WarSclerotic

House Speaker Backs Obama’s Call for Strike Against Syria – NYTimes.com.

By MARK LANDLER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JACKIE CALMES

¶ WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner said on Tuesday that he would “support the president’s call to action” in Syria after meeting with President Obama, giving the president a crucial ally in the quest for votes in the House.

¶ Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, quickly joined Mr. Boehner to say he also backed Mr. Obama.

¶ “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.

¶ Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. summoned Mr. Boehner and other Republican and Democratic leaders to the White House as they intensified their push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria. Conservative House Republicans have expressed deep reluctance about the president’s strategy, and winning Mr. Boehner’s approval could help the president make inroads with a group that has not supported him on most issues in the past.

¶ Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said, “I believe the American people need to hear more about the intelligence.”

¶ Ms. Pelosi said she did feel that Congressional authorization was a good thing, although not necessary, and that she was hopeful the American people “will be persuaded of” military action.

¶ “President Obama did not write the red line,” she said. “History wrote the red line decades ago.”

¶ But, she said, people in her district were not convinced that military action was necessary. And she said the administration needed to continue making its case.

¶ “There’s work to be done,” she said. “Some won’t ever be comfortable with it.”

¶ Other Democrats also voiced support.

¶ Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said military action was “key and critical.” She added, “It’s important to the security of the Middle East and to the security of the world.”

¶ Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, said, “Iran is watching us very carefully in Syria as a test of how we’ll respond when they have a nuclear weapon.” He added that the consensus in the White House meeting was to support the president.

¶ For Mr. Obama, who leaves on Tuesday evening for a three-day trip to Sweden and Russia, the meeting was the next phase in a White House lobbying campaign that will have to extend beyond hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to persuade lawmakers who are reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria.

¶ The president’s case will face scrutiny in Congress on Tuesday afternoon when Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

¶ On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel are scheduled to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Winning support in the Republican-controlled House is likely to be harder than in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority and Mr. McCain has a voice.

¶ Mr. Obama also continued shoring up international support for military action, speaking on Monday evening with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who the White House said in a statement agreed with Mr. Obama “that the use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international norms and cannot be tolerated.”

¶ After an hourlong White House meeting on Monday, Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama had given general support to doing more for the Syrian rebels, but that no specifics were agreed upon.

¶ Officials said that in the same conversation, which included Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.

¶ There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.

¶ The senators said they planned to meet with Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, to discuss the strategy in greater depth.

¶ “It is all in the details, but I left the meeting feeling better than I felt before about what happens the day after and that the purpose of the attack is going to be a little more robust than I thought,” Mr. Graham said in an interview.

¶ But Mr. McCain said in an interview that Mr. Obama did not say specifically what weapons might be provided to the opposition or discuss in detail what Syrian targets might be attacked.

¶ “There was no concrete agreement, ‘O.K., we got a deal,’ ” Mr. McCain said. “Like a lot of things, the devil is in the details.”

¶ In remarks to reporters outside the West Wing, he called the meeting “encouraging,” urged lawmakers to support Mr. Obama in his plan for military action in Syria and said a no vote in Congress would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world. Mr. McCain said he believed after his conversation with the president that any strikes would be “very serious” and not “cosmetic.”

¶ Although the words from Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were a positive development for Mr. Obama and a critical part of the administration’s lobbying blitz on Syria on Monday, the White House still faces a tough fight in Congress. Many lawmakers entirely oppose a strike, and others favor a resolution that would provide for more limited military action than what is in a draft resolution that the White House has sent to Capitol Hill. The conflict of opinion underscores Mr. Obama’s challenge in winning votes in the House and Senate next week and avoiding personal defeat.

¶ A Labor Day conference call with five of Mr. Obama’s highest-ranking security advisers drew 127 House Democrats, nearly two-thirds their total number, after 83 lawmakers of both parties attended a classified briefing on Sunday. Pertinent committees are returning to Washington early from a Congressional recess for hearings this week, starting Tuesday with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will hear from Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

¶ “The debate is shifting away from ‘Did he use chemical weapons?’ to ‘What should be done about it?’ ” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview after the Monday conference call.

