WarSclerotic

Would Arabs do that for the Syrian people?.

Al Arabiya

The stance of Arabs on the brutality of the Syrian regime, which has been mercilessly escalating, is at its worst and in its most helpless forms. Hesitance and inaction are the best words that describe the position of Arabs, represented by the Arab League and its secretary general, towards the Syrian crisis no matter how high the number of the dead is becoming and how far the smell of death is reeking.

The Syrian regime that was condemned by the whole world was not met with the necessary deterrent measures on the part of Arabs nor was it duly isolated in the region.

Why don’t all the Arab countries summon back their ambassadors in Damascus like Saudi Arabia did? Why don’t the Arab countries ask Syrian diplomats to leave their territories?

Why don’t they immediately start ostracizing this unwanted regime, stop the observers’ committee farce, freeze Syrian accounts and memberships in Arab and Islamic organizations?

The only remaining solution to alleviate the tragedy awaiting Syria is political and economic isolation of its regime. Political isolation through calling back diplomats and expelling all representatives of the Syrian regime from Arab countries is a step that will be emulated by Western and other foreign countries. No one will remain except the ambassadors of Russia and Iran.

Let us always remember how the withdrawal of ambassadors and diplomatic missions contributed to the fall of Qaddafi’s regime in Libya.

But Bashar al-Assad’s regime is one based on hate and vengeance and what is mostly delaying such steps at isolating it is extreme fear for the safety families and compatriots inside the Syrian territories. It is a regime that is willing to ruthlessly retaliate against an entire village or neighborhood or family no matter how big.

Geographical isolation is very important for the protection of civilians. I pointed out in a previous article the emergence of new reality manifested in the presence of liberated areas in area, a condition that materialized within only two weeks. With the support of the Free Syrian Army, dissidents will increase and the regime’s power will start diminishing and this will speed up its demise.

Yet geographical isolation of the Syrian regime and securing areas that were liberated by the revolutionaries require regional and international intervention and this, unfortunately, is not expected to happen soon. True areas like Daraa in the south, Idlib in the north, and Deir al-Zor are isolated from the regime, but they need international protection and a no-fly zone.

Even Russia that is now supporting the Syrian regime will eventually abandon it after striking the deals it is seeking at the expense of the Syrian people. Then it will not be able to do anything to help Assad’s regime and will only keep issuing its traditional statements.

Let us remember that the most Yeltsin could do after NATO started its strikes against Serbia, which it supported and to which it is racially linked, was to say, “They made a big mistake.” That was it and the NATO strikes went on as planned.

(The writer is head of media at Al Arabiya. This article was first published in al-Jazirah on February 5, 2012 and translated from Arabic by Sonia Farid)

Failing to hunt Assad in NY.

Al Arabiya

It is an illusion to believe that the Security Council, in its current state, could give legitimacy to ousting the Syrian regime. It is yet another illusion to think that the Arab League decision, even before it was vetoed by Russia and China at the Security Council, would have changed politics in Syria.

The key solution is not in New York, but in two locations; namely Cairo and Damascus. The Arab League could punish the Syrian regime, for the mass killings clearly committed against its civilians, by ousting it from the Arab organization and granting the Syrian opposition the right to represent the country. The Arab League, and not the Security Council, is the one that can grant legitimacy to the opposition, then other organizations will follow. That’s how the Arab League did in reaction to the crimes committed by the Qaddafi troops while quelling the rebellious Libyan cities.

It is not true that the League’s decision to the Security Council, as some legal experts think, would permit to haunt the Syrian bear; on the contrary, it placed them in a dilemma as failing in New York gave Assad legitimacy to stay. Furthermore, it extended extra weeks and months to the brutal regime for more killings and destruction.

The failed decision was based on Arab League plan, already full of faults. It proposed for a joint government by the regime and opposition, but it did not name which opposition that will take part. Accordingly, this ambiguity will drag the argument for months. Syria and its allies, Iran and Russia have identified — by name — which opposition group would they recognize, including some of their loyalists. Secondly, the plan didn’t either explain responsibilities. For example who will run the sovereign ministries: Defense, Interior, Foreign and Finance; and moreover, who will be in charge of the Intelligence agencies, and there are so many of them?

Even the celebrated text of the Arab decision was written in a way contradicting with the statements of the Arab ministers. They claimed that President Assad should relinquish his powers to the Vice President and, accordingly, he would lose the authority, right? Wrong.. The written text has talks about limited authority…“the President should authorize his first vice president, with complete liabilities, to fully cooperate with the national unity government to be able to carry out its duties during the transitional period.” This means that Bashar would authorize his deputy to cooperate with a joint government with the opposition. Thus it is an authorization to cooperate not to rule the country. The original text was watered down to the point that it became toothless.

The post of the President in Syria is different than the limited responsibilities of the prime minister. The former is responsible for managing security and military apparatus while the government runs service ministries such as Health, Agriculture, Transportation….etc.

Why is the Arab League behaving badly? I believe the League is bullied by supporters of the Syrian regime; namely governments like Algeria, Sudan and Iraq. And it fears criticism due to the false campaign against any kind of international intervention, even the one that has saved the Libyan people.

