WarSclerotic

U.S. official: IAEA, Iran nuclear deal doesn’t spell end of American pressure – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

State Department spokesperson says UN-led talks are only one of two tracks on Iran issue, adding Tehran still required to take concrete steps to alleviate concerns regarding its nuclear program.

An Iranian technician working at the Uranium Conversion Facility just outside the city of Isfahan, Iran. Photo by AP

In a first official reaction to the forming deal between Iran and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, U.S. officials made it clear Tuesday that while the reported agreement was a positive sign, it did not mean Washington intendes to let up its pressure on the Islamic Republic over its continues nuclear program.

Referring to the reported IAEA-Iran deal, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said: “Obviously, we fully support IAEA efforts to try to resolve the outstanding issues,” adding that it was the administration’s “understanding is that they are still working on the precise terms.”

However, Nuland made it clear that “the announcement of the deal is one thing, but the implementation is what we’re going to be looking for, for Iran to truly follow through and provide the access to all of the locations, the documents and the personnel that the IAEA requires in order to determine whether Iran’s program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

The State Department official added that the U.S. was “looking for Iran to demonstrate unequivocally that its program is peaceful. There are separate but linked tracks for doing that.”

“One is to do what the IAEA needs, to demonstrate it has seen all the locations and all of the documents. The other is to work with the EU three plus three on concrete steps to give more reassurance of the kind that we’re seeking,” Nuland added.

Nuland said that she didn’t think “we see them as part and parcel of the effort that we’re looking for on the part of Iran,” adding that the Iranian regime needs to provide results on both the IAEA track – and the Baghdad talks.

Honing in on the burgeoning deal, the U.S. official said that what “the IAEA is involved in is verifying, on behalf of the international community, that the things that Iran is saying are true, are actually true. So in the context of any kind of an understanding that might be reached in the EU three plus three context, you would still want the IAEA to be able to verify the implementation of all of those things.”

Also commenting on news of an upcoming deal, U.S. President Barack Obama’s former senior advisor Dennis Ross, currently a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, indicated that the negotiations taking place are designed to maintain pressure on Iranians, as opposed to letting it up.

“It sends them a message that they can’t play for time – the Iranians shouldn’t have any illusions they can do minimum and get maximum in return,” he said, adding however that he didn’t believe talks in Baghdad mark a “make or break” moment.

“It’s unrealistic to see breakthrough at this point after only two rounds of talks, the process has to be much more continuous”, he said, adding: “There has to be indication on substance or the nature of the process. Since the window of opportunity won’t be open forever, the sooner we understand what kind of process we are in, the better. Suspension of enrichment is something that stops the clock and provides space and time to tackle the issue of the nuclear program. Another track could be changing the character of the program – having nuclear civil power will require firewalls that will ensure it cannot be translated to nuclear weapons capability.”

Ross said the Obama administration’s position is not to accept limited enrichment – but he also rejected the notion of the need to provide clear red line. “One has to be careful about the red lines – because historically others think everything is allowed up to the red line”, he said.

He added that the US administration stays in close contact with Israeli leadership on this matter. “It’s no coincidence [Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud] Barak came to visit Washington last week. I am sure the goal of this visit was to be a part of this discussion. Israeli positions have some impact on ours and there is no intention to surprise.”

Also on Tuesday, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, commended the Senate’s Monday approval of Iran sanctions echoing the skepticism expressed by the Israeli leadership ahead of the Baghdad meeting.

“I am deeply concerned that the so-called agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA will only be used as yet another stalling tactic to afford the Iranian regime greater time to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities”, she said, adding: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Ros-Lehtinen said that it had been “ten years since Iran’s covert nuclear program was discovered by the IAEA after decades had gone by when the regime successfully hid its nuclear activities from the world.”

“It has been ten years of manipulation by Tehran of international inspections. And for decades, the regime has ignored its international obligations. Yet, the IAEA seems content to give Iran a pass in exchange for yet more empty promises. Fortunately, Congress has not bought into this dangerous and foolhardy approach. I am gratified that the Senate finally passed its Iran sanctions legislation, although I am concerned that the legislation is not strong enough,” she added.

