WarSclerotic

Iran’s role | JPost | Israel News.

UK Parliament, US Congress set to give green light on Syria strike | JPost | Israel News.

Report: Assad is in Iran – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

( Makes sense his family would accompany him for “talks” about the strike.  AKA “fleeing.” – JW )

Assad on state television channel Al-Ikhbariya

AFP photo

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and members of his family are in Tehran, after they arrived at Homeini Airport in the presidential plane Tuesday night, sources in Iran’s foreign ministry told the website of Lebanese newsaper a-Nahar. The news did not receive confirmation from other official sources.

Daily newspaper Israel Hayom, which cites the report, notes that a-Nahar is considered close to Hezbollah as well as to the leadership in Syria and Iran.

According to the a-Nahar report, Assad was also accompanied by senior members of his government. They are to hold discussions with senior Iranians regarding the Syrian response to a possible U.S. strike on Syria, which is expected to take place soon.

A senior official in the Syrian army warned the United States and its allies on Tuesday that waging a full-scale war on Syria would be reciprocated with an immediate attack on Tel Aviv.

“If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted too and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a license for attacking Israel,” the Syrian army source told the Iranian Fars news agency.

“Rest assured that if Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbors,” he added.

The source also warned the U.S. and other Western states that if Syria grows weak, “certain irresponsible groups” will be formed which will endanger Israel’s security.

Obama Planning Limited Missile Strike – Report – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

U.S. President Barack Obama

Flash 90

The United States is planning a limited strike in Syria that would “deter and degrade” Bashar al-Assad’s military withgout dramatically altering the balance of power between his forces and those of the rebels, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing senior defense officials.

The weapon of choice, defhints the article, would probably be Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from the U.S. destroyers currently in the Mediterranean, which would be aimed at Syrian military targets and other regime targets.

Chemical-weapons supplies are not on the list of targets because of the potential for widespread collateral damage, the officials said.

The Journal added that the Obama administration’s planning “appears likely to mirror, in scope and tone, punitive strikes taken under President Bill Clinton in 1998 against al Qaeda, and Operation Desert Fox, a four-day military campaign by U.S. and British forces against Iraq in December that same year.”

Two weeks after al Qaeda bombs caused massive carnnage at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 – killing more than 200 people, including 12 Americans – Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan. These limited attacks later came under criticism for sending the wrong message to Al Qaeda, which was emboldened and proceeded to carry out the catastrophic 2001 9/11 attack just three years later.

In Operation Desert Fox, U.S. and British forces used cruise missiles and aircraft in a major four-day bombing campaign with an aim to degrade Iraq’s then-President Saddam Hussein’s ability to make chemical and biological weapons. The December 1998 campaign came in response to Iraq’s failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors. Its stated goal was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq’s ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

CNN delivered a similar message to its readers, quoting a senior Administration official who said the strike would be limited in time, and no more than “a quick response to the use of chemical weapons.”

“Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week and before the administration has to make a decision on whether to suspend aid to Egypt because of the ongoing political turmoil there,” the official explained.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called on the International Community on Tuesday to take “decisive and serious” position against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“The rejection of the Syrian regime of all serious and earnest Arab efforts …. requires a decisive and serious standby the international community to stop the humanitarian tragedy of the Syrian people,” Prince al-Faisal said, according to the state news agency SPA.

Meanwhile, the Arab League blamed al-Assad for the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus a week ago, and urged the 15-member U.N. Security Council to take action. The Arab League holds Syria “fully responsible for the ugly crime and demands that all the perpetrators of this heinous crime be presented for international trials,” the statement said.

Diplomatic sources told Al Arabiya that the Arab League’s statement had been pushed through by the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in the knowledge that air strikes were being discussed.

Report: 20 injured in another chemical attack in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Media report second chemical attack in Damascus. Assad affiliates say if Syria is attacked it would strike Israel

Roi Kais

Arab media reported Wednesday that another chemical attack struck Syrian territory, injuring several people in the Jobar neighborhood in eastern Damascus.

