WarSclerotic

CIA: Iran continues nuclear prog… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

04/05/2012 10:35

Iran’s holdings are around 80 kgs of 20% enriched uranium. Experts say about 250 kgs needed for a weapon.

By REUTERS

A recent CIA Report to Congress discussing Iran’s nuclear program says that Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and uranium enrichment activities in 2011.

Iran’s progress included enriching uranium at the underground Natanz location with first-generation centrifuges, while also testing and operating advanced centrifuges at the Natanz pilot plant.

According to the CIA, as of November 2011, Iran had produced 4,900 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, compared to 3,200 kilograms by November 2010 and 1,800 kilograms in November 2009. Iran’s holdings included approximately 80 kilograms of 20-percent enriched uranium, the report stated.

Iran has also started to produce 20% enriched uranium at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom.

An IAEA report published on February 24 showed Iran had now produced nearly 110 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kilograms is needed for a nuclear weapon.

The CIA report states that the number of operating centrifuges is estimated at 6,200, up from 3,800 in August 2010.

The report notes that some obstacles slowed Iran’s progress over the course of the year, but does not specify further.

Iran has also moved forward with its ballistic missile program, which it considers its primary deterrent, according to the CIA.

In late June and July 2011, Iran launched a series of missiles and rockets as part of its Noble Prophet VI military exercise, including Shahab-1/2 SRBMs, a Shahab-3 MRBM and Zelzal rockets. Iran publicized its underground ballistic missile silos which it says are less vulnerable to attack, the report stated.

Fierce clashes near Damascus as Syrian forces assault rebellious towns before truce.

Thursday, 05 April 2012

Iran’s Stalling Tactics Humiliate Obama « Commentary Magazine.

The Obama administration has spent the last few months furiously arguing that diplomacy backed up by tough sanctions is the only possible path to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear capability. But in agreeing to a new round of negotiations with the Iranians, Washington has set itself up to be made to look ridiculous. The ayatollahs have shown themselves to be masters of diplomatic gamesmanship as they have repeatedly made fools out of the European negotiators who have sought in recent years to craft some sort of compromise on the nuclear issue.

But anyone in either the White House or the State Department who thought this latest round of diplomacy would go differently got a shock today when the Iranians made it clear that as far as they were concerned the agreement to talk was merely a signal for the games to begin. As the New York Times reports, the Iranians have already started to stall by insisting on changing the venue of the talks. Though the negotiations were scheduled to begin next week in Turkey, a country that is openly siding with the Iranians, having as their host another Islamist government wasn’t good enough for Tehran. They are now suggesting Iraq or China as alternatives. To show just how far the Iranians are prepared to go to turn this process into a farce, they are also considering suggesting the talks be held in Syria, where, presumably, negotiators can witness Iran’s ally mowing down dissenters in the streets.

The excuse for the last-minute change supposedly stems from Iran’s irritation with the Turks because of their stands on the survival of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria as well as its membership in NATO, because of that alliance’s role in promoting missile defense systems to guard against possible Iranian attacks. But these flimsy excuses should fool no one. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was feted just last week in Tehran where he pledged to support the Iranians against “Western arrogance.”

The only possible reason to demand a change in the venue of the talks is to delay the process. Even if the West were to agree to this request — and it shouldn’t — it would only be followed by further stalling tactics straight out of the North Vietnamese handbook. Don’t be surprised if the shape of the table is raised. And then even if an agreement on some unsatisfactory compromise is reached, we should expect the Iranians to stall on its implementation and then renege on it altogether as they have done more than once with the Europeans.

Iran’s negotiating partner, the P5-plus 1 countries — Britain, China, France, Russia, Germany and the United States — have painted themselves into a corner in these talks. They have, as President Obama has stated repeatedly, pledged themselves to stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But if, as is almost certain, the talks with the Iranians get nowhere, if indeed they ever get started, then what will the president and his European colleagues do?

It is not exactly a secret the only reason the U.S. and the Euros have agreed to enforce tough sanctions and threatened an oil embargo of Iran is their fear that absent such efforts, Israel would have no choice but to attack in order to remove an existential threat to its existence. To that end, the Obama administration has gone all out to pressure Israel to hold off on any attack this year while what the president calls a “window of diplomacy” is explored. But if the diplomatic window is publicly seen to be only a ruse on Iran’s part, what then will Washington tell Israel or the American people?