What Does Iran’s Nuclear Deal Mean? – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

May 22 2012, 10:05 AM ET 13

From the Associated Press:

Despite some remaining differences, a deal has been reached with Iran that will allow the U.N. nuclear agency to restart a long-stalled probe into suspicions that Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear arms, the U.N. nuclear chief said Tuesday.

What does this mean? It means that Iran has found an easy way to create the appearance of progress so that it may pursue its main goal of the moment, which is to forestall an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities by convincing President Obama and other Western leaders that it is serious about compromise. If Obama and other leaders are convinced they are making genuine progress with Iran, the pressure on Israel to postpone military action will become overwhelming. When Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, or agrees to shutter its centrifuge facility near Qom, that’s when you can start paying attention.

The Obama Administration understands this, of course. Critics on the right believe that Obama will cave and agree to a deal that would allow Iran to continue down the path toward nuclearization, but these critics are misreading Obama, and his seriousness on this issue. On the other hand, Obama disagrees with the Israeli position, which is, no enrichment whatsoever, but the Israeli stance is more of a bargaining point than anything else. It’s hard to believe the Israelis would attack if Iran were only enriching uranium to 3.5 percent.

Taking Maybe for An Answer – By Jon B. Alterman | Foreign Policy.

The hardest part of solving the nuclear crisis with Iran? Defining success.

BY JON B. ALTERMAN | MAY 22, 2012

It is easy to define failure in the world’s diplomatic efforts with Iran: an Iranian bomb — or more likely, a number of Iranian bombs — that emboldens the Islamic Republic, threatens the Middle East, and prompts many of Iran’s neighbors to develop their own weapons. In the arms race that would follow, citizens in an already unstable part of the world would live in constant terror.

It is harder, though, to define success. For many, success comes only when a very specific set of goals are reached — the government of Iran adopts a policy of full transparency regarding its nuclear program, halts enrichment, opens all of its nuclear and ballistic missile facilities to international inspection, and reveals all the sources for its technology and materials. Failure, they argue, occurs every day until success is achieved.

Defining success narrowly and failure broadly, however, has a way of hindering progress. It sets the bar very high: Few countries have openly renounced covert nuclear programs, and it is hard to think of one that has done so under a combination of intense international pressure and what they see as longstanding existential security threats.

The maximalists have a precedent for their ambitions: Libya. After more than a decade of harsh international sanctions, Muammar al-Qaddafi’s government began exploring ways to end Libya’s pariah status. In late 2003, a deal was inked that turned over Libya’s nuclear materials and provided a full description of the origins of Libya’s nuclear program — and it largely held. Qaddafi believed this would return him to the international community’s good graces and insulate him from America’s wrath.

But in applying Libya’s lessons to Iran, there are at least two problems. The first is that Libya had a single dictator rather than a diverse and bickering ruling oligarchy like exists in Iran. The second is that Qaddafi’s premise was wrong: Signing the nuclear deal did not give him security from the West. The ruling elite in Tehran must have grasped that lesson well last year when NATO warplanes hastened Qaddafi’s demise at the hands of his own people.

For some hawks, the purpose of defining success narrowly is to permit a military attack so devastating that it solves the broader set of Iranian problems once and for all. Some see the real prize of an attack — from the United States or Israel — as tempting Iran to enter an escalating battle with the United States. But even such a conflagration would do little to halt Iran’s pursuit of the bomb. Even if one assumes widespread opposition to the Iranian government, the recent history of the Middle East illustrates how quickly battles for spoils turn bloody. Should the Islamic Republic be toppled, the new government might still pursue its nuclear efforts, just as the ayatollahs pursued the efforts the shah started.

Among the worst military outcomes is a partially successful strike, which would likely sharpen rather than blunt Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions. After all, the mullahs would reason, no country with nuclear weapons ever has been attacked. Iran could rebuild the damage from a strike itself, or it could purchase technology and materiel overseas. If nuclear facilities allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty were attacked, Iran would likely withdraw from the agreement, further loosening constraints and shielding the nuclear program from the world’s view. Such an attack would also threaten to shatter international efforts to press for a change in Iranian behavior and unleash a range of second-order effects that would spike oil prices, drive the fragile global economy into a tailspin, and leave a trail of death from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.