¶ The push in Washington came as reaction continued around the world to the president’s abrupt decision over the weekend to change course and postpone a military strike to seek authorization from Congress first.

¶ In France, the only nation to offer vigorous support for an American attack, there were rising calls for a parliamentary vote like the one last week in Britain, where lawmakers jolted the White House with a rejection of a British military attack. But the French government, in an effort to bolster its case, released a declassified summary of French intelligence that it said ties Mr. Assad’s government to the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

¶ In Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov dismissed as unconvincing the evidence presented by Mr. Kerry of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. “We were shown certain pieces of evidence that did not contain anything concrete, neither geographical locations, nor names, nor evidence that samples had been taken by professionals,” Mr. Lavrov said in a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

¶ In Israel, President Shimon Peres offered strong support for Mr. Obama’s decision to seek the backing of Congress, saying he had faith in the president’s “moral and operational” position. “I recommend patience,” Mr. Peres said in an interview on Army Radio. “I am confident that the United States will respond appropriately to Syria.”

¶ In Washington, the White House’s “flood the zone” effort, as one official called it, will continue. Classified briefings will be held for all House members and senators on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.

¶ On Tuesday, Mr. Obama has invited the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate defense, foreign affairs and intelligence committees to the White House. But that night, he will depart on a long-planned foreign trip, first to Sweden and then to Russia for the annual Group of 20 summit meeting of major industrialized and developing nations, a forum that is sure to be dominated by talk of Syria, and bring Mr. Obama face to face with Mr. Assad’s chief ally and arms supplier, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

¶ House Democrats on the conference call with administration officials, which lasted 70 minutes, said Mr. Kerry, who has been the most aggressive and public prosecutor for military action, took the lead. Democrats said he had portrayed not only the horrors of chemical weapons inflicted on Syrian civilians in the Aug. 21 attacks outside Damascus, but also the potential threat, if left unanswered, that such weapons posed to regional allies like Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

¶ Mr. Kerry argued that inaction could embolden Iran or nonstate terrorists to strike those allies, and further encourage Iran and North Korea to press ahead with their nuclear programs.

¶ “One of the important propositions that Kerry put to members was, are you willing to live with the consequences of doing nothing?” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.

¶ The secretary of state addressed lawmakers’ concern that the United States should have international support. “The United States will not go it alone,” he said at one point, according to a senior Democrat who declined to be identified. Offers of “military assets” have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, he said, without identifying the assets, and more are expected.

¶ In the week since the Obama administration began moving toward a military strike on the Assad government, Mr. Kerry said, the Syrian military has had about 100 defections, including 80 officers.

¶ General Dempsey reviewed the range of possible targets and how the Pentagon is planning strikes that would minimize risk to civilians. Despite reports that Syrian commanders were moving troops and equipment into civilian neighborhoods, General Dempsey told lawmakers, as he had assured Mr. Obama, that delaying military action would not weaken the effectiveness of any military attack. He suggested that military officials would adjust their targets to address changes on the ground.

¶ The general acknowledged that the United States could not prevent the Assad government from using chemical weapons again, but said the military had “additional options” should a first missile strike not deter a retaliatory strike by Mr. Assad, including in defense of critical allies, presumably Israel, Jordan and Turkey. That possibility, however, describes just the escalating conflict some opponents fear.

¶ “My constituents are skeptical that a limited effort will not mushroom into a full-blown boots on the ground,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat.

¶ Mr. McCain, who has been arguing for two years that the United States should support a moderate Syrian opposition, said he strongly urged the president on Monday to provide anti-tank and antiaircraft systems to the opposition and to attack the Syrian Air Force.

¶ Mr. Obama indicated that “he favorably viewed the degrading of Bashar al-Assad’s capabilities as well as upgrading the Free Syrian Army,” Mr. McCain said in an interview.

¶ Administration officials have told Congress that the C.I.A.’s program to arm the rebels would be deliberately limited at first to allow a trial run for American officials to monitor it before ramping up to a larger, more aggressive campaign. American officials have been wary that arms provided to the rebels could end up in the hands of Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda.

¶

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’ – Telegraph.