If the Israelis have agreed, as reports claim, to hold off on a military solution to the Iran problem, they have, in effect, put responsibility for stopping Iran clearly on the shoulders of President Obama. But by agreeing to deal with the diplomatic tricksters in Tehran, the president has in effect made himself a hostage to the ayatollahs’ caprices. Though the administration has placed a priority on measures that will enable them to kick the Iranian can down the road until after the November election, the president may soon discover that his negotiating partners in Tehran have no intention of sparing him the embarrassment that is an inevitable part of dealing with them.

Grad rocket slams into southern city of … JPost – National News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

LAST UPDATED: 04/05/2012 03:11

Israel Police discover shell of Grad rocket after citizens hear explosions in the area; some citizens suffer shock symptoms; authorities coordinating with Jordanian counterparts to discover source of fire.

By Amir Cohen/Reuters

Israel Police officers discovered the shell of a Grad rocket fired at Eilat late Thursday night after residents heard explosions in the area.

Large forces of IDF and police are sweeping the city for additional rockets, focusing on the southern neighborhood of Shahmon, where the explosions were heard loudest. Bomb sappers are also on the scene, Army Radio reported.

No casualties were reported in the attack, but a number of citizens suffered shock symptoms and were treated by medical personnel on scene.

Eilat District Police commander Ron Gertner said that the southern city has been on full alert due to the upcoming Passover holiday, Israel Radio reported.

Gertner added that Eilat has been reinforced by additional forces that have arrived to assist police in handling the aftermath of the rocket fire incident.

Israeli authorities are coordinating with their counterparts in Jordan to discover the source of the rocket fire, according to Army Radio. The IDF stated that it is investigating the incident.

Rocket attacks in Eilat are rare but not unheard of.

In August 2010, five rockets landed in the area around Eilat, killing one Jordanian and injuring three more, in front of the Intercontinental Hotel. Two of the rockets exploded in Jordan, a third north of Eilat’s hotel area, and two more in the Red Sea. The projectiles were thought to be Grad-type Katyushas launched from the Sinai Peninsula.

Sinai has also served as a springboard for terrorist incursions into Israeli territory. The most recent incident in August 2011 left seven Israelis dead and dozens wounded in a sophisticated multi-stage attack. The Popular Resistance Committees claimed responsibility for the attack,

Israel has called on Egypt to increase its efforts to restore order in Sinai and to prevent attacks, but the Egyptian military has held back from dismantling the Hamas infrastructure in the peninsula. The IDF has beefed up its forces along the border and recently established a new regional brigade that is responsible for defending Eilat and nearby areas.

Yaakov Katz contributed to this report

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 4, 2012, 9:13 AM (GMT+02:00)

Mohsen Rezaie, his master’s voice

Iranian spokesmen are maneuvering for a postponement of the nuclear negotiations with world powers set to take place April 13-14 in Istanbul, debkafile’s Iranian sources report. It is feared in Washington and Jerusalem that Tehran is working toward two goals: To have the venue removed from Istanbul and to buy a couple more months before the diplomatic crunch, considering that the US and Israel are treating the April talks as the last chance for diplomacy to reverse Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon. A postponement would therefore delay any military option that Israel or possibly America would choose to exercise.
The Iranians want the site moved to Moscow, Vienna or Geneva, a change opposed by Washington because it would consume several more months before the talks got started. Tehran is also signaling through Moscow that it is not prepared for the diplomatic dialogue to take place under military threat or economic sanctions.
While Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu refrained from mentioning military options in presenting his government’s three-year record Tuesday, April 3 – ignoring the three large-scale military movements afoot by the US, Russia, Turkey, Syria, Greece – and Israel itself,  Moscow is talking about an imminent  military conflagration as a result of the continuing US and Israeli military buildup in the Persian Gulf.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Tuesday, April 3: “The Middle East standoff could boil over into military action at any moment.” Referring to the massing of military and naval forces in the Persian Gulf, he said: The pot can explode if the diplomatic valve is not opened.”
He made no mention of the scheduled April 13-14 nuclear talks. One of the most influential figures in today’s Tehran Mohsen Rezaie was more explicit: “Given the fact that our friends in Turkey have failed to fulfill some of our agreements, the talks… had better be held in another friendly country.”
He did not specify which agreements Ankara had failed to meet, but his rejection of Istanbul as the venue for the talks was unqualified.
Strong criticism of the Erdogan government also came from a senior member of Iran’s parliamentary foreign policy and national security commission Esmaeel Kosari. He said during a visit to Azerbaijan:”Turkey serves as the United States and Israel’s messenger and mediator. The Turkish government will be hated by its citizens if it continues this role.”