According to Al Jazeera, the number of injured was 20, whereas Al-Arabiya reported of nine.

Media also reported of a blast in the al Mujahedeen neighborhood, also in the Syrian capital. The circumstances of the blast are still unclear.

Syria’s opposition coalition said on Tuesday President Bashar Assad‘s forces had dropped phosphorus bombs and napalm on civilians in rural Aleppo on Monday, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.

Video footage uploaded on the Internet, apparently of Monday’s attack, showed doctors frantically smearing white cream on the reddened skin of several screaming people, many of them young boys. “Assad’s military aircraft have hit populated areas with the internationally prohibited phosphorus bombs and napalm,” the opposition coalition said in a statement.

According to a Tuesday Foreign Policy magazine, US intelligence has intercepted an urgent phone call placed by a senior Syrian Defense Ministry official with a commander in a chemical weapons unit.

According to the report, the official contacted the commander to demand answers for the alleged chemical attack that killed more than 1,000 people in a Damascus suburb August 21. The call is the US’ main proof that Assad’s regime is responsible for the attack.

Assad affiliates insinuate Scud attack on Israel

Kuwait paper Al Rai has quoted sources close to Syrian President Bashar Assad as hinting that the embattled regime would attack Israel if Western forces launch an attack on its territory.

“Iraqi Scuds flew thousands of kilometers to reach Israel while Syrian missiles are no more than 50 km away from Israel’s most sensitive facilities,” the source said.

“If Israel wants to retaliate to a Syrian attack, the regime’s response will go further because it has nothing to lose,” he added, noting “A drowning man is not afraid to get wet.”

Israel’s interest: That Assad not be victorious | The Times of Israel.

On the eve of what seems to be imminent US action in Syria, two local experts have similar conclusions about Jerusalem’s preferred scenario

A Tomahawk cruise missile fired from aboard a US destroyer. (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

With four US warships prowling the eastern Mediterranean, poised to respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s apparent usage of chemical weapons, Israeli security chiefs have likely swiveled their intelligence-collecting antennae to the Syrian front and lowered their public profiles, seeking neither to be seen as the instigator of a US strike, nor as provoking a Syrian response.

The US, for reasons ranging from presidential prestige to moral imperatives to strict national interests, seems ready to act. “I think it is fair to say that, as difficult as the problem is, this is something that is going to require America’s attention and hopefully the entire international community’s attention,” President Barack Obama told CNN over the weekend.

But of the many options open to the US — from a tongue lashing to a limited strike to a debilitating blow to the Assad regime — which, if any, serves Israel’s national interests?

Brig. Gen. (ret) Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute of National Security Studies, said his view has changed over the course of the brutal war in Syria. “At first, I was one of those who said that the best possible scenario is that Assad put down the rebellion like his father did,” said Brom, a former head of the IDF’s Strategic Planning Division. His thinking at the time, he said, was that if Syria was deterred by Israel, the chances of war were slim to none, and he believed that Assad, despite his ties to Hezbollah and Iran, sincerely sought a peace agreement with Israel.

“But now Syria has begun playing on a much bigger court,” Brom said Sunday, noting that the Syrian civil war had pitted Saudi Arabia and Qatar against Iran and, to a certain extent, the US against Russia. “Therefore, Israel’s interest is that he not be victorious,” he said of Assad.

Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks at the Opera House in central Damascus, Syria, on Sunday, January 6, 2013. (photo credit: AP/SANA)

From Israel’s perspective, there are two good US options and one bad one, Brom went on. The first and most likely scenario entails a strike that is punitive in nature and limited in time and scope. A one-time barrage of Tomahawk sea-to-surface missiles against a symbolic Syrian target — much like the 1998 US strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan — would not have a significant impact on the outcome of the conflict, said Brom, but it would be helpful in that it would likely deter Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons.