The first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.

The US announced in June that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.  Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP

He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.

“There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition,” Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given “a chance to speak directly to the American people” to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

“They’re not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal… to only have al-Qaeda run Syria,” Mr Graham said.

The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.

Obama’s Mindblock on Syria May Ignite a Wider Mideast Crisis | Pennsylvania Avenue.

By Morton Kondracke Posted at 11:28 a.m. Sept. 3

Syria’s deputy foreign minister jibed on Sunday that President Barack Obama was demonstrating “hesitation” and “confusion” in announcing he’d ask Congress for approval for military action against that country.

That’s putting it mildly. Confusion, hesitation — also fecklessness, weakness and indecision — have characterized Obama’s whole approach to the Syrian civil war.

Now, Obama faces the very real possibility that Congress will deny him the authority, justifying the further jibe in state-run Syrian media that the world was witnessing “the start of an historic American retreat.”

Actually, it would be the capstone of a massive American retreat in the Middle East already under way — and massive gains by the despotic Shiite axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, abetted by Russia.

Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq on terms that reduce our influence to zero and maximize Iran’s. His pullout from Afghanistan and abandonment of Pakistan are further examples of retreat.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah already have reduced Lebanon to chaos. They could do the same in Jordan and Turkey. Saudi Arabia is terrified that Obama will let Iran develop nuclear weapons, whereupon it can seek to dominate the Persian Gulf. Would Obama help Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? On the basis of the record, it’s doubtful.

Obama could have delivered a counter-blow to the Iran axis when the Syrian civil war began by giving weapons and training to reasonable elements of the Syrian resistance. Instead, he called for Assad’s ouster, then did nothing to attain it. He let the opposition become dominated by Al Qaeda affiliates getting trained and hardened for future terrorism also directed at Western allies, and the United States, too.

Obama declared that Assad’s use of chemical weapons was a “red line” whose crossing would not be tolerated. The declaration did not deter Assad — and with good reason. Since he crossed it, gassing thousands, there have been no consequences beyond Obama’s ordering the Pentagon to consider military options.

Obama then went out of his way to assure the Syrians that whatever the U.S. did, it would be limited, narrow, temporary, not designed to affect the outcome of the war etc., etc. The administration let Assad know we’d be using Tomahawk cruise missiles and that the target would be his chemical weapons capacity, nothing more.

And, still, nothing happened. Following, not leading, Obama hoped that the British Parliament would give him leave to act. Once it refused, he was forced to ask for congressional permission, though he said he doesn’t really need it. But, exhibiting no urgency, he did not call for Congress to come back from vacation. It’ll be at least 10 more days until a vote.

Secretary of State John Kerry has made a forceful moral and strategic case for military action. Obama’s statements make it sound as though he thinks he’s merely fulfilling an unpleasant duty required by international law.

The only good news to emerge from the briefings the administration has given selected members of Congress is that, to win the support of Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., he’s apparently hinted that he might go further than just token bombing of chemical facilities.

McCain and Graham were ready to oppose him because his planned attacks were going to be so pathetically ineffectual. He won them back and McCain announced — correctly — that a congressional rejection vote would be “catastrophic.”

Still, opposition is building. Tea Party Republicans are against action because they are proving themselves extreme isolationists. Other Republicans are against just because it’s Obama who’s asking — or because they think his handling of Syria demands a vote of  “no confidence.” Democrats are split, with a sizable flock of doves just against military action, period.

If Obama wins permission, he needs to surprise the Syrians and Iranians with attacks that punish and keep punishing, such as keeping Syrian warplanes out of the sky. The U.S. has been so weak up to now that Iran has every reason to think it can proceed apace with its nuclear weapons program despite Obama’s declarations that Iran would not be allowed to have a bomb.

If the Israelis attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, they probably will not succeed in destroying them, and Iran might well unleash Hezbollah on Israel — or worse. If the Israelis do not attack, Iran will have a nuclear shield behind which to commit overt and covert aggression all over the region.  Saudi Arabia will go nuclear and the world will be infinitely more dangerous.

Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his declarations of worldwide good intentions. But good intentions and verbal declarations not backed by the skillful use of power rarely lead to peace. The prize was premature and ill-advised when it was awarded. Now, it’s a dismal joke.

Wink on the way to a bomb – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Washington’s indecisiveness on Syria tells Israel its assurances regarding Iranian threat cannot be counted on

Yaron London

In the background of the debate regarding President Obama’s conduct during the Syrian crisis lies a more critical question: How will the US act when Iran edges toward a bomb? Can we count on the White House’s decisive statement assuring us that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons? The period at the end of this firm statement is suspiciously similar to the red line Obama set for Syria just a year ago.

The evidence that will show Iran is close to a nuclear bomb will be similar to the evidence indicating that the Assad regime poisoned hundreds of its citizens. The evidence will be accompanied by a host of questions which will be logical, but their sole purpose will be to avoid a decision. The questions will deal with the conclusiveness or inconclusiveness of the evidence, the ruler with which the term “close to a bomb” will be measured and the intent and mental stability of Iran’s leaders. The questions will also deal with the effectiveness of a military strike and how such a strike may affect the American economy and public opinion.

And when it turns out, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Iran is a step away from nuclear capability, will the US decide that an Iranian bomb endangers its security to the point where it must immediately launch an operation whose consequences are unclear, or will the US – after months of hesitation – decide that the world can carry on just fine with a nuclear Iran? Experts at the National Security Council and American research institutes may say that if we can live with a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, we can also live with a nuclear Iran.

PM Netanyahu and several strategists who hold his opinion are losing sleep thinking about this possibility. They are certain that an Iranian bomb is an existential threat, not because Iran will rush to fire missiles with nuclear warheads at us, but because an Iran equipped with doomsday weapons will further encourage elements that will provoke us without the fear of a massive response, and also because other Mideast countries will develop nuclear weapons to deter the Shiite superpower. They also fear that these weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists from groups such as al-Qaeda .

If we doubt Washington’s willingness to attack Iran when the moment of truth arrives, and if we are of the opinion that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands will undermine Israel’s security to the point where its very existence will be threatened, then the conclusion is that Israel must attack, even if such an attack will only delay Iran’s nuclear program and result in severe Iranian counter-strikes. I suppose the political-security establishment in Israel is considering this option much more seriously following what has been described as indecisiveness in America’s policy. Many analysts will stress the differences between the decision the White House had to make with regards to Syria and the decision it will be faced with as Iran moves close to a nuclear bomb and say that there is no connection between the two, but no promise made by the White House can allay the concerns of Israel’s leaders or make them less suspicious.

On the other hand, there will be those who will say that attacking would be a gamble Israel cannot afford in any way. So what will happen if we don’t attack? The most likely scenario is the existence of a regime of nuclear deterrence and local wars in the Middle East. We must prepare for such a future.

Making case to Congress for Syria strike, Obama says he has strategy to defeat Assad | JPost | Israel News.

‘US pressure nixed Israeli strike on Iran last year’ | The Times of Israel.

( “Israel possesses the military capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program at will.” – JW )

Former National Security Council head: Netanyahu ‘seriously considered’ attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, looks toward US President Barack Obama as he speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

An Israeli plan to attack Iran in 2012 was canceled due to US objections, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council confirmed Tuesday.

“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu seriously considered a preemptive strike on Iran, and the Americans were not excited about the idea,” Maj. Gen. (res) Giora Eiland told The Times of Israel.

The conservative Israeli political website Mida on Tuesday quoted Eiland (Hebrew link) to the effect that Israel possesses the military capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program at will.

According to the report, Eiland discussed the Israeli plan and Washington’s objections during a closed conference two weeks ago, saying that Netanyahu had originally intended to order a strike on Iran sometime between September and October of 2012, at the height of the US presidential campaign and around the same time as Netanyahu’s famous speech at the United Nations.

The report claimed that Netanyahu was requested by the Obama administration to call off the attack, possibly so as not to interfere with the American electoral process.

The former general was quoted as saying that although Israel is not controlled by the US, it does take American considerations into account with regard to issues of global significance.

