israeli targets such as airlines, embassies, and the offices of large Israeli companies.

Indeed, such sites were marked first as initial targets for attack in the latest terror wave. The terrorists were not looking for a senior Israeli figure, but rather, they sought any kind of Israeli target. Thus far, all we saw was a random series of attacks: The Iranians fired in all directions and hoped to hit something. However, make no mistake about it – this was only the first course.

The rash operations we saw in recent days hide the real thing: That is, the major revenge-deterrence attack being prepared by the Iranians. For them, this is not only a matter of exacting a price from Israel for the killing of the scientists; rather, it is a matter of national pride and deterrent power in an era of sanctions and threats against Iran

Now that the initial terror attacks were carried out, the Iranians will examine the responses: Will anyone else except Israel point the finger at them? Who will condemn them? And what price will they pay? The Iranians will also monitor the actions of global spy agencies and try to identify the lesions drawn by the enemy from the recent incidents.

Iran’s intelligence forces are sophisticated, experienced and brutal. They will study the vulnerabilities and continue to plan the grand ambush. Should someone on our side fall asleep and rest on his laurels, he could wake up with a disaster that prompts the kind of trauma produced by the 1992 bombing of Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires.

Is Israel gearing up for an attack on Iran? – Telegraph.

Israel’s motivations for a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities are obvious; but could there be additional strategic factors at play, writes Julia Pettengill.

PRUDEN: The coming end to endless talk about Iran – Washington Times.

Crunch time is coming in Iran, but President Obama and his men act as if they’re at the senior prom, trying to dance the minuet without anyone to dance with.

The White House is trying desperately to rewrite Leon Panetta’s interview with David Ignatius of The Washington Post, where he was said to believe Israel is likely to bomb the Iranian nuclear-weapon works “in April, May or June,” before Israel enters a “zone of immunity.” This is girlie-man language for “before it’s too late.”

“Very soon,” the columnist wrote from his notes of the interview, “the Israelis fear the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and [then] only the United States could stop them militarily.”

This could sound like a warning to the Iranians to straighten up and do right unless they want a lesson in the perils of not getting along with your neighbors. But this was not a warning to Tehran, but to Jerusalem. President Obama and the secretary of defense have told Israel they oppose any bombing of Iran, risking a “zone of immunity” or not, because the sanctions are really working and they must not say upsetting things to Iran. And if sanctions ultimately don’t work, someone at the White House will write a strong letter to the editor urging everyone to be nice.

The Panetta interview, published Feb. 2, made a lot of people’s teeth itch in Washington, particularly after Mr. Panetta passed up several opportunities to confirm his remarks, deny them or at least say his remarks were taken out of context. The miniature tape recorder that every reporter and columnist carries with his pen and paper has made life difficult for politicians and diplomats. Telling a diplomatic whopper ain’t what it used to be.

But the White House was clearly unhappy, if not with Mr. Panetta, who may have thought he was warning Israel to back away and shut up, then with the reporters and columnists for taking the Panetta remarks as a warning to Iran.

This week, a fortnight after the Ignatius interview, Mr. Panetta got another opportunity to say what he makes of what his remarks wrought. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and was pressed by Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, a Republican, to tell the senators who said what to whom.

“I usually don’t comment on columnists’ ideas about what I’m thinking,” he replied with a chuckle. “It’s usually – it’s a dangerous game to get into.” Then he retreated into argle-bargle about how the “international community” should act as one to deter Iran from making nuclear war. (If Russia, China, Upper Volta, Lower Slobbovia and the peace-loving nations work together with the West, the world will be safe for bunnies, begonias and all living things.)

The senator persisted. Does Mr. Panetta believe there’s a strong likelihood Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June? Was he misquoted or “mischaracterized” by the columnist? “I think, as the president has suggested, I think, ah, we do not think that Israel has made that decision,” he replied. Did he actually have a conversation with Mr. Ignatius? “As I said, the comments that are included in a column about what I am thinking or what I’m, you know, possibly worried about …” But did he talk to Mr. Panetta? “We talked, but we talked about a lot of things, frankly.” Was the administration trying to send a signal, either to Iran or Israel? “No.” And does he have a view of whether it’s likely that Israel will attack Iran this spring? “No, I do not.”

If people are confused in Washington and Tehran, most people are not confused in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israelis don’t have the luxury of endless talk-talk. Winston Churchill famously said that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but that’s only if there’s a willing and working jaw on both sides. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu only yesterday said sanctions are not working, an unpopular view in certain salons, but one widely held in private by soft-talking girlie men.