In Iran’s political culture, neither of these men would have spoken without a green light from the office of the all-powerful supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Kosari’s mission in Baku was to investigate recent reports that Azerbaijan had given Israeli permission for its bases to be used by the Israeli Air Force in an attack on Iran.
Early Wednesday, April 4, Iraqi officials suddenly offered Baghdad as the venue for the forthcoming world power talks with Iran.
The US and Israel are certain to reject this offer because it would give Tehran the important edge of a key diplomatic event taking place on pro-Iranian soil.

Rising Tensions between Saudi Arabia, Russia on Backdrop of Syrian Crisis.

Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Russia have increased in recent months over the events in Syria, with the two countries taking opposite sides in the conflict. Saudi Arabia, alongside Qatar, has led the camp calling to oust the Assad regime and arm the Syrian opposition, whereas Russia, alongside China, has led the camp opposing any Arab or international attempt to condemn the Syrian regime, call for Assad’s ouster, or initiate an intervention in the crisis. Russia claims that the crisis that must be resolved through internal dialogue between the Syrian regime and opposition, without any foreign interference. It should be noted that the Saudi-Russian clash is all the more conspicuous for the absence of the U.S. as a significant player in responding to the Syrian crisis.

Russian-Saudi tensions were heightened further by Russia and China’s February 4, 2012 veto of a UN Security Council resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to his deputy and for the establishment of a national unity government. On February 22, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev telephoned Saudi King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz, only to be told that Russia should have coordinated its moves with the Arabs before casting its veto in the Security Council, and that there was no longer any use in dialog between the two countries over the events in Syria.[1]

Another factor that increased the strain between the countries was a March 2 communiqué issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry accusing Saudi Arabia of supporting terrorism in Syria,[2] following Saudi Foreign Minister Sa’ud Al-Faisal’s call, at the February 24 Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia, to arm the Syrian opposition.[3] A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry went so far as to announce his country’s intent to refer the matter to the UN institutions responsible for combating terror. In response, the Saudi Foreign Ministry issued an announcement harshly condemning Russia’s claims that the kingdom supports terrorism, and countering that the Russian veto had “given Assad leave to continue his crimes against his people… and only history [will judge] who the terrorists are and who stands behind them.”[4]

On March 10, a meeting of Arab foreign ministers was held at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo to discuss the crisis in Syria, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in attendance. Reports had it that the atmosphere at the meeting was very tense, and that the Saudi foreign minister assailed Russia, accusing it of giving the Syrian regime clearance to continue in its brutality against the Syrian people. It was also reported that Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem Aal Thani attacked Lavrov for his country’s positions.[5] Nevertheless, the meeting concluded with bin Jassem and Lavrov announcing a five-point Arab-Russian agreement to deal with the Syrian crisis.[6]

The agreement initially seemed to mark a slight change in Saudi Arabia’s position vis-à-vis Russia. Articles in the Saudi press expressed optimism, projecting that Russia would soon change its position on Syria.[7] It also seemed as though Lavrov were attempting, at least to some extent, to limit Russia’s support for Assad and alter perceptions of Russia as his greatest defender. The Russian foreign minister began voicing reserved criticism of the Syrian regime, explaining that Assad had failed to implement reforms and follow Russia’s advice in a timely fashion.[8] Several days later, Lavrov even said that Russia did not support the Syrian government and disagreed with many of its decisions.[9] He went on to say that the Syrian leadership had made “great mistakes that exacerbated the situation in the country.” However, he clarified that Russia had not changed its position and did not accept Assad’s resignation as a precondition to resolving the crisis.[10]

Rage in Saudi Arabia over Lavrov’s Warnings against Establishment of Sunni Regime in Syria

On March 20, 2012, tensions between Saudi Arabia and Russia resurfaced following media reports that special Russian counterterrorism forces had arrived at the Syrian port of Tarsus.[11] These reports provoked suspicion and anger in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world at large.[12] Russia’s Defense Ministry and foreign minister denied that the vessel was a battleship, and said that it carried fuel and that the troops aboard were only there to secure the vessel.[13]

Tensions between the countries peaked following a March 21 interview by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian radio in which he expressed concern over “the strong pressure by some of the region’s countries to establish a Sunni regime in Syria” after Assad’s ouster.[14] These statements provoked fierce reactions in the Saudi press, with Saudi editors and columnists saying Lavrov had sided with the devil, and accusing him of defending and parroting the Assad regime, exacerbating sectarian tensions in the Middle East, siding with the Shi’ites, and joining the Iran-Syria-Iraq-Hizbullah camp against the region’s Sunnis, while ignoring the fact that the latter were a majority in Syria.