“On many subjects Israel can perform independently,” Eiland was quoted as saying. “The construction in Jerusalem, the attack on Gaza as well as other regional issues — we don’t need to ask the Americans before we take action, even if they don’t like it. But, when an issue involves something of American interest, we cannot act against their will.”

However, “changing times” could allow for an Israeli strike in the future, he reportedly said, also noting that in light of Washington’s apparent lack of appetite for military action in Syria, the chances of an American strike in Iran were slim.

Speaking with The Times of Israel, Eiland distanced himself from the statements attributed to him by Mida.

“The quotes are rife with inaccuracies,” Eiland said, though he didn’t specify further. However, he did confirm that an attack had been mulled by the Israeli prime minister.

“At any rate, I don’t feel like getting into this discussion; there’s nothing new here,” he concluded.

Former national security adviser Giora Eiland (photo credit: Flash90)

According to reports, Israel’s security chiefs vetoed a plan by Netanyahu and then-defense minister Ehud Barak to attack Iran in late 2010.

In August, Amos Yadlin, who served as chief of the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate from 2006 to 2010, claimed US opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program may be abating.

“The American stance on an Israeli strike against Iran has changed dramatically recently,” Yadlin said.

“In 2012 the [Americans’] red light was as red as it can get, the brightest red,” Yadlin said in an interview with Army Radio. “But the music I’m hearing lately from Washington says, ‘If this is truly an overriding Israeli security interest, and you think you want to strike,’ then the light hasn’t changed to green, I think, but it’s definitely yellow.”

Yadlin is thought to be close to parts of the US defense establishment. He served as Israel’s military attache in Washington from 2004 to 2006, and was a Kay Fellow in Israeli national security at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 2011.

The US and its allies fear Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran denies, saying its atomic program is meant for peaceful purposes only.

In efforts to get Iran to account for its nuclear ambitions, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders remain publicly committed to diplomacy though they stress military options against Iranian nuclear sites are not off the table.

Haviv Rettig Gur contributed to this report

Breaking with Arab League, Abbas opposes Syria strike | The Times of Israel.

( “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – Santayana.  I remember how much good supporting Saddam did for the Palestinians in the Gulf War.  Abbas is opposing the Arab League and the US. WTF?! – JW )

Arabs attacking Arabs is one thing — Americans attacking Arabs is something else, PA president tells his party

PA President Mahmoud Abbas at Fatah’s Revolutionary Council meeting in Ramallah, September 1 (photo credit: Issam Rimawi/Flash90)

Breaking with the Arab League, which on Sunday endorsed UN-backed military action in Syria, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is promoting a diplomatic plan for resolving the crisis in Syria.

Surprising Fatah members at a gathering of the Revolutionary Council in Ramallah , Abbas declared that the Palestinian leadership was opposed in principle to a military strike against Syria.

“We are against any military strike against Syria, and will not allow an Arab country to be bombed from the outside. We condemn the use of chemical weapons by any party,” Abbas told the gathering Sunday, according to a report Tuesday on the official WAFA news agency. “The solution to the crisis in Syria must be political. There is no military solution.”

The Palestinian leadership has been facing mounting criticism for its inability to protect Palestinian refugees living in Syria from the civil war raging in the country since March 2011.

Palestinian delegations that traveled to Syria to plead with the Assad regime to leave refugee camps out of the of fighting have returned empty-handed. On Tuesday, Palestinian Syrians launched an online campaign titled “The week of breaking the silence on Palestinian refugee camps.”

Abbas’s statement clashed sharply with the position expressed by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal, who said on Sunday during an Arab ministerial meeting in Cairo that responding militarily to the plight of the Syrian people cannot be considered “foreign intervention.”

The ministers’ closing statement also reflected those sentiments.

“The United Nations and the international community are called upon to assume their responsibilities in line with the UN Charter and international law by taking the necessary deterrent measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for,” the ministers said in a statement following their session.

Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria represented the minority position opposing military intervention in Syria.

Abbas’ political plan for Syria was presented to US President Barack Obama during his visit to the region back in March, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki told the pro-Assad news channel Al-Mayadeen on Monday. Malki would not reveal the details of the plan, but said it was also presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, the Chinese leadership, and UN envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi.

