WarSclerotic

West of Eden-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source..

The U.S. election campaign is a major cause of mutual suspicions between the two leaders.

By Chemi Shalev

It took only one round of preliminary nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries for a trans-Atlantic ruckus to break out between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Obama over whether Tehran had or hadn’t been given a “freebie.” One can only imagine the open hostilities that might break out between the two leaders if, contrary to expectations, the talks begin to yield real results.

“My initial impression is that Iran has been given a ‘freebie,’” Netanyahu said on Sunday in regard to the five-week hiatus before the next round of talks with Tehran, scheduled to be held on May 23 in Baghdad. With U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman as a character witness by his side, Netanyahu was pointedly showing off his ease and familiarity not only with American vernacular but with American politics as well, and the point was not lost on Obama’s White House advisers. The Israeli shot across the bow travelled all the way to Cartagena, Colombia, where the visiting Obama took the trouble to reject Netanyahu’s charge verbatim, saying that Iran had gained nothing from the first round of talks, certainly not a “freebie.”

	Obama listens to Netanyahu in Oval Office, May 20, 2011.
	Photo by: AFP

The early timing of this undiplomatic exchange surprised even some seasoned observers of the troublesome relationship between the two leaders. During his relatively amicable visit to Washington last month, Netanyahu and Obama had reached broad understandings, if not total agreement, on the ways to move forward over the coming weeks. And the dynamics of the negotiating process are such that the decision to convene a second round of talks is insignificant in and of itself, Netanyahu knows full well, and the crunch time will come, if at all, only if a third and decisive round of talks is convened. Thus, the logic behind Netanyahu’s early broadside against the talks remains unclear, though it clearly angered Obama.

Israelis, of course, are axiomatically skeptical of the talks with Tehran and view them as an Iranian diversionary tactic aimed at gaining time, weakening international sanctions and enhancing Iran’s legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim world. Israeli officials are under no illusions that Tehran would ever accept Jerusalem’s two main demands of a total ban on uranium enrichment or the dismantling of the Fordow underground facility near Qom. Under normal circumstances, however, Israel would be expected to understand the need to go through the motions of exhausting the diplomatic options and to trust the U.S. to call the Iranian bluff in order to show the world that Tehran’s intentions are far from benign.

But the circumstances are far from normal. Rumors of White House attempts to broker backdoor deals that are completely unacceptable to Israel  – including those that would allow the Iranians to continue low-grade enrichment – have been swirling in Washington and reaching the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem for several weeks now, gnawing away at the tentative sense of understanding created during Netanyahu’s recent visit. These reports, together with the deep skepticism about Obama’s attitude to Israel, rife among many of Netanyahu’s confidantes and advisers, and the widely held suspicion that the president’s overriding goal is to achieve an arrangement that would avert a crisis and keep oil prices low in advance of the November elections all make for a toxic mix that could very well induce increasingly scathing outbursts from Jerusalem.

The same is conversely true, perhaps even doubly so, from the point of view of the White House. Netanyahu’s critiques of Administration positions towards Iran provide valuable ammunition for the presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney to attack Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus.”  Given his well-known ties with Romney and other Republicans, only recently highlighted in a front-page New York Times report, the White House will be hard pressed not to suspect Netanyahu that his vocal objections to any hint of progress is aimed at giving crucial aid and succor to his conservative ideological allies in their bid to unseat Obama.

At the same time, both leaders realize full well that they are inexorably bound to each other in what might be termed “a balance of terror.” Obama, after all, will most likely fail to convince the American public that he hasn’t sold out Israel if the Israeli prime minister claims otherwise. Netanyahu, for his part, will need Obama’s stamp of approval for any attack on Iran not only to prevent international isolation but also to convince the Israeli public that there was no other choice.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the current talks collapse, the stage will be set, theoretically at least, for an Israeli attack that could ignite the Middle East, rattle the world’s economy and possibly derail Obama’s chances of victory. If, contrary to current expectations, progress is achieved in the talks – or at least if the U.S. decides to call it progress – the threat of war might be averted but the danger of a rupture between Israel and the US would become clear and present indeed.

And if Israel decides to go it alone despite international agreement with Tehran, it would be jeopardizing the very foundations of its diplomatic standing around the world and much of its political support in the U.S. as well.