In Israel there’s a melancholy view of reality, where life is every day proved unfair. “We shall almost certainly see a war here,” said Sever Plocker, a prominent Israeli pundit, writing in Jerusalem’s YNetNews with a heavy heart. “Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear military sites earlier than predicted, while enjoying Western and Arab assistance and backing. The sirens will wake us up early in the morning. The Home Front Command’s spokesman will instruct us to enter our sealed rooms without panicking. And the rest will be history.”

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

David Ignatius: Israel attack timetable stands – Tim Mak – POLITICO.com.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius said Friday that his recent much-publicized column in which he revealed that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes Israel is likely to attack Iranian nuclear facilities this spring still reflects the Israeli timeline.

“Well, that timetable exists, and I know nothing that’s changed,” Ignatius said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Ignatius sparked an international firestorm earlier this month when he wrote about Panetta’s views on Israel’s strategy.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” David Ignatius wrote from Brussels on Feb. 2, where Panetta was at the time attending a conference at NATO headquarters.

On Monday, Panetta admitted he had been the source of Ignatius’s information.

“I don’t usually comment on columnists’ ideas of what I’m thinking,” he said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, before relenting and admitting, “We talked … but we talked about a lot of things, frankly.”

After the column was first published, Panetta had declined to discuss where Ignatius had gotten the information.

Ignatius stressed on MSNBC Friday the less emphasized point of Panetta’s own view about a potential Israeli strike on Iran.

“Let me just say, Leon Panetta is somebody who clearly thinks that it would be a mistake from Israel’s standpoint and from the standpoint of the security interests of the United States for this [attack] to go forward, and he has said that very directly to Israelis,” said Ignatius. “My column certainly expressed that, and I think he feels that’s his job. He’s got to tell people what he thinks.”

‘Iran, Hezbollah trying to attack Jews a… JPost – International.

U.S. imposes sanctions on Iran’s intelligence ministry for terror ties.

Thursday, 16 February 2012

The United States hit Iran intelligence ministry with sanctions, claiming it had supported Syria’s crackdown on dissidents. (Illustration by Amarjit Sidhu)