Israel Reserves Right To Attack Iran Regardless Of Nuke Talks’ Progress – OpEd.

By: Richard Silverstein

May 22, 2012

Derisive comments from Israel’s leadership about reported progress leading up to the May 23rd second round of nuclear talks with Iran, signal that Israel wants, even needs the talks to fail:

…Benjamin Netanyahu…warned the world powers against letting Iran “push them around,” toughening his stance in a last-ditch effort to head off a nuclear agreement between the world powers and Iran at talks slated to start Wednesday in Baghdad.

…”The West is already caving in to Iran,” said one official.   The prime minister’s comments reflect a fear…that the talks…will result in an intermediate agreement that would not satisfy Israel on the one hand, and lead to the talks’ continuation for many months on the other. In that event, an Israeli military option against Iranian nuclear facilities would be off the table.

There can be only one reason for this: that Bibi Netanyahu wants a crack at Iran and to launch the F-16s, he needs a failure of the diplomatic track.

Israel fears that the western powers are prepared to sell it out in return for a watered down agreement that delays, but does not end the Iranian nuclear threat.  Israel wants Armageddon now, a final showdown in which Iran is beaten to a pulp and shown who’s boss.  The only problem is that Israel can’t deliver such a knockout blow and even an attack will only delay Iran’s nuclear program.

Maariv’s report goes even farther and has Israeli officials predicting that the talks will fail and that Iran will continue enriching uranium on its path toward nuclear capability.  And whatever the outcome of the talks, Israel arrogates to itself freedom of action to determine what is best for its security interests, which may include an attack.

Israeli leaders believe Iran is dissembling, appearing to show good faith in order to evade the burden of crippling sanctions threatened by the west; all the while intending to offer nothing of substance in return.  Paranoia seems a prerequisite for Israeli leadership.  Thus Maariv says the Israelis believe the western negotiating parties also want to draw out the talks, believing that as long as they continue Israel will have a more difficult time bucking the international consensus to allow diplomacy to run its course.

Another Israeli rejected this claim.  Bibi, according to this source, won’t allow negotiations to deter him from his own independent course.  The Israeli newspaper says that senior Israeli sources have already noted that Israel’s air force would attack “before fall.”

The Iranians, according to official Israeli thinking, believe that if they draw the talks out beyond the November presidential election, that it will strengthen Obama’s hand (presuming he wins) and weaken Israel’s, since Obama supposedly prefers the diplomatic track to an attack.

As I’ve pointed out, the irony of the entire P5+1 negotiations is that these same world powers could’ve had essentially the same deal in 2010 when Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to stop enriching uranium beyond 20% and to transfer its existing enriched stocks to Turkey.  Those with a sharp memory will remember that it was the U.S. which put the kibosh on that deal.  What was it the man said about “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity?”

UPDATE: AP reports that on his return from Tehran that IAEA chief, Yukio Amano announced that he’d reached an agreement with Iran giving inspectors access to previously off-limits nuclear facilities.  One hopes it also augurs well for tomorrow’s start to the P5+1 talks with Iran.  This will cause no end of grief in Tel Aviv.

Yadlin: Don’t rush to declare Iran talks a failure – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As new nuclear inspection agreement with Iran is announced, former military intel chief says results of negotiations should be analyzed, adds that any potential Israeli strike would need US backup

Ron Ben-Yishai

“Israel’s political and military leadership has done the right thing by preparing a realistic military option (for attacking Iran),” former Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin said Tuesday morning as the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it had reached an agreement with Iran on nuclear inspection.

At a Herzliya conference addressing the challenges facing the Israel Air Force in light of changes in the Middle East, Yadlin qualified his statement, saying “Using this military option would require us to consider in advance what would happen not only immediately afterward, but also 10 years later.”

“Iran can renew its nuclear development, and therefore when weighing whether to attack or not Israel must consider US opinion and the international community’s view of a strike,” Yadlin observed.

“Because of the changes that will take place in the region, we will need them after (any) strike on Iran, if there is one,” Yadlin said.