Israel and America are not one and the same, of course, and may have found themselves at cross purposes over the Iranian nuclear challenge under different leaders as well, but the troubled history, the divergent ideology and the bad chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu dramatically complicate and exacerbate a situation which is of existential importance to Israel, and of strategic significance, at the very least, to the U.S. as well.

The willingness of the two leaders to believe the worst of each other places the Iranians in a unique position, if they play their cards right, to drive a serious wedge between “the Great Satan” and the “Small Satan,” and whether they do so for rational or for irrational reasons is largely irrelevant.

It is a unique set of circumstances worthy of close examination in the specialized academic field of foreign policy analysis, which, among other things, analyzes the effect of personalities and the interaction between them on international relations and crises. The troubled interactions between Netanyahu and Obama and their potential ramifications would be fascinating in theory, of course, if they weren’t so frightening in reality.

Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 16, 2012, 3:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

Barack Obama and his double diplomatic track

The fundamental rift on Iran between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu burst into the open Monday, April 16 when high-ranking Israeli officials close to Netanyahu directly accused the president of reneging on the US-Israeli understandings reached ahead of the Istanbul talks between the six powers and Iran on April 14.

Behind the show biz of Istanbul, they charged, the US and Iran had reached secret agreements in clandestine bilateral contacts channeled through Paris and Vienna.
The row surfaced Sunday when Netanyahu said the US and world powers by agreeing to hold more talks in Baghdad next month had given Tehran a “freebie” of five more weeks to continue enriching uranium without restrictions. By singling out the US, the prime minister aimed his comment directly at the president.
Obama’s response was fast. At a news conference ending the Western Hemisphere summit in Cartagenia, Colombia, he commented sharply: “The notion that somehow we’ve given something away or a `freebie’ would indicate Iran has gotten something. In fact, they’ve got some of the toughest sanctions that they’re going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don’t take advantage of these talks.”
That is the very point on which Israel accuses the US president of playing false: time. As disclosed by debkafile on April 9, American and Israeli officials preceded the Istanbul talks with an understanding for the US to put before Iran agreed demands/concessions: Iran would be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges for the low-level enrichment of uranium up to 3.5 percent purity, the first time Israel had accepted the principle of Iran enriching uranium at any grade at all.

It was also agreed between Washington and Jerusalem that Iran would not be permitted to keep 20 percent enriched uranium, which is a short step before weapons-grade, in any quantity.
These understandings, known as the “1,000 principle,” were meant to represent the final upshot of the formal negotiations with Iran, a consensus to which US diplomats would aspire in as short a time possible.
In the event, the US delegation did not present any of the agreed demands – or any other – to the Iranians attending the first round of talks in Turkey.

The belated sense of being misled prompted the prime minister’s exceptionally sharp reaction.
Israeli official sources now suspect that in their secret contacts, the US has granted Iran far-reaching concessions on its nuclear program – more than Israel would find unacceptable. The formal talks in Istanbul and in Baghdad on May 23 are seen as nothing but a device to screen the real business the US and Iran have already contracted on the quiet.

Salehi: Iran is ready to resolve… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

04/16/2012 15:47

Iran’s foreign minister tells Iranian student news agency he sees possible breakthrough at next talks, deal could be done “very quickly and simply”; he calls for sanctions lift and hints at fuel swap deal.

Photo: REUTERS

DUBAI – Iran is ready to resolve all nuclear issues in the next round of talks with world powers if the West starts lifting sanctions, its foreign minister said on Monday.

In an interview with the Iranian student news agency ISNA, Ali Akbar Salehi also hinted that Iran could make concessions on its higher-grade uranium enrichment, a key concern of Western powers.

“If the West wants to take confidence-building measures it should start in the field of sanctions because this action can speed up the process of negotiations reaching results,” Salehi was quoted as saying.

“If there is goodwill, one can pass through this process very easily and we are ready to resolve all issues very quickly and simply and even in the Baghdad meeting,” he added, referring to a second round of talks with world powers scheduled to take place in the Iraqi capital on May 23.

Salehi described an initial meeting with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Istanbul on Saturday as positive and constructive.

The talks had been stalled for more than a year during which time the United States and the European Union tightened sanctions on Iran which they suspect is seeking nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran denies.

Salehi said Iran would always assert its right to process uranium for peaceful purposes but that there might be room for a compromise on higher-level enrichment.

“Enrichment is Iran’s right but we can negotiate on how we obtain uranium with different enrichment levels,” he said.