inShare2

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Mikhail Fradkov

The Russian embassy school broke up in mid-term Tuesday, February 14 and the children were sent home – an unusual occurrence which Maria Zakharova, deputy spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, explained as having been prompted by concern for the diplomatic children’s safety amid Syria’s persistent tensions.
That day too, the families of Russian diplomats and other officials in Syria were packed off home.
This too was explained: The head of the Russian intelligence agency (the SVR), Mikhail Fradkov, stated that after the twin car bomb attacks in Aleppo Friday, Feb. 10, thousands of Russian citizens in the country faced the peril of terrorist attacks, including kidnappings. The spy chief warned that two hostile parties, the anti-Assad Syria Free Army (SFA) and Al Qaeda jihadists, might well take Russian hostages to extort from Moscow such concessions as the termination of its backing for President Bashar Assad and the evacuation of its naval, air and marine units from Tartus port.
Mme Zakharova maintained that the Russian embassy in Damascus and the Consulate General Aleppo were functioning as usual.
What she did not disclose was that to guard these institutions, Russian Special Forces (Spetznaz) units in civvies had been ferried into Syria aboard the flights which evacuated the Russian families.
Amid the flurry of Russian movements, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had this to say: “Ultimately, it’s going to be important to convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria,” she said. “No one (meaning the Russians) wants to see a civil war in Syria. So we have to encourage the Assad regime, and those who support it, to understand that there’s either a path toward peacemaking and democratic transition – which is what we are promoting – or there’s a path that leads toward chaos and violence, which we deplore.”
A Russian presence in Syria to keep the lid on the Caucasus
Clinton’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Moscow.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources report that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had run ahead of her and determined that Syria is already in the grip of civil war. To save the Assad regime and Russian interests in Syria and the Middle East at large, he had decided to elevate the Syrian conflict to a state of regional confrontation as the prelude to a superpower contest in the global arena.
To get the process moving in that direction, it was necessary to keep the Syrian army battling the rebel Syrian Free Army, backed on the quiet by Russian intelligence and Special Forces, a proactive role Moscow would abstain from publicly acknowledging.
From Red Square, this formula was seen as promising favorable results on three levels of Russian interest, domestic, Syrian and inter-power.
1. On the domestic front, the Kremlin believes that holding back from intervention in the Syrian crisis would have lowered its standing in the eyes of the Russian Caucasus and its restive minorities, who are keeping a close watch on Moscow’s handling of this affair.
Most directly concerned are the majority Circassian populations of the Autonomous Republics of Adyghea, Karachaevo-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria, many of whom have family ties with members of the Syrian Circassian minority (some 250,000 souls).
Until now, most members of this community were loyal to Assad, many serving in the Syrian Army. But as the uprising mutates into a full-blown sectarian war, they will be forced to make choices between the feuding sides, so stirring their own national sensitivities. Their nationalist awakening could spill over from Syria and raise the entire Caucasian up against the central government in Moscow.
Moscow feels compelled therefore to keep its hand on the lid of the Syrian stewpot by on-the-spot military and intelligence oversight
(An added irritant: The large Circassian diaspora is campaigning against the 2014 Winter Olympics taking place in Sochi, where one of the worst episodes of Tsar Alexander II’s genocide of the that people took place. They claim the Olympic Stadiums and village are being built on the mass graves of the murdered victims.)
Most of Syria’s military might unused against the uprising
2. On the Syria front, Bashar Assad has so far kept his heaviest hardware – conventional and unconventional – out of the fray. Infantry, armored and artillery units, special forces and security police are being used to cow the opposition, their tactics condemning anti-Assad elements to isolation, siege, indiscriminate bombardments of residential areas, mass murder and mass arrests.
But he has so far avoided engaging his entire 400,000-strong army or his air force, missile units and chemical and biological weapons assets in the offensive – possibly to avoid crossing the lines which drew NATO and Arab powers into the Libyan conflict, certainly not out of squeamishness. He is believed to have large stockpiles of chemical weapons including nerve agents and mustard gas with Scud missiles capable of delivering them as well as tens of thousands of portable anti-aircraft missiles.
Those assets remain in barracks, hangars, silos, storage depots and arsenals, readily available if he is driven into a corner. He has never rescinded the threat to burn Tel Aviv if Damascus falls. Both are unlikely prospects as things stand today. He has managed to overpower and destroy most of the centers of insurrection after eleven months of bloody assaults.
But while ahead of his foes, Assad has not completely crushed the revolt. Without deploying more military assets, he cannot interrupt the flow of weapons to the rebels from outside the country, nor realize closure with clear-cut winners and losers.
And so Assad will fight on until he finally eradicates the challenge to his rule.
That being so, Russian leaders are determined to maintain a presence in Syria and a role in the decisive battle yet to come. They also harp on their constructive influence on the Syrian ruler, claiming credit for persuading him to hold a referendum on the constitution on Feb. 26. DEBKA-Net-Weekly discloses Assad also promised Moscow to hold a general election in three months.
Moscow contests US “oil belt” and missile shield
3. On the global front, Moscow regards Syria as a hub of the inter-power contest for Middle East oil and influence, which also involves Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Bashar Assad’s survival is critical to Russia’s effort to stay in the game because his downfall and the rise of a pro-Western regime in Damascus would give the Americans a tremendous triumph.
Already, the US controls Libyan and Iraqi oil resources. With Assad out of the way, the Americans would consolidate their “oil belt” by gaining Iraqi oil direct access to a Mediterranean outlet.
Moscow is also deeply concerned by the strengthening of the US missile shield.
This concern was seriously aggravated Friday, Feb. 10, by the successful first joint US-Israel-Turkish test of the interoperability of the US Aegis, backbone of the US missile interception system in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and Israel’s Arrow 2 and Block 4 ballistic missile defense systems and, most importantly, their radars.
Two top line US AN/TPY-2 X-band stations are based on Mount Keren in the Israeli Negev opposite the Egyptian border and at the Turkish Air Force’s southeastern base in Kurecik. The two American radars worked in what was described as “perfect and exceptional coordination” with the new Israeli Arrow’s EL/M-2080 Super Green Pine radar.
It took Moscow four days to find an answer. Russian Air Force Commander Alexander Zelin announced on Feb. 14 that several new S-400 Triumf air defense systems were to be stationed around its borders before the end of the year. “This time they will be deployed in air defense units guarding [Russia’s] border regions,” he said.
Two S-400 regiments currently protect Moscow’s airspace. Zelin did not specify where the Triumf’s were to be deployed, but DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources say some will certainly be located in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, as part of the Russian response to the planned European missile shield initiative, which Moscow considers a threat to its national security.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Hillary Clinton and Ahmet Davutoglu

It was brought home to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in all the conferences leading up to NATO’s Libya operation that the rebels of Benghazi – even with the backing of NATO powers, Qatar and Jordan – would never be able to oust Muammar Qaddafi and defeat his “security brigades” without US military support.
And indeed US military leadership finally tipped the scales in that conflict.
That scenario does not fit Syria.
When Clinton attends the first “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunis Friday, Feb. 24, she will be quite clear that military intervention is not the cure for Syria’s agony, whether to remove President Bashar Assad or to bring stability to his bitterly divided country.
Having spent last weekend and the first half of this week working with visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on setting up the conference, and keeping up with intelligence updates from Syria, she will be fully apprised that the Libyan scenario cannot be mirrored in Syria.
It was also realized that simply taking Bashar Assad out by such surgical measures as assassination or a coup d’etat will not puncture the balloon of Assad family and Alawite rule in the same way as Qaddafi’s removal turned the tide in Tripoli. On the contrary, his abrupt disappearance would only exacerbate the bloody conflict tearing Syria apart for nearly a year.
At this stage, therefore, Clinton and Duvotuglo ruled out US military intervention.
Arab bloc distanced from US policy-making on Syria