IAEA head Yokiya Amano with Iran’s nuclear negotiator in Tehran (Photo: AP) 

Yadlin assessed that a strike on Iran would delay its nuclear program by three to five years. After that, he said, it would be necessary to continue pressuring Tehran, and Israel could not do that alone. Yadlin added that the current talks in Germany between Iran and the five UN Security Council members should not be written off as a failure, but studied thoroughly. “We need to see if the summer of 2012 brings us a reasonable deal, or if we will need to exercise other options,” he said.

Yadlin, a former IAF commander, was referring to a possible Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. He proposed three criteria by which the latest round of talks should be analyzed:

a) The removal of some six tons of uranium enriched to 4.5% to a place from which Iran wouldn’t be able to use it would be insufficient, Yadlin said, since the since the uranium enriched to 20% is the material that poses a danger to world peace and would allow Iran to assemble a number of warheads.

b) The existence of the nuclear site adjacent to the city of Qum, Yadlin argued, allows uranium to be brought into the “zone of immunity” and enriched to the highest level without the risk of being attacked. “Closing (this) facility closes the immunity zone,” he stressed.

c) Well-specified arrangements to be supervised by the IAEA

An illustration of Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility (AP)

“Any agreement that includes these three elements is a reasonable one,” Yadlin said, a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak called for much harsher measures. The former Military Intelligence head said he believed that if no reasonable agreement were reached, Israel would have international legitimization to use other options.

Earlier Tuesday, IAEA head Yokiya Amano announced that a deal on the inspection of Iran’s nuclear program had been reached and would “soon be signed.”

At the conclusion of a surprising two-day visit in Tehran, which included meetings with senior Iranian officials, Amano announced the decision to end the meetings and sign the agreement. While a number of details remained to be worked out, Iran did not plan to prevent the final signing, the IAEA said.

Israel has not yet issued an official response to the announcement, but a diplomatic operative said that “Unless (they) have reached an agreement that stipulates inspection of all Iran’s nuclear facilities, the deal isn’t a cause for optimism. Iran ‘agreeing to oversight’ means that they’re either stopping activity in the facilities they are prepared to open for inspection or are running some kind of trick.'”

According to Yadlin, who addressed the issue with unusual candor, Israel should employ the full force of its power in future wars. He said he believed that it was a mistake for Israel to bow to US pressure not to attack civilian targets in Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War.

“The Americans who pressured us not to attack out of concern for the government of (then-prime minister Fuad) Saniora forgot to worry about the Olmert government,” Yadlin said.

Diplomat: Iran deal maintains nuclear sanctions, Israeli ‘cynicism’ unwarranted – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Speaking to Haaretz, official involved in P5+1 talks due to take place in Baghdad rejects Israel’s criticism of burgeoning agreement; Iran inserts fuel rods into Tehran research reactor.

By Anshel Pfeffer and Avi Issacharoff | May.22, 2012 | 7:56 PM | 6

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, left, talking with reporters during a news briefing with Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, right, in Tehran, Iran, Monday, 21, 2012. Photo by AP

A newly formed deal between Iran and world powers does not guarantee the lifting of economic sanctions, a western diplomat involved in the talks said on Tuesday, rejecting Israeli accusations, according to which talks provide Iran with more time to advance its nuclear weapons program.

The diplomat’s comments came following an announcement by Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in which he indicated that he had reached an agreement with Iran on probing suspected work on atomic weapons, adding that he hoped the agreement would “be signed quite soon.”

Amano’s announcement was met with skepticism in Israel, with a senior official warning of Tehran’s history of ignoring agreements, adding that the “IAEA’s last report refers to the military intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. North Korea has also reached agreements with the IAEA in the past, and this ended in two nuclear attempts.”

Speaking to Haaretz later Tuesday, a western diplomat involved in the talks with Iran, due to begin Wednesday in Baghdad, said that “for the first time, it is clear that the Iranians are willing to engage in concrete issues and talk about the uranium enrichment.”