On March 23, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published an extensive article claiming that “Russia shoves its nose into the domestic and ethnic affairs of the region.” The article cited denunciations of Lavrov’s statements by senior officials from all the Arab countries.[15]

The Qatari press, it should be noted, also ran articles condemning Lavrov.[16] Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General ‘Abd Al-Latif Al-Zayani likewise censured the statements.[17]

Following is an overview of the criticism of Russia that appeared in the Saudi press in the wake of Lavrov’s statements:

I. Russia Has Joined the Iranian-Shi’ite Camp

One of the prominent claims leveled by Saudi editors and columnists against Russia following Lavrov’s statements was that the country had joined the Shi’ite camp led by Iran, espoused the discourse of the Syrian regime, and taken a stance against the region’s Sunnis.

Editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: There Is No Difference between Mullah Lavrov and the Iranian Mullahs

Tariq Alhomayed, editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, was among the first to attack Lavrov for his statements warning against the establishment of a Sunni regime in Syria. On March 22, 2012, in a scathingly critical article titled “Mullah Lavrov!”, Alhomayed accused the Russian foreign minister of adopting the discourse of the Shi’ite camp and exacerbating sectarian tensions in the region. He claimed that there was no difference between a mullah in red, i.e., Lavrov, and the black-garbed Iranian mullah. The following are excerpts from his article, as published in the English edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:[18]

“It is very strange that a foreign minister would issue such a statement, particularly the Russian foreign minister. This statement, or gaffe, was not made by Hassan Nasrallah or Nouri Al-Maliki or Muqtada Al-Sadr or even Iranian Foreign Minister Salehi or Bashar Al-Assad himself. Rather, it was made by a secular state that is not known for falling into sectarian quicksand. Particularly [shocking was] the language that ‘Mullah’ Lavrov used (and when we say ‘Mullah’ here, we mean one of the mullahs of Khomeinist Tehran)!…

“Over the past days, the Russian foreign minister has issued an excessive number of statements about the situation in Syria. However, these statements have been contradictory, with one criticizing Bashar Al-Assad and holding him accountable for inflaming the situation by reacting wrongly to [what] the Syrian people were doing, [and] another revealing that Russia wants to cooperate with the UN Security Council and other [forces in] the international community, and finally the latest statement, or gaffe… Issuing a statement [to the effect] that some countries in the region want to establish Sunni rule in Syria is not just dangerous, [it also reveals a] lack of the diplomatic judgment we would expect from a Russian foreign minister. Therefore, Lavrov’s statements about Sunni rule is evidence of Russia’s frustration with the Gulf Cooperation Council states – and particularly with Saudi Arabia – ignoring Lavrov’s contradictory statements…

“Even if the Gulf States – in particular Saudi Arabia – have failed to sit down with Russia [to discuss the Syrian crisis], this does not explain this shameful statement about Sunni rule in Syria. This statement serves to fuel sectarianism, in an unprecedented manner, [and] it will also be difficult to erase this statement from the region’s memory, on all levels, even if Moscow [eventually] secures Al-Assad’s departure from Syria. In this case, what is the difference today between what [Syrian and Assad oppositionist] Sheikh [‘Adnan] Al-‘Arour is saying about the Al-Assad regime, and what Lavrov said about the Sunnis? Is Moscow paying attention to this?

“What is certain is that, even if Russia [has] become aware of this, the damage – which is significant – has already been done, because it has become clear that there is no difference between the mullah dressed in red [in Russia, i.e., Lavrov] and the mullah dressed in black in Iran… [Both] are pouring oil on fire in a region that is surrounded by dynamite! Unfortunately, this is precisely what Mullah Lavrov has done.”[19]

Saudi Columnist: Lavrov Has Pitted Russia against the Sunni Muslim World

Mashari Al-Dhaidi, columnist for the Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote similarly: “It is clear that Lavrov has fully adopted the version of [Bashar Al-]Assad and the Mullahs of Tehran… and has put his country in conflict with the Islamic world and its Sunni majority. He fell [precisely] into the trap he wished to avoid, [namely] into the trenches of sectarian incitement… Will Bashar [Al-Assad] be the one to spread sectarian moderateness, or is he the one who has nurtured [sectarianism] in his despicable way, along with the Mullahs of Iran?!… Russia’s perception of the Syrian crisis raises questions regarding the superficiality of its policy, and regarding the feebleness of the West, which is aligning itself with the Russians…[20]

II. Russia Is Ignoring Syria’s Sunni Majority

Another claim raised in the Saudi articles was that Lavrov, and by extension Russia, had ignored the fact that the Sunnis constitute a demographic majority in Syria.