There is another fundamental difference between the Libyan and Syrian revolts.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Washington and Middle East sources note that, whereas for the Libyan operation last year, the Obama administration worked closely with Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar, for Syria, Washington has placed all its eggs in the Turkish basket – even though Ankara is working against Arab policy.
While keeping the Turkish foreign minister close to US policy-making on Syria this past week, the US Secretary of State deliberately kept the Arab bloc at arm’s length, even though the Arab League foreign ministers held a crisis meeting on the same issue in Cairo Sunday, Feb. 12.
The Arab ministers let it be understood that if Assad fails to put the brakes on his brutal attacks on civilians, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will seriously consider arming his opponents. This license was implicit in Article 9 of the resolution the ministers approved, which urged members “to provide all kinds of political and material support” to the opposition. Arab and Western diplomats present confirmed that this article sanctioned the arming of Assad’s foes.
The ministers also allowed Arab League members “all options” for protecting the Syrian people, a diplomatic euphemism for military intervention.
The Arab leaders, especially Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, firmly hold that nothing but outside military intervention will reverse the evil tide in Syria. They therefore took a further step to solidify their consensus on the arming of rebels by an Arab League application to the United Nations to create some sort of joint UN-Arab mission for pacifying Syria.
Washington opposes Arab-UN force, Moscow shows interest

But they fell out on what to call the force – monitors or peacekeepers – after the Arab League’s own observers mission failed so abjectly to rein in the Syrian bloodbath. The Arab ministers ended up recommending just “a force,” without qualifiers.
Even so, the Americans jumped over what they saw as a door opening to admit Russian and Chinese contingents into Syria as part of this international force. The last thing Washington wants to see is the two powers which vetoed the UN Security Council resolution against Assad taking up position in Syria with UN approval and privileged status in Damascus.
Once in, they tend to stay indefinitely. Few people remember that the United Nations peacekeeping force posted in Lebanon since after the 2006 war – and still there – includes 200 Russian engineers for building roads and bridges and another 200 Chinese as medics and mine-clearing experts.
Not surprisingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov showed interest in the Arab League proposal and asked for more details. Moscow saw its chance to win not only a presence in Syria under UN auspices, but clout for dictating the force’s shape, functions and terms of reference.
Secretary Clinton and Davutoglu lost no time in shooting down Lavrov’s remarks to this effect Monday, Feb. 13.
Their joint statement endorsed a political solution for Syria but predicated the deployment of international troops there on Damascus government’s consent.
This was a warning to the Arabs and Moscow that Washington would not think twice about slapping down its veto on any Security Council resolution for importing to Syria an international observer or any other force with a Russian or Chinese component.
So why is Obama cultivating Turkey?

Indeed, the Obama administration might even relish an opportunity to take its revenge for Moscow’s veto of the Western-Arab resolution on Friday, February 3. But most conspicuously, the US administration has shown itself to be totally unmoved by Arab concerns about Assad’s treatment of his citizens and not averse even to a falling-out with Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states – if only to keep Russian boots out of Syria.
To this end, the Americans are flaunting their pact with Turkey in the angry faces of Gulf rulers.
The Obama administration’s close bond with Turkey has most Middle East capitals, including Jerusalem, deeply puzzled, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s US sources report.
The “zero problems with neighbors” policy that Davutoglu produced for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in 2007 has hardly been a raving success among those neighbors. In Syria and Libya, Turkish efforts to mediate conflicts ran aground. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates maintain correct relations with Turkey but keep a safe distance from its many diplomatic initiatives.
Erdogan himself is seriously ill, suffering from recto-sigmoid cancer (as debkafile first revealed exclusively on Dec. 18, 2011.) On Nov. 26, 2011, he underwent surgery and Friday, Feb. 10, he had a second operation on his digestive system. The fact of the surgical procedure was officially disclosed without word on the stage of his illness.
Although foreign minister is the moving spirit behind the prime minister’s neo-Ottoman political orientation and proactive diplomacy, he is no favorite among Ankara’s political elite. It is not clear where Erdogan’s departure from the Middle East political stage would leave him or the policies he has initiated.
So why is the Obama administration committing itself so completely to its partnership with Ankara in dealing with the intractable Syrian crisis? Why is non-Arab Turkey the blue-eyed boy in Washington and not the Gulf Arabs?
These questions are being asked in many Middle East capitals. Some also offer an answer: President Obama trusts Ankara to provide him with a diplomatic back door to Tehran.