“Making 20 percent (enriched nuclear) fuel is our right as long as it provides for our reactor needs and there is no question about that,” he said, but added: “If they guarantee that they will provide us with the different levels of enriched fuel that we need, then that would be another issue.”

Iran says it needs uranium enriched to a purity of 20 percent to fuel a medical research reactor, but many countries see its enrichment to that level a dangerous step towards the 90 percent enrichment needed for an atomic bomb.

A deal tentatively agreed with the West in 2009 would have seen Iran exporting some of its lower enriched uranium in return for fuel for the medical reactor. The deal unraveled and diplomats on both sides have said it would need to be modified in any future agreement.

Obama says more Iran sanctions c… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Photo: Reuters

CARTAGENA, Colombia – US President Barack Obama said there would be more sanctions imposed on Iran if there is no breakthrough in nuclear talks with global powers in the coming months, responding to Israeli accusations that Tehran has been given a “freebie.”

At a news conference in Cartagena, Colombia, where he was attending the Summit of the Americas, Obama said negotiations between Iran and six world powers that resumed on Saturday would not stretch on indefinitely and would require Iran to act.

“We’re going to keep on seeing if we make progress. Now, the clocking is ticking and I’ve been very clear to Iran and to our negotiating partners that we’re not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process,” Obama said. “But so far at least we haven’t given away anything.”

Negotiators from Iran and six world powers met on Saturday for the first time in more than a year to discuss concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for energy and others fear is meant to build an atomic bomb.

The group, which included the United States and the other four permanent UN Security Council members Britain, France, China and Russia, plus Germany, agreed with Iran to reconvene in Baghdad on May 23.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced irritation that the next talks were in more than a month’s time, saying it was critical that Tehran stop enrichment right away.

“My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie. It’s got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition,” he said earlier on Sunday.

Over the past year, Israeli and US warnings of military strikes if Iran does not stop working on some aspects of nuclear technology have stoked fear of war, and raised oil prices, in an unsettled Middle East.

Obama, who is up for re-election in November, is unlikely to want to start a military dispute with Iran, especially as he works to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan and in the wake of an unpopular war in Iraq.

At the Colombia news conference, Obama said there was still time for talks to ease tensions surrounding Iran.

“We still have a window in which to resolve this conflict diplomatically. That window is closing and Iran needs to take advantage of it,” he said.

The bitter truth about Iran – JPost – Opinion – Op-Eds.

By CHUCK FREILICH

04/15/2012 22:20

Military action is certainly not a panacea. A gain of a few years, however, should also not be dismissed.

Photo: REUTERS/Tolga Adanali/Pool

As the Iranian nuclear program nears its critical stages and the possibility of military action becomes more realistic, highly respected observers – even former senior Israeli officials – have come out strongly against this. US President Barack Obama has made his preference for continued sanctions and diplomacy clear. The US and EU talks with Iran on Saturday did not provide a clear indication of whether Iran is serious about wanting a last- minute deal. The inveterate optimism of diplomats aside, the only clear outcome is a further time gain for Iran, until the next round on May 23.

The US should be willing to offer Iran a generous deal that will address its legitimate interests – even the long-sought assurance that the US will not pursue a regime change. For Israel, painful compromises – such as acquiescence to Iran’s long-standing relationship with Hezbollah – are worth making if they achieve the over-arching goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

No one disputes that an attack should be considered only as a last resort and would be deeply problematic even then.

All sides greatly prefer a diplomatic outcome, and no one more than Israel, whose interests are most deeply effected and which will bear the brunt of an Iranian retaliation.

For a deal to work, however, one has to have a partner. The simple fact is that Iran has rejected all efforts to reach a negotiated solution to date, beginning with Clinton and renewed with greater emphasis by Obama, and has used the passing time to further develop its nuclear capabilities.

We can hope that the punishing oil and financial sanctions now in place will finally change the Iranian calculus.

Giving the sanctions time to work is certainly the preferred option and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has indicated his willingness to do so. So there still is a limited window for diplomacy, but let us not delude ourselves. Iran has good strategic reasons for seeking nukes, has turned the issue into a domestic cause célèbre, and has so far demonstrated a clear willingness to pay the attendant costs. Hope is important, but is not a substitute for hardheaded policy.

Moreover, there is a fundamental weakness in the argument for diplomacy and sanctions, which reflects a basic unwillingness to face up to the bitter truth and draw the consequent conclusions, painful though they may be: Unless a very unexpected change takes place in Iranian policy, ongoing diplomacy risks becoming a cover for acquiescence to a nuclear Iran and de-facto support for a policy of deterrence and containment.