The diplomat rejected claims being made in Israel that the talks are simply allowing the Iranians more time to proceed in developing nuclear weapons, saying: “Nobody here is naïve,” adding that “we know full well the history of negotiations with Iran, and their history of hiding things, but we have a responsibility to go down the diplomatic route and see if an agreement can be reached.”

“There is room for skepticism, but the cynicism we are hearing from Israeli is unwarranted,” he added.

The diplomat heralded the imminent agreement between the Iranians and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on new inspections of Iran’s nuclear installations, saying that “Iranian cooperation with the IAEA is sine qua non, to a framework treaty between Iran and the international community” and that there had been no promise to an easing of international sanctions on Iran in return for this agreement.”

In response to Israeli accusations that the negotiators were willing to accept empty Iranian promises, the diplomat said that “we are not just taking promises and good atmosphere as proof.”

“We will require concrete steps from the Iranian and we will have to see movement on the uranium issue. Without these steps, without traction on uranium enrichment, there will be no easing of the sanctions,” he added.

He added that current “sanctions now are so complex and expensive to the Iranians that we can tentatively remove one or two elements while keeping most of the sanctions in place. The sanctions won’t be an on-off switch but bargaining chips.”

The diplomat stressed that they were demanding the Iranians concede both on the level of uranium enrichment and on the uranium that has already been enriched to 20 percent. He said also that the talks would not end in Baghdad, “but it’s about a framework that will include also other aspects of the Iranian program.”

Earlier Tuesday, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported that Iranian scientists had inserted a domestically made fuel rod, which contains pellets of 20 percent enriched uranium, into the core of a research nuclear reactor in Tehran.

The advance would be another step in achieving proficiency in the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran said in January that it had produced the first nuclear fuel rod, and that it had to find a way to make them because Western sanctions prohibit their purchase from foreign markets.

Israeli official downplays Iran nuclear deal with IAEA, citing past violations – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

IDF intelligence official says external pressure has not brought about change in Iran’s nuclear policies.

By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis | May.22, 2012 | 4:02 PM | 2

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, welcomes International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano for their meeting in Tehran. Photo by AP

The announcement that International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) head Yukiya Amano had struck a deal with Iran Tuesday to inspect its nuclear facilities was received in Jerusalem with great suspicion.

According to a top Israeli official, the government is very skeptical that Iran would adhere to any deal.

“The Iranians are serial agreement violators,” said the official. “We know from past experiences how all these agreements between the IAEA and Iran end. Iran continued to establish uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz under the nose of the international community. The IAEA’s last report refers to the military intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. North Korea has also reached agreements with the IAEA in the past, and this ended in two nuclear attempts.”

The official added that it is necessary to distinguish between the talks held by Amano in Tehran and the ones set to open on Wednesday in Baghdad between Iran and the P5+1 countries (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany). “Amano’s talks in Tehran dealt mostly with the issue of inspection over nuclear facilities,” said the official. “This is not enough. The Iranian plan continues and needs to be stopped, which means an end to uranium enrichment.”

During a meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday, Research Division at Military Intelligence Brig. Gen. Itai Baron stated that “Iran is asking to enter into extended talks with the international community…but the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear program in order to obtain enriched material through operating a site near Qom, as well as continuous activities in Busheir.”

Baron added that the “sanctions and the internal situation in Iran are very bothersome to the regime and pushing it toward talks. The Iranian public, as opposed to the uprising of 2009, does not believe in its power to change the political reality through protests. The pressure put on Iran from the outside has not brought about a change in its nuclear policies.”

Barak: Iran is fooling West with… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By YAAKOV KATZ, JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS

05/22/2012 17:06

Israeli officials react with apprehension that Iran is tricking the West; Defense minister: Tehran trying to create “appearance” of progress; Amano says “a decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement.”

Photo: Marc Israel Sellem

IAEA: Deal with Iran to be signe… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

05/22/2012 11:39

UN nuclear watchdog chief says “a decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement,” which would boost its cooperation with investigations into its atomic program; Baghdad talks with P5+1 set to take begin.

Photo: REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

VIENNA – The UN nuclear watchdog chief said on Tuesday he expected to sign a deal with Iran soon to boost its cooperation with an investigation into Tehran’s disputed atomic activity, although differences remained.

Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spoke a day after holding rare talks in Tehran and a day before Iran and six world powers will hold broader negotiations on the extent of Tehran’s nuclear program.

“(A) decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement … I can say it will be signed quite soon,” Amano told reporters at Vienna airport after returning from Tehran.

Amano, who had been looking for a deal giving his inspectors a freer hand to investigate suspected atomic bomb research in Iran, described the outcome of his meetings in Iran as an “important development”.

He said “some differences” remained but that Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili had told him these would not pose an obstacle to an agreement.

Jalili on Wednesday will sit down in Baghdad with senior officials from the six world powers involved in efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear stand-off peacefully.

“We understand each other’s position better,” Amano said about his talks with Jalili and other Iranian officials.

He said he had raised the issue of access to the Parchin military site – an IAEA priority in its inquiry – and that this would be addressed as part of the agreement’s implementation.

Obama secretly approves top-of-the-line anti-tank arms for Syrian rebels.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 22, 2012, 12:01 PM (GMT+02:00)

Syrian T-72 on fire

Monday, May 21, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said he was “extremely troubled about the risk of an all-out civil war (in Syria) and was concerned about the outbreak of related violence in Lebanon.”
He spoke as dozens of Syrians died in clashes – mostly in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib and the town of Homs – while two people were killed in Beirut in a spillover of Syrian bloodshed.

Sunday, at the NATO summit in Chicago, Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said firmly that the alliance has “no intention” of taking military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime. But he said nothing about individual NATO members translating their concern about the escalating violence in Syria into military action. Above all, he did not explain why Syrian army heavy T-72 tanks have in recent days started bursting into flames on the open roads.
debkafile’s military sources disclose the cause: The Syrian rebels have received their first “third generation” anti-tank weapons, 9K115-2 Metis-M and Kornet E. They are supplied by Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies following a secret message from President Barack Obama advising them to up the military stake in the effort to oust Assad.
Saturday, May 19, President Obama said in a speech to the G-8 summit at Camp David that “Bashar al-Assad must leave power.” Listening to him were Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev whose government strongly opposes the bid to topple Assad and is helping him to weather the uprising against his rule.
Medvedev and Chinese leader Hu Jintao both kept silent after Obama spoke. Both would have had intelligence updates relayed to Camp David on the latest turn of events in Syria.
The supply of powerful anti-tank missiles to the Syrian rebels is intended to achieve two purposes:

1. To impede Syrian military tank movements between flashpoints. During the 14-month uprising, there was nothing to stop Syrian tanks criss-crossing the country as back-up for the official crackdown on dissent. But in recent weeks, trucks hauling the T-72 are being blown up before they reach their destinations.
2.  The sight of blazing tanks is intended to undermine army morale and puncture the self-assurance of the security circles surrounding the president.
The anti-tank missiles reaching the rebels through Saudi and Qatari channels are only one facet of the unfolding US plan for the Syrian crisis, our military sources report. Turkish intelligence has been given the green light to arm Syria rebels with IED roadside bombs tailored for the Syrian theater and intensively train the dissidents in their use at Turkish military facilities. This is tantamount to Ankara’s first direct military intervention in Syria.
How will Assad and his backers in Tehran and Moscow handle the upscale of rebel munitions?
According to our sources, the Syrian ruler and his cronies are not shaken in their conviction that even with heavy weapons in play they will suppress the revolt, because the majority of the population is still behind the regime and because the rebels will find it hard to wield the advanced systems, especially by day.
But his Russian and Iranian military and intelligence advisers are growing less sanguine as they watch foreign military intervention expand step by step. They are warning the Syrian ruler that the advanced missiles reaching the rebels represent the most dangerous development his regime has faced to date. They reckon that, after failing to ignite a full-dress unified rebellion inside the main Syrian cities, the West and the Arab states have turned to equipping anti-Assad rebel forces for pursuing sustained guerilla warfare between the big cities – on the main roads and in rural and mountainous areas.
Russian and Iranian tacticians agree that the Syrian army, like most other regular armies, is not trained or structured for combating guerilla forces. Adapting it to the new peril would be a long process.