On the other end of the spectrum is a “true and effective intervention.” That type of move, perhaps entailing actions akin to the March 1999 invasion of Yugoslavia, is not likely, Brom said.

Shlomo Brom (photo credit: Courtesy)

But it would be far preferable to the middle ground — the bad alternative — which might entail “a true intervention that is not effective,” Brom said characterizing such a step as the kind that “allowed the war to grind on and on.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, in July wrote a letter to Congress outlining five possible options for US action in Syria, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported. Options No. 4 and 5 — creating buffer zones to protect civilians and seizing control of all chemical weapons, respectively — would fit neatly into Brom’s least desirable category.

Professor Efraim Inbar, the head of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies, was unequivocal about the ultimate Israeli interest. “There are no good options,” he said of the situation in Syria. “But the Israeli interest is that Bashar not survive.”

As an ally of Iran, Israel’s No. 1 enemy, Assad has to go, even at the cost of anarchy or extremist Sunni control in Damascus, Inbar indicated.

Efraim Inbar (photo credit: Courtesy)

Asked whether a US strike could trigger a retaliation against Israel, as happened during the first Gulf War, and whether the nature of the US strike might dictate the severity of Assad’s response, both Brom and Inbar were cautious yet dubious of Assad’s willingness to attack Israel.

“There was a broad Arab coalition against Saddam,” Inbar claimed, asserting that the point of Saddam Hussein’s missile launches in January 1991 was to drag Israel into the fray and thereby fracture the Arab unity. “Here there’s hardly any Arab coalition at all.”

Brom said Assad’s bottom line was “survivability” — a goal that clashed with a major strike against Israel. “Syria is right on our border,” he said. “We can be very effective there… actually, more so than the Americans.”

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable.

Posted By Noah Shachtman Tuesday, August 27, 2013 – 8:54 PM

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military’s rationale for launching the strike — if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. “We don’t know exactly why it happened,” the intelligence official added. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 — the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors’ accounts and video documentation of the tragedy — are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.

However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That’s the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.

There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately — or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the work of that team “redundant … because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale.”

But within the intelligence community, at least, “there’s an interest in letting the U.N. piece run its course,” the official said. “It puts the period on the end of the sentence.”

When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn’t even indentify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime’s chemical weapon of choice.

Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. “Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn’t be so much rocket left,” the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.

In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria’s horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story — one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.

The official White House line is that the president is still considering his options for Syria. But all of Washington is talking about a punitive strike on the Assad government in terms of when, not if. Even some congressional doves have said they’re now at least open to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Images of dead children, neatly stacked in rows, have a way of changing minds.

“It’s horrible, it’s stupid,” the intelligence official said about the East Ghouta attack by the Syrian military. “Whatever happens in the next few days — they get what they deserve.”

Momentum grows for military action against Syria – Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz.

U.S. and France say they are in position for a strike; Arab League joins call for punitive action; British PM calls in Parliament for emergency vote.

By The Associated Press | Aug. 28, 2013 | 6:21 AM | 3

U.S. Navy showing the guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage (DDG 61), the amphibious transport dock ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) and the guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt (DDG 80). Photo by AFP

Momentum appeared to build Tuesday for Western military action against Syria, with the U.S. and France saying they are in position for a strike, while the government in Damascus vowed to use all possible measures to repel it.

The prospect of a dramatic U.S.-led intervention into Syria’s civil war stemmed from the West’s assertion – still not endorsed by UN inspectors – that President Bashar Assad‘s government was responsible for an alleged chemical attack on civilians outside Damascus on August 21 that the group Doctors Without Borders says killed 355 people. Assad denies the claim.

The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.

British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to hold an emergency vote Thursday on his country’s response. It is unlikely that any international military action would begin before then.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said U.S. military forces stand ready to strike Syria at once if President Barack Obama gives the order, and French President Francois Hollande said France was “ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents.”