The Arab League should oust Assad’s regime as a member state, as a first step, and should clearly support the Syrian people in their right to defend themselves. Those two steps are enough to change the situation on the ground, and convince the international community to follow the path of the Arab League. Afterwards, Arab governments and organizations will find the means to confront the atrocities of the Syrian regime. Most of Arab governments still have their embassies operating in Damascus, and all the representatives of Bashar are still working normally at their nineteen embassies in the Arab countries. So how could the Security Council be keener to halt the Assad massacres?

(The writer is the General Manager of Al Arabiya. The article was published in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat on Feb. 5, 2012, and was translated by Abeer Tayel.)

Syria at the crossroads between settlement and division.

Al Arabiya

As Russia and China vetoed in the Security Council on an Arab-Western resolution that forces Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand power to his vice president as Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh did, many wondered why Moscow and Beijing are adamant on supporting the Assad regime.

Russian interests:

There are several reasons that make Russia give full support to the current Syrian regime. The relationship between the two countries goes back to more than four decades at the time of the former Soviet Union. The Tartus naval base is the only one Russia has outside its territories and constitutes its sole access point to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria pays billions of dollars to purchase Russian arms and the last Yak-130 warplanes deal amounted to 550 million U.S. dollars.

Russia has not yet been able to get over the Libyan trauma and is not willing to reenact the same scenario in Syria. Russia has realized that by abstention from voting for Resolution 1973 on Libya, the United States and its allies were able to pass an agreement that was initially meant to protect civilians then turned into a plot to topple Qaddafi, a strategic ally of Moscow and one of its most prominent arms importers.

Moreover, the United States, France, and Britain gained easy access to the Libyan territories while the Libyan interim council showed no keenness to maintain relations with Russia. Russia is worried that the same might happen in Syria especially if Islamists come to power and the impact this is bound to have on the oil and gas rich Caucasus populated by a Muslim majority and especially in the light of the growing Turkish influence in the region.

China’s concerns over Islamists:

China’s support of the Syrian regime is closely linked to its relations with Iran, an ally of Syria, and which exports to the People’s Republic one quarter of the oil it imports from the region. In addition, Beijing lost a lot of investments in Tripoli following the fall of the Qaddafi regime and more than 20,000 Chinese workers were deported from Libya.

Complexities of the Syrian crisis:

A lot of talk is now going on about possible scenarios for resolving the Syrian crisis and many believe that the Assad regime’s fall would be a reenactment of what happened in Libya, Egypt, or Tunisia. Comparing Syria with these countries is not possible for many reasons. On the international level, there is a Russian-American conflict over this region. On the regional level, there is an Iranian-Gulf conflict in addition to Turkey’s hopes in reviving the Ottoman Empire after losing home in EU membership. On the domestic level, it is not possible to compare Syria with Libya or Egypt. The Syrian society is pluralist in a way that makes it quite similar to Lebanon and Iraq even though the majority of its population is Muslim Sunni.

The possible settlement:

Despite the blood bath in which Syria has been drenched for more than 10 months, there is still a possibility of reaching a settlement similar to the Taef Agreement on Lebanon and which was signed in and under the auspices of Saudi Arabia with the approval of Syria and the United States. The agreement resulted in constitutional amendments that transferred some of the powers to which the Maronite president is entitled to the Cabinet, which is headed by a Sunni, and in dividing administrative positions in the public sector equally between Muslims and Christians. The same could be done in Syria through reducing the powers of the Alawite president while increasing those of the cabinet, headed by a Sunni, and an agreement can be reached about the distribution of official positions fairly amongst different echelons of society.

The repercussions of the failure of the agreement:

In case the agreement fails to reach a political settlement, civil war will be the only alternative. Sunnis will gain more power in their areas and Alawites and their allies from the Baath Party will also retreat to theirs. Other minorities, like Christians, Druze, Kurds, and Ismailis, will start isolating themselves. Meanwhile, deportations among cities with mixed population will take place like what is happening now in the neighborhoods of Homs.

What is worrisome is that the civil war in Syria might extend to neighboring countries, especially Iraq and Lebanon, in the light of the tension in the region and the Arab Spring revolutions. This could lead to the creation of several federalist systems within the same state or maybe even statelets. The presence of sectarian entities in the entities will make it easier for Israel to confirm itself as a Jewish state like its leaders want and in the light of the emerging ethnic and sectarian entities in the region, this would be done without any awkwardness on the part of Israeli officials.

(The writer is a producer with Al Arabiya. This article was translated from Arabic by Sonia Farid)

Russia criticizes ‘hysteria’ over Syria veto; defectors form higher military council.

Monday, 06 February 2012

The Associated Press: US levies new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a fresh swipe at Iran, President Barack Obama has ordered new sanctions on the Islamic republic, including its Central Bank, moving to enforce a law he signed in December.

In a letter to Congress Monday, Obama said more sanctions are warranted “particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks.” He said the problems included the hiding transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies of Iran’s anti-money laundering regime and the unacceptably high risk posed to the entire international financial system posed by Iran’s activities.

The Central Bank sanctions were included as an amendment in the wide-ranging defense bill Obama signed into law at the end of 2011. The White House said Obama signed the executive order approving the sanctions on Sunday.