In his speech to the Revolutionary Council, Abbas said that both the Americans and the Russians accepted his plan, which has become the cornerstone of the international diplomatic drive on Syria.

With regards to the use of force, Abbas said there was an essential difference between Arab nations attacking another Arab country and the United States doing so.

“If Arabs strike each other, we say ‘May God guide them’ and we don’t intervene. But if someone [else] attacks Arabs, we will not stand by them. For instance, we stand by the United Arab Emirates with regards to the Islands [in dispute with Iran] and against any attack on an Arab state. Therefore, we are against the US attacking Syria with missiles, and this is our position and policy.”

US general says Syria action could be ‘more substantial than thought’ – Telegraph.

A former US army chief has claimed that Barack Obama is eyeing intervention in Syria that would go beyond a mere deterrent against chemical weapons to damage the military capacity of the Assad regime.

Bashar al-Assad and Barack Obama Photo: EPA

“What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad’s military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance.”

Gen. Keane said any training would probably be done in neighbouring Jordan rather than in Syria itself.

The US general, who retired in 2003, attributed Mr Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional support for intervention to David Cameron’s “humiliating defeat” in the Commons.

He said the US would “much rather” have British backing for any strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime.

Gen. Keane explained: “We operate side by side with the UK and we know who our closest ally is. We certainly would much rather do this with the UK side by side, that’s how the military feels, I really think the leaders of the country feel.

“I think, if I may use some rich language here, the humiliating defeat the Prime Minister suffered in Parliament, I can only surmise was stunning to the President and I think it impacted on him.

“I think that’s one of the motivations that introduced what I call palpable fear and one of the reasons why he is seeking political cover himself.”

Israel conducts joint missile interception test with US in Mediterranean.

The Israeli Ankor (Sparrow) target missile

The US and Israeli Tuesday, Sept. 3, carried out a joint anti-missile missile test in the Mediterranean to prepare for a possible Syrian-Hizballah attack on Israel and Jordan in retaliation for the planned US military strike on Syria. US and Israel officials reported that the Israeli Ankor (Sparrow) was used as the target missile for testing the interceptors.
According to debkafile’s military sources, the test demonstrated that since delaying his planned strike on Syria last Saturday, President Barack Obama has revised his plans and instead of  “a narrow, limited” attack is contemplating a broader offensive for degrading the Assad regime. The arrival of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier in the Red Sea is further evidence of this intention.
The missile trial also indicates an updated US-Israeli consensus that Iran, Syrian and Hizballah mean business by the mounting level of the threats to fire missiles at Israel, Jordan and Turkey if the Americans go through with their strike against Syria. Such retaliation cold lead to the Syrian conflict expanding substantially into a regional war, which Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have in the last 48 hours admitted was virtually unavoidable.
Israel has been using the Ankor as the target missile for its own and US tests of their Arrow-2 .Washington has made no mention of the joint test. It is therefore not known whether American missiles took part in the test. Neither was there any word about whether the test was successful.

Russia on Tuesday announced that its missile early warning station at Armavir on the Black Sea had detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea’s eastern coastline. Armavir was set up to track missile launches from Europe and Iran.

According to debkafile’s military sources, US warships cruising opposite the Syrian coast and carrying Aegis anti-missile missiles, alongside Tomahawk cruise missiles ready for the strike on Syria, did take part in the test.
The practice also activated the sophisticated X-band radar system stationed in the Israeli Negev. This system is critical for identifying Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah rockets fired against Israel and Jerusalem and provide 3-5 minutes early warning of an attack.
The first report of the anti-missile test came from Moscow in a Russian Defense Ministry report that two ballistic missile launches had been detected in the Mediterranean by its Armavir early warning station on the Black Sea. President Vladimir Putin was immediately informed.  Armavir was set up to track missile launches from Europe and Iran.

Israel announces successful joint missile test with US in Med | JPost | Israel News.

( YES!!!!  Get the message scumbags?  Am yisrael chai!!! – JW )