Obama is weighing a response focused narrowly on punishing Assad for violating international agreements that ban the use of chemical weapons. Officials said the goal was not to drive Assad from power or impact the broader trajectory of Syria’s bloody civil war, now in its third year.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday the West should be under no illusion that bombing Syrian military targets would help end the violence in Syria, an ally of Moscow, and he pointed to the volatile situations in Iraq and Libya that he said resulted from foreign military intervention.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his country would use “all means available” to defend itself.

“We have the means to defend ourselves and we will surprise everyone,” he said. At a news conference in Damascus, al-Moallem challenged Washington to present proof to back up its accusations and he also likened the allegations to false American charges in 2003 that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion of that country. “They have a history of lies – Iraq,” he said.

Vice President Joe Biden said there was no question that Assad was responsible for the attack – the highest-ranking U.S. official to say so – and the White House dismissed as “fanciful” the notion that anyone other than Assad could be to blame.

“Suggestions that there’s any doubt about who’s responsible for this are as preposterous as a suggestion that the attack did not occur,” spokesman Jay Carney said.

A U.S. official said some of the evidence includes signals intelligence – information gathered from intercepted communications. The U.S. assessment is also based on the number of reported victims, the symptoms of those injured or killed, and witness accounts. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the internal deliberations.

The United Nations said its team of chemical weapons experts in Syria had delayed a second trip to investigate the alleged attack by one day for security reasons. On Monday, the team came under sniper fire.

If Obama decides to order an attack against Syria, it would most likely involve sea-launched cruise missile attacks on Syrian military and communications targets.

The U.S. Navy has four destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea within range of targets inside Syria. The U.S. also has warplanes in the region.

In Cyprus, Defense Minister Fotis Fotiou said naval traffic in the eastern Mediterranean was very heavy with vessels from “all the major powers.” He also said Cypriot authorities were planning to deal with a possible exodus of foreign nationals from Syria.

U.S. military intervention in Syria was running into fierce opposition from some members of Congress. A growing chorus of Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanded that Obama seek congressional authorization for any strikes against the Assad regime.

Charles Heyman, a former British officer who edits The Armed Forces of the UK, said the lack of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against the Syrian government greatly complicates matters for the West. He said that may make it difficult for Cameron to win parliamentary backing.

“It’s clear the governments want some form of military operation, but if the Security Council doesn’t recommend it, then the consensus is that it’s plainly illegal under international law,” Heyman said. “The only legal way to go to war is in self-defense and that claim is difficult to make.”

Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, has steadfastly opposed any international action against Syria.

Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said her country would not back any military action against Syria unless it was authorized by the Security Council — even though it considers a chemical attack to be a war crime.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Monday that if the Syrian government were proven to have been behind the gas attack, then Germany would support “consequences.” But with less than four weeks until national elections, it is unlikely Germany would commit any forces.

Center-left opposition parties have rejected military intervention without UN proof that the Syrian government was behind the attack. And a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party said the German military was already at “the breaking point” due to commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Support for some sort of international military response is likely to grow if it is confirmed that Assad’s regime was responsible.

The UN confirmed its chemical weapons team’s mission faced a one-day delay Tuesday to improve preparedness and safety after unidentified snipers opened fire on the team’s convoy Monday.

In Geneva, UN spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci said the UN inspection team might need longer than the planned 14 days to complete its work. She said its goal is to determine what chemical weapons might have been used in the August 21 attack.

The Obama administration is making a legal argument for undertaking a military response to the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, but said any action against the Syrian regime is not intended to depose Assad.

Carney said the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons. Those countries have a stake in ensuring that international norms must be respected and there must be a response to a clear violation of those norms, he said.

In a veiled allusion to difficulties in getting any strong action through the Security Council, France’s Hollande said that “international law must evolve with the times. It cannot be a pretext to allow mass massacres to be perpetrated.”