Although Obama has officially disavowed this option, many believe it to be the likely and even desirable outcome, given the alternatives.

Those who do have the responsibility to say so clearly and openly, not by holding out the probable chimera of a diplomatic resolution.

Military action is certainly not a panacea. Iran already has the know-how needed to reconstitute the program, if attacked, and could reach its current stage of development again within a few years. A gain of a few years, however, should also not be dismissed.

Much can happen in the Middle East in a few years.

For an attack on Iran to make sense, anyone willing to act once would have to be willing to do so again, should the program be reconstituted.

Following an attack, the international community would presumably exert crushing pressure on Iran, in order to deal with the issue and prevent the likelihood of a further strike. Moreover, the time gained would be used for a variety of additional delaying measures, such as renewed subversion, and the long hoped for regime change in Iran might also take place.

Some argue that an attack will merely rally the Iranian people around the regime, which is indeed a likely short-term result. There is, however, no reason to presume that this will be the case once the initial fury passes and Iranians truly consider their interests, especially if the international community continues to impose heavy costs. It should be remembered that the regional uprisings began with the demonstrations in Iran in June 2009.

Diplomacy and sanctions should be pursued during the coming months, while the window of opportunity for doing so still remains open.

Ultimately, however, the choice will come down to one of two danger-fraught alternatives: living with a nuclear Iran through containment and deterrence, or military action. Whichever approach one favors, we owe it to ourselves to face up to this painful choice honestly.

The writer, a Senior Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, was a deputy national security adviser in Israel.

The Associated Press: Obama: US has offered no “freebies” to Iran.

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press – 17 minutes ago

CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) — Exposing a rift with Israel, President Barack Obama on Sunday insisted that the U.S. had not “given anything away” in new talks with Iran and defended his administration’s continued push for a diplomatic resolution to the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Obama said that while he refused to let the nuclear negotiations turn into a “stalling process,” he was willing to see if Iran was negotiating in good faith. Earlier Sunday, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagreed with that strategy, saying the U.S. and world powers gave Tehran a “freebie” by agreeing to hold more talks next month.

“So far at least we haven’t given away anything, other than the opportunity for us to negotiate and see if Iran comes to the table in good faith,” Obama said during a news conference Sunday in Colombia, as he wrapped up a diplomatic mission to Latin America. But Obama warned, “The clock’s ticking.”

Winding down his three day trip in the port city of Cartagena, Obama also sought to offer hope for fresh start with Cuba, saying the U.S. would welcome the communist-run island’s transition to democracy. There could be an opportunity for such a shift to take place in the coming years, Obama said.

Standing alongside Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Obama also proclaimed a free trade agreement between their countries as a “win-win.” Obama announced that the trade pact can be fully enforced next month, now that Colombia has enacted a series of protections for workers and labor unions.

IAF chief awarded Legion of Merit by USAF comm… JPost – Defense. 

By YAAKOV KATZ

04/15/2012 11:08

Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan given prestigious award by US Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz who says IAF helped US efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan.

Photo: Courtesy IDF

Israel Air Force commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan was awarded the Legion of Merit from Commander of the US Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz last week during a ceremony in Washington.

Nehushtan, who is scheduled to step down from his post at the end of the month, traveled to the US for a farewell visit and for meetings with Schwartz and other US military officials.

Nehushtan also met with US pilots who have flown on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and flew himself in the aircraft’s simulator. Israel is scheduled to begin receiving the fist of the 20 fifth-generation stealth aircraft it has ordered in early 2017.

In the certificate given to Nehushtan with the medal, Schwartz wrote that the IAF has over the years shared intelligence on terrorist organizations in the region with the US.

“This information assisted the United States Air Force efforts in overseas contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Schwartz wrote.

Schwartz also hailed Nehushtan’s decision to increase joint training which helped increase interoperability between the two forces.

“General Nehoshtan’s exemplary performance, dynamic leadership and exceptional devotion to duty reflect great credit upon himself, the Israeli Air Force and his country,” the USAF commander wrote.

During his visit, Nehushtan also flew on the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that it has its eye on for search and rescue and covert operations behind enemy lines.