The new measures come as the White House tries to both ratchet up pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program and dissuade Israel from launching a unilateral strike on Iran, a move that could roil the Middle East and jolt the global economy.

Obama said Sunday that he does not believe Israel has yet decided whether to attack Iran. The president said he still believes a diplomatic solution is possible.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuit is for peaceful purposes, but the West accuses Iran of developing the know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy.

In Washington, the Senate Banking Committee easily approved yet more penalties on Tehran last week. The sweeping measure, which is not yet law, would target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, require companies that trade on the U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any Iran-related business to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expand penalties for energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Tehran.

Saudi Arabia calls for ‘critical measures’ against the Syrian regime.

Monday, 06 February 2012

Saudi Arabia has appealed to the international community to continue exerting efforts to find a solution to the crisis in Syria. (Reuters)

inShare2

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-Iran: The Syrian Highway in the Fight Against Israel Is Still Open.

Michael Segall

• The wave of protest in Syria has put to the test the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime. Syria is the main state component of the “resistance camp” and serves as a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran sees its unequivocal backing for Syria as a demonstration of its ability to stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.
• Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. This would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.
• Ali Akbar Velayati, Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, speaks of the resistance camp as incorporating “the new Iraqi government.” If Bashar falls, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory.
• The fall of the Assad regime would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in view of the electoral victories of the Islamic forces in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.
• For as long as it lasts, the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines.

Iran Backs Its Syrian Ally

Since the wave of protest in Syria began as part of the Middle Eastern upheavals – with the Middle East being recast in the Islamic mold – the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime has been put to its ultimate test. Both the international community and the Arab-regional system (and Turkey) are trying to impose a change that entails Bashar’s ouster and the fostering of a democratic political process in Syria, with Iran (and Hizbullah) standing alone in backing Syria. At the same time, China and Russia are counter-balancing Western and Arab efforts to oust Bashar, impeding a tough resolution in the UN Security Council.

Syria was a critical bulwark of the old Middle Eastern regional order that Iran had cultivated with immense financial, political, and military investments. It is the main state component of the “resistance camp” that Iran counterposes to the “imperialist” presence in the region, and was also a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah and to a lesser extent for the other nonstate terrorist members of the resistance camp – particularly the Palestinian terror organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

The Arab Spring, or, as Iran calls it, the “Islamic awakening,” found Iran almost at the height of the resistance camp’s consolidation and power. Hizbullah had completed its takeover of the Lebanese arena, Hamas was entrenching its rule in Gaza, and the peace process with regard to Israel, in its Syrian and Palestinian channels, had stopped. Iran, for its part, was continuing to progress in its nuclear program and to project regional power as the United States talked of completing its withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, Iran had successfully defied the United States and the West, which it saw as “at a nadir of military and economic weakness.”

Now, as Bashar’s regime faces an ongoing storm of protest and he refuses to give up his rule despite both internal and external pressures, his ally Iran is backing him with all its might. It is doing so despite and perhaps because of the regional conditions that are fostering a different Middle East. Seemingly, Iran will have to pay a price for defying the Arab Spring and sustaining its unstinting support for Bashar. Iran, however, sees its unequivocal backing for its ally Bashar – as contrasted to U.S. president Barack Obama’s sudden abandonment of long-time U.S. ally Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – as a manifestation of its power and its ability to withstand the revolution and stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.

Iran wants to proceed carefully, without betraying the basic elements of its policy and losing its main cards in the region so far – Syria, Hizbullah, and the Palestinian organizations. Tehran is well aware that Bashar Assad may eventually be toppled, but for now keeps giving him its full support including security and military,¹ economic, and diplomatic assistance² (including coordinating positions toward Russia and China). Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” – as already evident from the Egyptian and Tunisian elections that saw the triumph of the Islamist movements, with which Iran maintained a dialogue during and despite the rule of the “dictators” – will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. As Iran sees it, this Islamic ambience, which is fundamentally hostile toward Israel and the United States, would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.

For now, Iran prefers to hold the rope at both ends: to keep supporting the Syrian regime and helping it to survive – including through Hizbullah – to repress the protest, and to portray the United States, Israel, and the moderate Arab states and bodies – those whose leaders still stand, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and the Arab League – as lurking behind the efforts to overthrow Bashar for having led the Middle East’s anti-Israeli, anti-Western resistance camp for years. Iran is pursuing this course even though it knows that, if Bashar falls, it stands to pay a heavy political and military price in terms of its future relations with the new regime and its ability to assist Hizbullah via the Syrian-Turkish conduit. The commander of the Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guards said recently in this regard that “the war in Syria is not a sickness that will destroy the regime,” since most of its citizens continue to support Bashar.³

Indeed, Iran’s loyalty to Syria has already cost it dearly in the form of rising tensions with Islamist Turkey. Here, too, Iran has criticized Turkey for siding with the West instead of Syria, and as relations have worsened, some in Iran have even characterized Islam in Turkey as “Western Islam” – an appellation formerly reserved in Iran for the moderate Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Syria: “The Gold-Plated Link in the Chain of Anti-Israeli Resistance”