Lavrov Has Adopted Assad’s Narrative

Writing in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, ‘Abdallah bin Bijad Al-‘Otaibi said: “Russia is still demonstrating an increasingly bullish stance in its defense of the organized killing machine in Syria. It is still maintaining the same policy it adopted at the outset of the crisis: limitless diplomatic support for Assad and his regime in all international circles, alongside logistic support on the ground, including arming and training the regime’s [troops] and military and security staff. The novelty in Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s discourse is what he said about the sectarianism in Syria, and the fact that has adopted the discourse of the Assad regime [itself], which is still trying to prove that it is [serving as] a defense barrier against sectarian violence between all the strata of the Syrian people. And all the while, Lavrov is ignoring the fact that, each day, the Assad regime kills dozens of its opponents from different sects…

“[Lavrov] lost his neutrality when… he expressed concern over the establishment of a Sunni regime in Syria while forgetting that the Sunnis… form the majority in Syria, and that they are ruled by an Alawite minority working to garner support of one sect [i.e., for the Alawites] against all the others…

“Lavrov’s sectarian [statements] are in line with the policy of the Assad regime, which, from the outset of the crisis and to this day, has tried to turn the crisis into a destructive sectarian conflict. When Lavrov says that some countries in the region are supporting the Sunnis in Syria, he forgets… that the blood spilled in Syria is [the blood of] all the sects…”[21]

Al-Riyadh Editor: Syria’s Sunni Majority Peacefully Coexists with the Other Sects

Similarly, Yousuf Al-Kuwailit, editor of the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, asked whether Lavrov was even aware that Sunnis were the majority in Syria, and claimed that he had sided with the devil: “Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov wants to play the devil’s advocate in the conflict between the Syrian government and people. [In seeking] a resolution [to the Syrian crisis], he spoke [only] of dialogue [between the Regime and the opposition], and rejected any Security Council [resolution] calling for Assad’s resignation…

“The Russian minister [expressed concern] that a regime change [in Syria] would bring the Sunnis to power and endanger the Christians and the other minorities. We don’t know if he is aware of Syria’s demographic makeup, of the [fact that] the Sunnis are the majority, and that they live in peace with the [other] ethnic and national groups – even after the [demise] of French colonialism, which adopted a policy of separating Lebanon, with its Christian majority, [from Syria] and encouraged the ‘Alawites to establish their country in the north. The Sunnis were a [shining] example of moderation and coexistence, until [Hafez Al-]Assad came to power with the famous [Ba’th] coup, changing the character of the army and of the influential powers in Syria by restricting them to [members of] his sect alone [i.e., the ‘Alawites].

“Marginalizing the [Sunni] Islamic stream, which constitutes a majority [in Syria], and frightening [others] about it, is [just] what Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hizbullah promote. These countries, and [other] elements that relay on them for their strength, fear that the Sunnis in Syria will play a significant role and also [influence] Lebanon and Iraq…

“[Syria’s] revolution let loose the emotions of the Syrian people – and neither Russia nor the elements which share its aims will determine the fate of [this revolution]. It was 40 years of suffering under the regime of the [‘Alawite] sect that led all the [Syrian] sects to explode in fury against the regime. The word-games and declarations [of the Russian officials], and their belief that they are defending freedom and honoring international law, have all collapsed in the face of the many [incidents] in which they violated [international] law, including in Syria: murdering the freedom of an entire people for the sake of a few thousand, whom they are arming and assisting, and even taking part in their war…”[22]

III. Russian Minority Rule in Chechnya akin to ‘Alawite Minority Rule over a Sunni Majority

Some writes claimed that it was no surprise that Russia supported Assad’s ‘Alawite minority rule over a Sunni majority, considering that Russia itself rules over and oppresses a Muslim majority in Chechnya and the Caucasus. Some also claimed that Russia employed the same tactics as Assad in oppressing and murdering the minorities under its rule.