The IAF had originally considered using the V-22 to replace its aging fleet of Sikorsky Sea Stallion CH-53 transport helicopters – called Yasour in Israel – but due to the V-22’s smaller size it is being looked at as a complementary platform to assist in IAF search-and- rescue operations and in dropping special forces behind enemy lines.

Israeli TV report shows air force gearing-up for Iran attack, says moment of truth is near | The Times of Israel.

‘IAF expects losses, and knows it can’t destroy entire Iranian program’

By Greg Tepper April 15, 2012, 11:49 pm

File: Fighter jet at the Uvda Air Force Base near Eilat. (photo credit: Ofer Zidon/Flash90)

major Israel TV station on Sunday night broadcast a detailed report on how Israel will go about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the event that diplomacy and sanctions fail and Israel decides to carry out a military strike.

The report, screened on the main evening news of Channel 10, was remarkable both in terms of the access granted to the reporter, who said he had spent weeks with the pilots and other personnel he interviewed, and in the fact that his assessments on a strike were cleared by the military censor.

No order to strike is likely to be given before the P5+1 talks with Iran resume in May, the reporter, Alon Ben-David, said. “But the coming summer will not only be hot but tense.”

In the event that negotiations fail and the order is given for Israel to carry out an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, “dozens if not more planes” will take part in the mission: attack and escort jets, tankers for mid-air refueling, electronic warfare planes and rescue helicopters, the report said.

Ben-David said the Israel Air Force “does not have the capacity to destroy the entire Iranian program.” There will be no replication of the decisive strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 or on Syria in 2007, he said. “The result won’t be definitive.” But, a pilot quoted in the report said, the IAF will have to ensure that it emerges with the necessary result, with “a short and professional” assault.

Ben-David said that if negotiations break down, and Iran moves key parts of its nuclear program underground to its Qom facility, the IAF “is likely to get the order and to set out on the long journey to Iran.”

“Years of preparations are likely to come to realization,” he said, adding that “the moment of truth is near.”

Ben-David interviewed several squadron leaders, pilots and other officers. He noted that some of the IAF personnel, “it is likely, will not return from the mission.” An officer named Gilad said it would be “naive” to think there would be no losses.

The IAF is said to be worried about the advanced anti-aircraft systems that Russia has sold to countries in the region, the report said. Among those systems, the SA 17 and 22 in Syria and Iran present a challenge.

According to the report, it’s the older versions of the F-15 that can fly further than any other plane in Israel’s arsenal, and this puts them on the front line of any potential attack.

One pilot said in the report that the F-15 “is a plane with a very wide range of operation — a combination of relatively energy-efficient engines, and significant flightworthiness regarding weapons and fuel.”

The IAF has a full-sized unmanned plane, the “Eitan,” that is said to be able to fly to Iran, the report indicated. “This plane can do all that is required of it when the order is given,” a pilot said, without elaboration.

The attack, the report said, would presumably trigger a war in northern Israel, with missile attacks (presumably from the Iranian-proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon). “There will be no tranquility and peace anywhere in Israel,” Ben-David said.

This could be the first full-scale war the IAF has fought in nearly 30 years, the report stated.

Pilots had already been told where their families would be moved, away from their bases, for safety, the report said.

Egypt’s Suleiman: Israel may consider occupying Sinai – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Ex-regime strongman says he fears ‘price Egypt will have to pay if Israel decides to reoccupy Sinai.’ Calls on political rivals to ‘exercise caution, keep peace in region’ in light of close relations between Egypt and Hamas

Roi Kais

Egyptian presidential candidate Omar Suleiman addressed the relations between Egypt and Israel for the first time since he announced his candidacy earlier this month.

In an interview with Egyptian daily al-Youm al-Saba’a, Suleiman analyzed relations between the two neighboring countries in the wake of the Arab Springand the ongoing terrorist activity originating from the Sinai Peninsula. “I’m fearful of the price Egypt will have to pay if Israel decides to reoccupy Sinai,” he said. 

He called on the Muslim Brotherhood party, which is considered his political rivals, “to exercise caution in an effort to keep peace in the region.”

“I fear that Israel thinks Egypt has become one of its enemies,” he said referring to the close relations between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and the current situation in Sinai.

“Israel regards the Sinai Peninsula as an unsecure area, and is lead by the notion that Egyptian territory can be used for rocket launching. Therefore, Israel may consider returning to secure borders,” he added.

Suleiman with PM Netanyahu (Photo: GPO)

Asked whether he plans to reoccupy Sinai, Suleiman replied: “It’s possible that Israel will confront us and use its national security as an excuse to do so. Israelis are experts at presenting such excuses to the world.”