He then went on to invoke France’s recognition of “the responsibility to protect civilian populations” that the UN General Assembly approved in 2005.

Obama discussed Syria on Tuesday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, a NATO ally, and in recent days with Cameron, Hollande and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Harper’s office said he agreed with the assessment that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people, and called it an outrage that requires a “firm response,” without defining what that might entail.

In supporting calls for action against Syria, the 22-member Arab League, which is dominated by Gulf powerhouses Saudi Arabia and Qatar, provides indirect Arab cover for any potential military attack by Western powers.

At an emergency meeting, the Arab League also urged members of the Security Council to overcome their differences and agree on “deterrent” measures.

“The council holds the Syrian regime totally responsible for this heinous crime and calls for all involved in the despicable crime to be given a fair international trial like other war criminals,” the Arab League said in a statement.

Heyman predicted a possible three-phase campaign, with the first step — the encirclement of Syria by Western military assets by air and sea — already underway.

“Phase two would be a punitive strike, taking out high-value command and control targets and communications centers,” Heyman said. “That could be done easily with cruise missiles from ships and aircraft. Phase three would be a massive takedown of Syrian air defenses. That would have to be done before you could take out artillery and armor, which is the key to long-term success.”

Australia endorses possible US strike on Syria | JPost | Israel News.

Expert warns Syria, Iran team effort is worrisome | Boston Herald.

Warmongering threats by Syria and Iran to put Israel in their crosshairs are likely part of a coordinated effort to pressure the United States to back down from considering strikes against Syria, an expert told the Herald.

“From the Israeli point of view, this has to make them nervous. But I think it’s 
political rhetoric to unnerve the Israelis, which is designed to put pressure on us,” said William C. Martel, an international security expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “I see the efforts of Russia and Iran to support Syria now at all costs. I think that’s something that should worry us because it appears they are working in a coordinated fashion.”

Martel, who said the likelihood of an attack is very low because Israel has a more powerful weapons cache than Iran, said he worries President Obama’s threat to take action without following through 
after earlier, smaller chemical weapon attacks has damaged the United States’ standing in the world.

“I think that we communicated to the rest of the world — to Russia, Iran and Syria — we make threats that are not serious,” Martel said. “The leaders in those capitals aren’t quite sure what the U.S. is going to do now.”

Momentum appeared to build yesterday for Western military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s 
regime for allegedly using chemical weapons on civilians, with the U.S. and France saying they are in position to strike and Syrian leaders vowing to use all possible measures to repel it.

“Whatever we see in the next week or two, it’s going to be limited — simply cruise missiles or a combination of cruise missiles and air strikes, but not boots on the ground,” said Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program.

Domestic politics in the leadup to likely military 
action, he said, always makes for strange bedfellows.

“The partisan divides that happen with these things is interesting,” Walsh said. “You have the liberal interventionists ready to take action for humanitarian concerns line up with the neo-conservative Republicans, then on the other side, you have the libertarian Republicans’ side link up with the Democrats who worry that we’ll get bogged down in a foreign conflict.”

Martel said U.S. officials must consider the threat to 
national security.

“There are all sorts of extremists in Syria right now,” he said. “The nightmare is chemical weapons in the hands of extremists.”

082713syria005.jpg

Photo by:

Reuters

CAUTION: A Free Syrian Army fighter holds his weapon as he peeks into an alleyway in the al-Jdeideh neighborhood of the former city of Aleppo yesterday.

1

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

PrintEmail Comments (0)

By:

Gary J. Remal 
and Erin Smith

Warmongering threats by Syria and Iran to put Israel in their crosshairs are likely part of a coordinated effort to pressure the United States to back down from considering strikes against Syria, an expert told the Herald.

“From the Israeli point of view, this has to make them nervous. But I think it’s 
political rhetoric to unnerve the Israelis, which is designed to put pressure on us,” said William C. Martel, an international security expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “I see the efforts of Russia and Iran to support Syria now at all costs. I think that’s something that should worry us because it appears they are working in a coordinated fashion.”