Jasser ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz Al-Jasser, a columnist for the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, wrote: “…Lavrov has adopted the mentality of a spy or a gangster. He is denying 80% of the Syrian people the right to rule over their own land, and claiming that ‘a Sunni regime in Syria will support terrorism in the region.’ These are the same claims the Russians made in supporting the Serbian rule in Yugoslavia and in justifying the murder of Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which only ended with NATO’s military intervention. The Russians do not want the Muslims to rule their own countries and to break free of the minority governments that sustain themselves through killing and oppression – as the Russians themselves do in Chechnya and the Caucasus, where the Muslim majority is subject to a Russian minority that rules it with fire and the force of arms…”[23]

Salman Al-Dosari wrote similarly in the Saudi daily Al-Iqtisadiyya: “The Russian foreign minister recently uncovered the [reason] behind his country’s stance on the Syrian revolution by publicly announcing [this reason]… Without shame, the Russian bear declared that sectarianism was the primary factor motivating Russia’s unprecedented stance, [manifest] in its alliance with the Assad regime. [Russia’s] ultimate goal is to preserve the ‘Alawite regime [and to prevent] the rise of a Sunni regime, even if the price is the death of over 10,000 Syrians thus far – and that number may double in the coming days. Sergey Lavrov cannot have forgotten how Moscow oppressed the religious minorities in Chechnya and the Caucasus, [where] it killed and exiled hundreds of thousands [of people] over several decades. And now he comes to lecture [us] on his concern [for] Syria’s minorities…”[24]

IV. Russia’s Stance Will Ultimately Do It Harm

Some writers cautioned that that Russia’s stance, which exacerbates sectarian tensions in the region, would ultimately do it harm and undermine its status. They warned Russia against a firm Arab reaction to its position, and a few even threatened that the fire of the Syrian crisis would reach Russia’s own doorstep.

Saudi Al-Watan: Lavrov’s Statements May Be the Straw that Breaks Russia’s Back

An editorial in the Saudi government daily Al-Watan stated: “[Lavrov’s] statements exposed Russia’s stance vis-à-vis Syria and its cooperation with Iran, [and suggested that it] is adopting a position in support of the Shi’ite countries. This is a serious development in the sphere of international policy… Russia should know that the Arabs’ position in such circumstances will be firm and resolute, because the conflict [in the region] is political, not religious…

“Russia’s purpose in these statements is to turn the matter into a sectarian conflict, like [the conflict] in Iraq, so as to win points in the international political game. [But] the lives of the Syrian people who are being killed daily should not be used as [bargaining chips] in a political dispute. Russia’s declarations [may turn out to be] the straw that breaks its back in the region, and the back of all its [allies].”[25]

Qatari Columnist: Russia Is Helping Assad Stoke a Fire that Will Soon Reach Its Own Gates

Samir Al-Hajawi, columnist for the Qatari daily Al-Sharq, warned Russia that that flames it was stoking would ultimately spread to its own doorstep: “The Russian leadership always allies itself with [paragons of] political foolishness and inability to read the political map. This [Russian] leadership is addicted to alliances with the losers of the Arab world. It does not understand the first thing about the popular movements in the Arab [world]… The foolish Russian leadership… does not seem to know the rules of the game. This is the same foolishness that got it entangled in Afghanistan [and caused it] to lose its Soviet empire… just as it lost in Libya when it supported Al-Qadhafi… to the very end.

“Without a doubt, Russia will [also] lose in Syria, because it refuses to understand that the Assad regime, which it considers a ‘red line,’ will surely collapse if the Syrian people is determined to topple it. Russia has gained nothing in its support for [this regime] except the hatred of the Syrians, Arabs and Muslims, and the satisfaction of the Assad regime and of Iran, Hizbullah and the militias ruling Iraq. The Assad regime and Russia are playing the explosive card of sectarianism. Moscow, which has warned against the rule of the Sunni Arab majority in Syria, refuses to see that it is helping Assad stoke a fire that will surely reach its own gates – for it is not so distant from the source of the flames that spread from Afghanistan to Syria and [ultimately] to Chechnya…”[26]

V. Russia Fears that the Plague of Popular Revolutions Might Reach It

Al-Jazirah columnist Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Latif Al-Sheikh wrote: “Russia’s support for [the Assad] regime cannot be explained except by [concluding] that it fears the plague of popular revolutions. [It fears that this plague] might reach its own peoples, or the peoples in some of the neighboring countries that are allied with it, which have a Muslim majority and whose [regimes] are a copy – perhaps a slightly improved copy  – of the Assad regime. Russia wanted Syria to be the front line of defense against the [wave of] revolutions that is advancing towards it at lightning speed…”[27]

*H. Varulkar is a research fellow at MEMRI.    

Endnotes: