Archive for May 7, 2012

‘Standing idly by’ in Syria

May 7, 2012

Israel Hayom | ‘Standing idly by’ in Syria.

 

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points” here.

The foolish hope – whether real or pretended – that the U.N. plan for peace in Syria would work is gone. At least since the Assad regime’s bloody attack on Aleppo University last week, this has been clear even to previously blind diplomats.

As The Washington Post reported, “’None of the six points are being honored,’ said a senior administration official privy to internal U.S. assessments. … Western hopes for salvaging a nearly four-week-old cease-fire in Syria have all but evaporated … reports from inside Syria point to a determined, but lower-profile, effort by President Bashar ­al-Assad to crush remaining pockets of opposition in defiance of international agreements. …”

On Feb. 23, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “World opinion is not going to stand idly by.” Quite right: Instead, there are conferences and talk fests, resolutions and observers, none of which have moved Assad. But instead of American leadership there are statements like this one, also from Clinton that day: “They will find somewhere, somehow the means to defend themselves.”

Syria has become a proxy war of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah against the Syrian people. American officials who want to defend our inaction warn that jihadis, Salafis, and other Islamist extremists are entering Syria to fight against the regime. I assume that this is true, and that more will come to fill the vacuum created as the regime goes on killing Sunnis but the population gets little or no help in resisting. Intelligence officials to whom I have spoken warn that there is another, far better organized foreign presence in Syria: fighters from Hezbollah and Iran. They are giving Assad’s badly stretched loyalist forces essential assistance, not just in money and weapons but in tactical advice and actual participation on the ground. While “world opinion” is in fact standing idly by, Iran and Hezbollah are not – and Russia supplies diplomatic protection and sells more weapons.

What is missing here? The United States. American leadership would change the balance diplomatically and on the ground, affect the policies of the Europeans, Jordanians, and Turks, improve the morale and performance of the Syrian opposition, and begin to move those still on the fence into an anti-Assad position. Assad has buried the foolish U.N. or Kofi Annan plan, so it is more difficult now to hide the policy choices we face. Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia are acting in Syria, and the United States is not. It seems the Syrian people will not “find somewhere, somehow the means to defend themselves” unless we do. It is fair to throw Secretary Clinton’s words back at her, but it isn’t her policy; it is the president’s. Only he can decide to abandon the pretense that U.N. resolutions will bring down the Assad regime. Only he can decide that the posture of standing idly by, watching the murders and repression in Syria, must end.

The Washington Post reports that the last few days have brought the following: “quietly rounding up hundreds of university students in the country’s largest city, Aleppo, and the stabbing deaths of several suspected opposition figures by pro-Assad hit squads. … Anti-government activists reported renewed shelling by government tanks on Friday in the city of Douma, near Damascus, as well as snipers firing at protesters from rooftops.” When will the president decide that enough is enough?

 

Change of French presidents weakens Western front against nuclear Iran

May 7, 2012

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 7, 2012, 12:11 AM (GMT+02:00)

 

Francois Hollande, new President of France

Two stalwarts of the Western confrontation against a nuclear-armed Iran suffered election defeats this week: Nicolas Sarkozy was swept out of the Elysee by the Socialist leader Francois Hollande Sunday, May 6. Three days earlier, the two parties forming UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s government coalition were trounced in local elections across Britain. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who faces an election in four months, never imagined he would be left so quickly on shifting sands against the Iranian nuclear threat.
In Washington, Dennis Ross, Barack Obama’s former adviser on Iran and frequent visitor to Jerusalem with messages from the White House said Sunday, May 6, that oddly enough Israel had attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and destroyed Syria’s nuclear facility 2007 without talk. So why were Israelis talking so much now?

Ross answered his own question by suggesting that Israeli leaders aimed at giving the world a strong motive for raising the heat on Iran and tightening sanctions so as to stop Israel going to war; then, if sanctions and diplomacy failed, no one could complain if Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program.

Ross appears to have forgotten the rows between the US and Israel in 1981 over attacking the Iraqi reactor and how hard Ronald Reagan leaned on Menahem Begin to stop him going through with it.
But most of all, Ross was reflecting the Obama administration’s impatience with the Iran debate going back and forth between Jerusalem and Washington for two years and is determined to wash its hands of the problem for now and get on with winning the president a second term in November.
The outgoing French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke more forcefully and frankly than any other Western leader about the real danger of a nuclear-armed Iran and accepted that it would have to be tackled by military action. He was also stood out as one of the few French leaders of recent times prepared to fight for French and Western Middle East interests.
The role of French special forces, navy and air forces, alongside US and British forces, was pivotal in the campaign to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi. In recent weeks, he placed French units on standby in case President Obama decided to intervene in Syria. In the event, the US president pulled back from an operation that was planned to have involved Saudi and GCC armies as well.
France’s successful military showing in the Libyan war brought no political or economic rewards. Indeed, Paris shelled out a million dollars it could ill afford to pay for it. Sarkozy’s opponent Francois Hollande did not make this an issue in his campaign, but it was certainly not lost on the French voter. The French Muslim voter no doubt settled scores with Sarkozy for his ban on the veil and pro-Israeli policies and may even have cost him the presidency, although this issue too did not come to the fore in electioneering.
David Cameron, who probably spent even more on the Libyan war than Sakrozy and could afford it even less, is paying a heavy political price for the unpopular austerity measures he is clamping down on the British people to haul the country out of a deepening recession.
Iran has therefore won a handy breather on several fronts:  Barack Obama is carefully avoiding any war involvement in the course of his election campaign – he even asked world leaders to give him “space”; French President Hollande needs time to find his feet, attack the declining French economy and rescue the euro. He will have no time or attention to spare in the months to come for Iran’s nuclear threat or the Syrian bloodbath.
When ten days ago, Netanyahu sent his security adviser Yaacov Amidror on a round trip to European capitals to pitch Israel’s case against Iran, he never imagined how quickly the Iranian issue would recede into irrelevance as key Western government go swept up in more pressing business and upsets.
Netanyahu announced Sunday that he would call an early election in four months, a year before it is due.
Prime minister since 2009, he is assured by every opinion poll that he is miles ahead in popularity of any Israeli politician. He told a meeting of his party Sunday, May 6, that he didn’t want “a year and a half of political instability accompanied by blackmail and populism”.

Currently in his element, he may feel that it is up to him now to take the initiative for preempting a nuclear Iran. And the sooner the better.