Iran’s present position regarding the “plots” unfolding in Syria, along with Syria’s role in Iran’s overall regional policy, was formulated quite precisely by Ali Akbar Velayati. He is Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s special assistant for international affairs, currently coordinating for him the strategy toward the Islamic awakening in his role as secretary-general of the World Assembly of the Islamic Awakening. Velayati praised Syria’s staunch resilience “in the face of the plots and collusions of different states aimed at weakening Syria’s firm stance as the main arm of the resistance front against the Zionist regime.” Velayati also linked together all the members of this camp when he said that “the chain of resistance against Israel, whose main links are Iran and Syria, Hizbullah, the new government in Iraq, and Hamas runs along the Syrian highway.” He also referred to Syria as “the gold-plated link in this chain.”⁴

On another occasion, perhaps manifesting wishful thinking, Velayati insisted that the Syrian uprising had passed its worst and the Assad government would not collapse thanks to the government’s “strong roots” in Syrian society.

He added that Burhan Ghalioun, head of the opposition Syrian National Council, had no social base in Syria and accused him of being an “agent” of the West and Israel.⁵

Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, averred that “Fortunately, Syria is strongly moving towards stability and a full failure of the enemies’ plots grows more and more obvious each day.”⁶ Several times Iran has denied reports that it has held contacts with opposition elements.⁷

Velayati’s assertions echo repeated claims by various spokesmen and commentators that the “Syrian case” is different and not part of the Arab Spring. They also charge that the United States, Israel, some of the Arab states, the West, and Turkey (!) seek to exploit the atmosphere of the Arab Spring so as to be rid of Bashar’s regime, which they see as a thorn in their side given his strong posture – which they liken to Iran’s – against the West and his role as a key member of the resistance front against Israel and its efforts to gain legitimacy.

Is Syria a Red Line for Iran?

Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and former IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) commander, said in an interview to Hizbullah’s Al-Manar network that Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas constitute a red line for Iran, which “will not allow any problem to be created for them since they form the Islamic world’s front line [of defense] against Israel.”⁸

The conservative newspaper Kayhan, which reflects Khamenei’s positions, claimed the United States fears that the resistance camp will only gain power once the Syrian crisis ends and hence is working to topple the Syrian regime. The writer of the article opines that what is happening in Syria has no connection at all to the Arab Spring, which only provides a pretext for overthrowing Bashar and weakening the resistance camp. In his view, U.S. activity in Syria is aimed at offsetting the great damage that the Islamic awakening has inflicted on U.S. policy in the region, including the loss of its power base and popularity.⁹ Former Iranian ambassador to Syria Ahmad Mousavi said similarly that the West’s hostility toward Syria stems from Syria’s ongoing support for the resistance against Western peace plans aimed at bestowing legitimacy on Israel. Mousavi added that President Assad is the only Arab leader who has not been charged with either moral or economic corruption. He also expressed support for Bashar’s reforms in Syria.¹⁰

The hard-line newspaper Jomhouri Eslami, too, denies any Arab Spring context for the events in Syria and depicts them as an attempt by the West, led by the United States, to uproot a main pillar of the resistance camp. The paper describes the failure of the American attempt to influence the revolutions in the region, points to the rise of the Islamist regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and asserts that Iran and Hizbullah’s close ties with the Assad government are an important factor in its stability and have neutralized the plot by the king of Jordan and the Turkish government to topple him.

It is totally clear that the aim of the United States and its allies in ousting Assad’s regime is to destroy the resistance front against the Zionist regime. Neutralizing this plot requires strengthening the Syrian regime. This can be done through two channels: external support from Syria’s friends who share a common denominator in the struggle against Zionism and the United States, and internal reforms that the Syrian regime itself must carry out, and without which there will be no benefit from the external support….Even though the Syrian regime has overcome the plots, it needs to take some sort of measures to achieve full stability and not provide a pretext to the opponents. In truth, the rulers of Syria, more than in the past, must go in the direction of reforms….Reform must start with the Baath Party, continue with the uprooting of administrative corruption, and move on to solving the problems of the public’s welfare and ensuring freedom.¹¹

Ali Larijani, chairman of the Majlis, called on all the Islamic countries not to exploit the crisis in Syria and play into the hands of countries outside the region, or cooperate with their plot against Syria. “We expect Islamic countries not to allow those who hold a grudge against Syria for its resistance against the Zionist regime to take advantage of the situation.”¹² Majlis member Mohammad Karim Abadi said that Iran “strongly condemn[s] the plots against the Syrian nation that is on the frontline of resistance (against Zionists)….We ask Muslim nations in the region, especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to support the people of Syria who were in the forefront of Zionists’ aggression and their lands are still under the occupation of aliens.”¹³ The editor of Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, also criticized Qatar, calling it “the undeclared, and sometimes declared, base for the United States in the region. Qatar’s open ties with the Zionist regime and its open participation in the plots of Saudi Arabia and Turkey to exert pressure on Syria and remove it from the resistance axis, are only some examples of the treachery of the mercenary Qatar government.”¹⁴

Iran also exploited the recent suicide bombings in Damascus to slam the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and claim they were responsible. After one of the bombings, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said “the nation and the government in Syria will succeed to foil the Zionist-American axis that seeks to ignite civil war and separatism in the region.”¹⁵ The director of the board of the state-run Iranian satellite channel Al-Alam (which targets an Arabic-speaking audience) claimed that “the attack points to the terrorist nature of the armed group and to the activity of a few groups that work hand in hand with their allies.” He hinted that the attack was carried out after the intelligence agencies of Turkey, France, the United States, and several Arab states held parleys on sowing chaos and instability in Syria.¹⁶ The semi-official Fars news agency was more blunt. It claimed in a recent news dispatch from Syria that al-Qaeda and Salafi terrorists have infiltrated into Syria in recent months and were involved in terrorist attacks, the latest of which was a suicide attack that killed 25 people. The report maintained that, in addition to the support provided by Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks in Syria, Saudi clergymen and Friday prayers leaders in the kingdom have also called the protests and moves against the Syrian government as halal (religiously legitimate) and have persuaded people to conduct them.¹⁷

Iran and Turkey in Conflict: “Real Islam” vs. “Secular Islam”

Iran’s firm support for Syria, almost unquestioned within Iran, together with its opposition to Turkey’s strong stance against the violent repression in Syria, has quickly put the two states at loggerheads. And this comes shortly after a “golden age” of improving relations within the Syrian-Turkish-Iranian triangle, which had emerged briefly as a new regional axis before the Syrian crisis erupted. This tension between the two non-Arab states, each of which for its own reasons not only seeks to mold the new regional order but to stand at its helm, has brought their intense rivalry and political-religious divergence to the fore.

When it came to fine-tuning Iran’s policy toward Turkey, it was Velayati who detailed the extremely delicate Islamic issues between the two states. He criticized Turkey’s governmental system as “secular Islam,” a mere variant of Western liberal democracy, and an inappropriate model for countries now experiencing the Islamic awakening.¹⁸

Hassan Rowhani, one of Khamenei’s two representatives on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and head of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council, similarly claimed that, while the West wanted Turkey – not Iran – to be a model for the popular revolutions in the region, Turkey maintained close ties with Israel and its anti-Israeli policy was merely symbolic. Rowhani also asserted that the Second Lebanon War and Israel’s 2009 Gaza operation had provided the main impetus for the Islamic trend in the region; and that by supporting the Syrian opposition, “Turkey has crossed the boundaries that are permitted it.”¹⁹

Also joining the criticism were senior officials in the Iranian religious establishment. For example, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi advised Turkey not to stoke the Syrian crisis. He claimed the unrest there “is a conspiracy devised by the United States, Israel, and one of the Arab countries, and Turkey is feeding the flames of the crisis….Turkish officials took an anti-Zionist line for a while to gain popularity, but this popularity will turn into disrepute. Why do they not understand?”²⁰

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, called on Turkey to modify its policy toward Syria and recognize reality if it wants to pursue a policy congruent with Iran’s. The policy Turkey has adopted, he asserted, does not contribute to regional stability.²¹ Former Iranian foreign minister Manuchehr Mottaki, who was deposed a few months ago by President Ahmadinejad, also criticized Turkey’s position toward the Syrian crisis and called for a reconsideration. He also urged Syria to focus on reforms and denied any possibility of Iran intervening there.²²

The escalating tension between Iran and Turkey not only concerns the Syrian situation. It also stems from Ankara’s decision to station components of NATO’s antimissile defense system on its soil. The vice-chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee did not rule out the possibility that Iran, if attacked, would strike targets in Turkish territory, while IRGC aerospace commander Brig.-Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh stated:

We have prepared ourselves. If any threat is staged against Iran, we will target NATO’s missile shield in Turkey and will then attack other targets….We are sure that the missile system is deployed by the U.S. for the sake of the Zionist regime, but to deceive the world’s people, especially the Turkish people, they allege that the system belongs to NATO….Turkey is a member and cover for NATO. Today NATO has become a cover for the U.S. [moves] while the U.S. itself has turned into a cover for the Zionist regime….Yet the Turkish people are aware and we are sure that Turkey’s Muslims will stop this plot by themselves….We are sure that the Muslim people of Turkey will promptly cut these systems into pieces under threatening conditions.²³

Turkey, for its part, has not remained docile. With tensions between the two countries mounting, Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu during a recent visit to Tehran criticized Iran and urged his counterpart, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, to give the Syrian regime “good advice” on its responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria and the need to put a stop to it.²⁴

Whereas the Iranian Foreign Ministry is trying to calm the winds with Turkey and prevent further escalation, Khamenei’s bureau and elements connected to it are in fact pushing for a more aggressive policy toward Ankara. Salehi, for his part, trying to tamp down the tensions, said the two states had a good relationship and called on the Turkish media – which gave much play to Iranian statements that did not rule out an Iranian attack on Turkish soil – to distinguish between official spokesmen and those speaking only for themselves. He also said that policy decisions, at any rate, are taken by the supreme leader, the president, and the foreign minister.²⁵ It appears, however, that in the Turkish case in particular, and regarding the overall Iranian policy toward the regional changes in general with an emphasis on the Islamic awakening, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is not playing a significant role in leading the aggressive and defiant Iranian policy.

Saadollah Zarei is an international-affairs expert who also writes editorials for Kayhan. In an article in the conservative newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz on the crisis in Syria, he divided the Middle Eastern states into two blocs – the “resistance front” and the “conciliation front” – and suggested the cost-benefit tally for each of these:

The countries of the resistance front were always subject to criticism by the West as well as harsh criticism from the Arab states in the region. Now, when the international system has joined ranks to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime and is also threatening war against Iran, the Arab states that are members of the Arab League have convened and decided to suspend Syria’s membership²⁶ [a decision that Iran criticized] and also to impose sanctions on it [in an attempt to promote the designs of the West]. The events of recent years [the victories of Iran’s allies Hizbullah and Hamas in the anti-Israeli struggle], Iran’s progress in the nuclear field, the U.S. forces’ withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic situation in the United States, and the power struggles surrounding the presidential elections there are stymieing U.S. efforts to control and manage the region, and given these conditions of an administrative vacuum along with the turmoil in the Arab countries, Iran is the big winner. In parallel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are trying to thwart these developments [the strengthening of Iran and its allies] by isolating Syria, a strategic ally of Iran in the region and the bridge to Hizbullah and Hamas. Another actor that is trying to isolate Syria, with the aim of preventing Iran from taking the reins, is Turkey. Turkey knows that presently there is not a single Arab state in the region that can prevent it from becoming a superpower, which only Iran can do, and therefore it has joined the Arab states in trying to prevent the deepening of Iran’s penetration.

Zarei also asserts that Iran unquestionably and assertively backs Syria against the Western and Arab states.²⁷

Where to Go from Here?: A New Approach for the Resistance Camp

All in all, the crisis in Syria poses one of Iran’s most difficult challenges in recent years in the field of foreign policy and exporting the revolution. It is occurring at a time when international pressure on Iran is mounting and sanctions on its oil exports and central bank (CBI) appear more imminent than ever. Yet, even under the growing burden of sanctions, Iran is not abandoning its longtime ally and in recent weeks has been unequivocally supporting Syria and providing Bashar with military and security assistance to curb the protests.

Even though Iran, when referring to the crisis in Syria, often stresses the firm stance of the resistance camp and the price Syria is paying for being a main pillar of it, Iran is already preparing for the possibility – despite almost never publicly admitting it – that Bashar will eventually fall. Especially important here is the statement by Khamenei’s international-affairs adviser on incorporating the “new Iraqi government” in the resistance camp along with the growing contacts between Iran and that government, which began as soon as the United States had completed its withdrawal – a move whose strange timing plays into Iran’s hands. If Bashar falls, then, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory. In recent months Iran has – similar to its activity in Lebanon – been investing substantial resources in Iraq. This goes beyond the subversion it waged there throughout the U.S. presence and the assistance it provided, sometimes in coordination with and through Lebanese Hizbullah, to the radical Shiite elements there.

Furthermore, the possible loss of Syria will push Iran to deal more forcefully with its “backyard” – the Persian Gulf – and to settle accounts with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; Iran has not yet said its last word about the Shiite revolt in Bahrain and the Shiites’ struggle in eastern Saudi Arabia. Iran’s recent show of strength in the gulf in the form of a wide-scale naval and army exercise, to be complemented by a Revolutionary Guards exercise to be held in the coming weeks, along with escalatory rhetoric about possibly closing off the Strait of Hormuz in case of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and central bank, indicates that Iran aims to tighten its grip and further entrench its status in the region.

An Abundance of Fault Lines

For as long as it lasts the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines. Parallel to the metahistorical processes is the ongoing weakening of the United States in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic regimes that, albeit mostly Sunni, are much closer to Iran than to America. From Tehran’s standpoint, the real challenge is Turkey, as illustrated by the crisis with Syria. Turkey sees what is happening in Syria – its backyard – as part of the Arab Spring and calls on the president to respond to the will of the people, while Iran keeps backing Bashar and claims the Arab Spring is just a pretext to get rid of him. Both of these states have a superpower-imperialist past they would like to bring back, and will continue their dispute as the Middle Eastern tumult intensifies and even when the dust of the “Arab revolutions” settles. Both, with their apparent Islamic agenda, are competing for the same public, but still a wide gap yawns between them.

Iran appears to be at an advanced stage of reshaping what it calls the resistance camp. The fall of one of its mainstays, the Assad regime, would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in the region. In its view, the electoral victories of the Islamic forces (even if Sunni) and the possibility of communicating with them without fear of governmental repression – particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, while in eastern Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is still under tight control – opens for Tehran a new range of ideology-driven opportunities. As in the past, the common denominator around which it seeks to unite all members of the camp is hatred of the West and Israel. Here, Iran’s rhetoric about the Syrian crisis, which it portrays as an attempt to harm a central Arab actor that has operated against Israel and has paid and is paying a price for its actions, plays a salient role.