Martel, who said the likelihood of an attack is very low because Israel has a more powerful weapons cache than Iran, said he worries President Obama’s threat to take action without following through 
after earlier, smaller chemical weapon attacks has damaged the United States’ standing in the world.

“I think that we communicated to the rest of the world — to Russia, Iran and Syria — we make threats that are not serious,” Martel said. “The leaders in those capitals aren’t quite sure what the U.S. is going to do now.”

Momentum appeared to build yesterday for Western military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s 
regime for allegedly using chemical weapons on civilians, with the U.S. and France saying they are in position to strike and Syrian leaders vowing to use all possible measures to repel it.

“Whatever we see in the next week or two, it’s going to be limited — simply cruise missiles or a combination of cruise missiles and air strikes, but not boots on the ground,” said Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program.

Domestic politics in the leadup to likely military 
action, he said, always makes for strange bedfellows.

“The partisan divides that happen with these things is interesting,” Walsh said. “You have the liberal interventionists ready to take action for humanitarian concerns line up with the neo-conservative Republicans, then on the other side, you have the libertarian Republicans’ side link up with the Democrats who worry that we’ll get bogged down in a foreign conflict.”

Martel said U.S. officials must consider the threat to 
national security.

“There are all sorts of extremists in Syria right now,” he said. “The nightmare is chemical weapons in the hands of extremists.”

– See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/middle_east/2013/08/expert_warns_syria_iran_team_effort_is_worrisome#sthash.dsedD1xR.dpuf

082713syria005.jpg

Photo by:

Reuters

CAUTION: A Free Syrian Army fighter holds his weapon as he peeks into an alleyway in the al-Jdeideh neighborhood of the former city of Aleppo yesterday.

1

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

PrintEmail Comments (0)

By:

Gary J. Remal 
and Erin Smith

Warmongering threats by Syria and Iran to put Israel in their crosshairs are likely part of a coordinated effort to pressure the United States to back down from considering strikes against Syria, an expert told the Herald.

“From the Israeli point of view, this has to make them nervous. But I think it’s 
political rhetoric to unnerve the Israelis, which is designed to put pressure on us,” said William C. Martel, an international security expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “I see the efforts of Russia and Iran to support Syria now at all costs. I think that’s something that should worry us because it appears they are working in a coordinated fashion.”

Martel, who said the likelihood of an attack is very low because Israel has a more powerful weapons cache than Iran, said he worries President Obama’s threat to take action without following through 
after earlier, smaller chemical weapon attacks has damaged the United States’ standing in the world.

“I think that we communicated to the rest of the world — to Russia, Iran and Syria — we make threats that are not serious,” Martel said. “The leaders in those capitals aren’t quite sure what the U.S. is going to do now.”

Momentum appeared to build yesterday for Western military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s 
regime for allegedly using chemical weapons on civilians, with the U.S. and France saying they are in position to strike and Syrian leaders vowing to use all possible measures to repel it.

“Whatever we see in the next week or two, it’s going to be limited — simply cruise missiles or a combination of cruise missiles and air strikes, but not boots on the ground,” said Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program.

Domestic politics in the leadup to likely military 
action, he said, always makes for strange bedfellows.

“The partisan divides that happen with these things is interesting,” Walsh said. “You have the liberal interventionists ready to take action for humanitarian concerns line up with the neo-conservative Republicans, then on the other side, you have the libertarian Republicans’ side link up with the Democrats who worry that we’ll get bogged down in a foreign conflict.”

Martel said U.S. officials must consider the threat to 
national security.

“There are all sorts of extremists in Syria right now,” he said. “The nightmare is chemical weapons in the hands of extremists.”

– See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/middle_east/2013/08/expert_warns_syria_iran_team_effort_is_worrisome#sthash.dsedD1xR.dpuf