He further said that he is fearful of misleading signals that could lead to unwanted confrontations. “If the Israelis reenter Sinai, they won’t be quick to leave it again. Egypt could pay a heavy price if such an event occurred,” he said.

According to Suleiman, “Egypt should continue tightening its relationship with Hamas but not at the expense of the country’s national interests, regional security and peace that will all enable Egypt to further develop internally.”

Suleiman, appointed deputy president by Mubarak in his last days in power, entered the presidential race at the last moment, triggering both concern and heavy criticism from reformists who see him as a symbol of Mubarak’s rule and a danger to democracy.

Tens of thousands of Egyptians packed into Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Friday to protestagainst Suleiman’s run for the presidency. Muslim Brotherhood supporters waved banners depicting the presidential candidate as an agent of Israel.

Meanwhile, the body overseeing Egypt’s presidential election recently disqualified10 candidates from the race, including Suleiman.

According to election rules, disqualified candidates have 48 hours to appeal the decision. The final list of candidates will be announced on April 26.

Suleiman told Egyptian media sources that the commission did not fully disqualify him but had told him that he had not presented the proper number of endorsements. Each candidate needed at least 30,000 endorsements, including at least 1,000 from each of the country’s 15 provinces, to join the race.

In response to his “temporary” disqualification, Suleiman pledged to press ahead with his campaign out of respect to his supporters.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 15, 2012, 10:18 PM (GMT+02:00)

Russian guided missile destroyer

Announcing he is not responsible for the safety of UN observers on their way to Syria if they don’t obey his rules, President Bashar Assad has set in motion steps for prolonging his war on the Syrian people rather than abiding by a truce. debkafile discloses he offered Moscow and Beijing $30 billion worth of government bonds for a massive injection of funds to replenish his depleted war chest.

And at the UN Security Council, while Russia’s Vitaly Churkin in a surprise turnabout voted with the West on a UN observer team to secure the Syrian ceasefire, Moscow quietly sent warships to Syrian shores to secure the Assad regime.

The heaviest outlay for keeping the massive Syrian war machine turning over is on fuel. Countless tanks, self-propelled artillery, thousands of trucks and tank transporters are constantly on the move from one rebel flashpoint to another, reinforcing embattled units and ferrying troops, equipment and ammunition.
Iran covers the payroll for military and security personnel and the government bodies keeping the regime functioning – to the tune of more than half a billion dollars a month, according to estimates. But the embargo on fuel sales to Syria puts Assad in the hands of Lebanese merchants. He has run out of funds to meet their exorbitant charges for petrol and diesel, without which his military crackdown on the opposition would grind to a stop. Russia and China have therefore been asked for the necessary funding.
Moscow, meanwhile, announced Friday, April 13, “A decision has been made to deploy Russian warships near the Syrian shores on a permanent basis.”

The communiqué did not say who made the decision, but it may be assumed that the decision-maker is at the top level of the Kremlin, President-elect Vladimir Putin.
It is the first time that Moscow has officially announced the permanent deployment of naval vessels in the eastern Mediterranean and off Syria in particular. They extend a protective shield over Bashar Assad and the continuation of his regime against outside military intervention. They also guarantee that the UN observer team, due in Damascus by Monday, April 16, never becomes the nucleus of a broader international expedition for Assad’s removal under the UN aegis, which is what happened in Libya.
Moscow is making sure that the monitors adhere strictly to their Security Council mandate, determined not to leave it Washington or NATO to set out their areas of operation and powers. Assad drove this point home Sunday when ahead of their arrival in Damascus, he warned that he would not be responsible for the observers’ safety if they failed to comply with his rules
Western and Israeli military circles therefore find it hard to understand the rationale of the US and Turkish push for international monitors in Syria, unless the initiative was nothing more than a device to save them having to intervene militarily in the conflict.

In the final reckoning, the presence of a couple of hundred UN monitors in Syria will if anything prolong the violence: the rebels will regard the observers as the vanguard of a major international intervention force to champion their cause, while Assad and Moscow will clip their wings so as to give the Syrian army a free hand to finish the job of wiping out the anti-Assad revolt.  Between the two, the UN team will be rendered useless like the Arab League monitors before them.
Seeing Russia and China solidly behind him, the Syria ruler expects them also to put their hands in their pockets to help him survive.