Iran will try to consolidate the resistance camp in accordance with the changing geostrategic conditions of the region. In the first stage, it will work to widen the camp’s ideological reach to include both a religious basis of Islam and an ideological-political basis of hatred of Israel and the United States. As for the practical aspects of the struggle against Israel, Iran will continue to leave them in the hands of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, attempting to broaden the scope of military-terrorist conflict with Israel in the future. Meanwhile, Iran is assigning an important role to its nuclear program and to formulating an appropriate deterrence concept that will be combined with its current “resistance camp” doctrine.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Michael Segall, “How Iran Is Helping Assad Suppress Syria’s ‘Arab Spring,'” Jerusalem Issue Brief, July 20, 2011, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=7945&TTL=How_Iran_Is_Helping_Assad_Suppress_Syria’s_”Arab_Spring”

2. http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/93333

3. http://www.nehzatejahani.com/1390/10/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%C2%AB%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%C2%BB-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D9%87/

4. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1496800

5. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

6. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277071

7. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666591&SRCH=1

8. http://shoranews.com/News/2549

9. http://kayhannews.ir/900921/14.htm#other1400

10. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30708565

11. http://www.jomhourieslami.com/1390/13900926/13900926_01_jomhori_islami_sar_magaleh_0001.html

12. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93113-islamic-countries-should-not-play-against-syria

13. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275529

14. http://www.kayhannews.ir/900908/2.HTM#other200

15. http://irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30751979

16. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010170171

17. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010171825

18. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

19. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1482337

20. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93510-ayatollah-advises-turkey-against-stoking-flames-of-syria-crisis

21. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1501152

22. http://www.javanonline.ir/vdcdf90osyt0k56.2a2y.html

23. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277163

24. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1502256

25. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30712338

26. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666436

27. http://www.siasatrooz.ir/vdcdso09.yt0nx6a22y.html

*     *     *

IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Never Mind Israel, Iran’s First Target Might Be its Arab Neighbors « Commentary Magazine.

As Jonathan noted, the New York Times seems determined to downplay Iran’s verbal threats against Israel, first eliminating them from its report on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speech last week and then dismissing them as mere “posturing and saber-rattling.” And I can understand why: Israel is the only country to be openly weighing military action against Tehran’s nuclear program. So dismiss the validity of the threat Iran poses to Israel, and you’ve also seemingly dismissed any need for military action.

The only problem with this approach is that far from being the only country seriously threatened by Iran, Israel may well not even be at the top of the list. To understand why this is so, it suffices to recall Saddam Hussein. Saddam also threatened night and day to destroy Israel. Yet the country he actually tried to wipe off the map wasn’t Israel, but Kuwait.

Nor is this surprising: Saddam’s Iraq, like today’s Iran, aspired to dominate the region. And for that purpose, taking over neighboring Kuwait was far more useful than attacking Israel, both to acquire Kuwait’s bountiful oil fields and to undermine another contender for regional dominance, Kuwaiti ally Saudi Arabia.

Because Israel is isolated from the rest of the Middle East, it is completely irrelevant to the internal jockeying for supremacy among the region’s various Muslim powers. Hence, if Iran’s goal is regional hegemony, then attacking Israel would be a sideshow, just as it was for Saddam – who, while launching a full-scale invasion of Kuwait, made do with lobbing a token 40 Scuds at Israel. The most important targets would be Iran’s regional rivals, first and foremost Saudi Arabia and its allies.

That is why, as Wikileaks revealed two years ago, Arab countries have consistently demanded more forceful American action against Iran. Saudi Arabia, for instance, delivered “frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran,” demanding it “cut off the head of the snake.” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi warned that “[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler.” King Hamad of Bahrain said Iran’s nuclear program “must be stopped,” because “the danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” Lebanon’s Saad Hariri urged military action by saying, “Iraq was unnecessary. Iran is necessary.” A senior Jordanian official said even though bombing Iran would have “catastrophic” consequences, “he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.”

What all these countries know is that they, rather than Israel, might well be Iran’s first targets – but unlike Israel, they lack the military capability even to credibly threaten to attack Iran themselves. And because these countries include some of the world’s major oil producers, that should be of great concern to the West.

None of this means the Iranian threat to Israel isn’t real: Even if a nuclear Iran never attacked Israel directly, it could still wreak havoc via satellite groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But Israel is far from being the only country threatened by Iran. And it’s about time Western pundits and policymakers woke up to that fact.

Incoming IAF chief: Iran is our top concern – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel said in rare speech last month that nuclear Iran would trigger arms race in Middle East, and should be addressed strategically before all other conflicts

Yoav Zitun

Eshel: Iran’s above all else (Photo: Roni Aviv, Bamahane)

The escalating public discourse over the possibility of a strike on Iran‘s nuclear facilities has put a magnifying glass on incoming IAF Chief Major-General Amir Eshel‘s stance on the issue.

Eshel, whose IAF appointment was announced Monday, seldom expresses his opinion publically – all the more so since becoming the head of the IDF‘s Plans and Policy Directorate in 2008.

But in a rare speech made last month at the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, Eshel stressed that while the decision to launch an airstrike on the Islamic Republic is left up to the political echelon, Iran is Israel‘s primary concern.

“Iran is above everything, and it must be taken into account, strategically, before the others,” he said. “A nuclear Iran would cause a mighty change in the region. It would trigger an arms race in the Middle East. I’m sure that other nations in the region will attempt to obtain such weapons as well.

“It could create a situation that leads to a global nuclear jungle,” he added. “This is not an official assessment, but the first lesson that leaders in the Middle East learned from the Arab Spring is that they should obtain nuclear weapons … Who would have dared to question (Gaddafi) or Saddam Hussein if they had atom weapons?”

Eshel raised the concern that a nuclear Iran could embolden terror groups that operate with the Islamic Republic’s backing, including Hamas and Hezbollah – a development that would restrict the IDF in Gaza and Lebanon.

Iran precedes Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

He argued that the Iranian issue even trumps Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, saying that an agreement with the PA won’t bring peace to the region.

“Even if Israel and the Palestinians sign a peace accord tomorrow, it won’t solve the other problems or the Iranian issue,” he said. “An agreement with them won’t create a paradise in the Middle East. I don’t belittle the issue, but if (the agreement) isn’t based on solid security arrangements, it won’t last.”

Eshel noted that as per the government’s order, the IDF supports the Palestinian apparatuses in the West Bank.

“We take many risks in order to help the Palestinians build better lives with a better economy,” he said. “But if we make a mistake here, there won’t be a second chance. This is why we are so determined (to reach an accord), because we already tried in 1993 and in 2000.”

In his speech, Eshel accused the regime in Tehran of running a terrorist state.

“Everyday Iran is fighting everyone, not only through terror but also through economic means,” he said.

Eshel voiced pessimism regarding the outcomes of the turmoil in the surrounding countries, noting that “our estimation that the revolutions would be taken over by other movements have come true.”

“If the economic issues aren’t addressed, a downturn is inevitable,” he said. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt could spread to the region, including Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.”

He warned that Syria’s chemical and biological weapons could fall into the hands of terror groups, noting that the country’s air force armament poses a challenge to the IAF.

“Syria has invested over $2 billion in its air force over the past two years,” he said. “We haven’t seen anything like it in the past two decades. They invested great funds in order to undermine our aerial superiority.”

Report: Top Iran military official aiding Assad’s crackdown on Syria opposition – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(A true “axis of evil.” – JW)

Prominent Syrian lawmaker says the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force has recently arrived in the country to help manage Assad’s regime brutal suppression of a 11-month-long popular unrest.

By Zvi Bar’el

A top Iranian military official is activily aiding the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad in suppressing popular unrest throughout the country, a top member of the National Syrian Council said on Monday.

According to the Syrian official, Kassam Salimani, commander of the Quds Force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces unit, has arrived in Syria recently and has taken up a spot in the war room which manages army maneuvers against opposition forces.

	Syrian forces tank moving along a road during clashes with the Syrian army defectors, in the Rastan area in Homs province, Jan. 30, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

The war room is also reportedly populated by Assad himself, as well as his brother Maher, brother-in-law Assaf Shaukat and cousin Rami Makhlouf, with the Syrian chief of staff’s authority reportedly restricted and divided up between other military commanders.

The Quds Force includes 15,000 elite soldiers who operated, among other locations, in Iraq during the war, and the specialty of which is engaging in unconventional warfare on foreign soil. Among other duties, the Quds Force is in charge of traning and funding Hezbollah.

Salimani’s presence in Syria serves as an indication of the kind of battle that Assad is planning against opposition forces, with the Syrian army reportedly planning to wage all out war against the rebel city of Homs.

According to the report, the Syrian president’s goal is to gain ground ahead of a planned visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who will be arriving in the country along with a military delegation which includes the head of Russian intelligence.

Assad’s aim, sources say, is to display his control of the situation and his ability to suppress the unrest, with the determining battles to be staged in Homs and in the reoccupation of the town of Zabadani, which fell to Free Syria Army forces.

An Al-Arabiya report indicated that the battle over Zabadani has already begun, with Syrian soldiers defecting to the opposition along with eight tanks, and that Homs has been placed under a siege which has included the cutting of electricity and water supplies.

The report also claimed that the Syrian army for the first time has been using rockets in order to target houses as well as mortars to hit populated areas. So far, 60 people were reportedly killed and hundreds wounded in this battle, as well as reports of the demolition of seven houses, residents and all.

Syrian opposition organizations that are active internationally are currently trying to gain a political front bypassing the UN Security Council, where a resolution underwritten by the Arab League failed due to Russian and Chinese vetoes on Saturday.

At this stage, opposition leaders are trying to find a way forward, as it is clear that Turkey and the Arab states oppose military action against the Assad regime, and the imposing of economic sanctions will not stop Assad.

Facing Russia and Chinese opposition, and the Iranian threat to open a new front, there is doubt whether a western coalition will agree to act directly against Syria. The question is whether the Free Syrian Army will be able to get additional military assistance, and to arm itself with heavy artillery, tanks and shells so that it will be able to pose a real challenge to the Syrian army, and change the civilian resistance into a real military struggle, much like the rebel forces in Libya.

Along with the Syria Free Army’s attempts to increase the number of defectors from the Syrian military, the opposition is also considering offering the minority Alawite elite guarantees of their safety in exchange for ordering Alawites to leave the regime and join the civilian resistance.

Along with the Syria Free Army’s attempts to increase the number of defectors from the Syrian military, the opposition is also considering offering the minority Alawite elite guarantees of their safety in exchange for ordering Alawites to leave the regime and join the civilian resistance.

Parallel to these efforts, however, the opposition seems to be facing a new and violent civilian group that is comprised mainly of Syria’s Kurdish minority. This group is working as strongmen for the regime, both in Damascus and in Kurdish population centers.