WarSclerotic

Israel: We’ve been ‘absolutely certain’ for months Assad using nerve gas | The Times of Israel.

Army’s top intelligence analyst, in rare interview, also says it is ‘extremely unlikely’ Israel could be taken by surprise as it was in the 1973 war

Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of the IDF Military Intelligence research and analysis division, at a Foreign Affairs and Defense committee hearing at the Knesset in 2012 (photo credit: Noam Moskowitz/Flash90)

Israel has been “absolutely certain” for many months — long before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack that prompted the current Syria crisis — that President Bashar Assad was using chemical weapons in the civil war, the Israeli army’s top intelligence analyst said in an interview broadcast Saturday.

Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the senior analyst in the IDF’s Military Intelligence hierarchy, said the Israeli army had an extremely effective intelligence-gathering capacity on Syria, but declined to go into specifics.

That capacity, he indicated, allowed Israel’s intelligence chiefs to assert with high confidence that there was only a ‘low probability” that the Assad regime would attempt to fire chemical weapons into Israel in the event of international intervention in the civil war.

In the rare interview, which coincided with the 40th anniversary of the 1973 Arab-Israel War — known in Israel as the Yom Kippur War — Brun said it was “almost impossible” that Israel could be hit by a surprise enemy attack at it was in that conflict, in which 2,500 Israeli soldiers were killed.

Awareness that Israeli army intelligence had failed to predict the Arab armies’ attack on the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar, Brun said, “accompanies me every day.” He said the failure by his predecessors was a function of their limited imagination and the fact that they were “welded to a conception” that Egypt was too weak to attack Israel and that Syria would not attack without Egypt.

Nowadays, the IDF carried out war games, had special teams that questioned assumptions, worked on all kinds of scenarios, and took a range of other measures designed to ensure that the country could not be surprised again, he said.

It was Brun who, in April, delivered a bombshell lecture in which he declared publicly that Assad was using nerve gas against rebel forces: “To the best of our professional understanding, the regime has used lethal chemical weapons,” he said in late April, and specified that the IDF believed the toxic element was Sarin. He noted then that it had been used on more than one occasion, including in an attack on March 19.

His assertion was initially queried, but subsequently accepted, by US and other officials. The Israeli conclusion was “based on very special work,” by a team that “saw very clearly,” Brun said on Saturday.

In his April address, Brun showed a photo of a child with narrowed pupils and foam coming out of his mouth. Both of these were indicative of a nerve agent, he said. He repeated those indicators in the Saturday interview, broadcast on Israel’s Channel 2 news, while making plain that the IDF had other, more conclusive, sources of information.

Israeli military intelligence reportedly played a key role in providing evidence of Assad’s chemical weapons use in the August 21 attack that sparked the current crisis over Syria. On the Friday after that attack, Channel 2 reported that the weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, a division under the command of the Syrian president’s brother, Maher Assad. The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, the TV report said.

The report did not state the source of its information. But subsequently, Germany’s Focus magazine reported that an IDF intelligence unit was listening in on senior Syrian officials when they discussed the chemical attack. According to the Focus report, a squad specializing in wire-tapping within the IDF’s prestigious 8200 intelligence unit intercepted a conversation between high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time of the attack.

Iran reduces enriched uranium stockpile – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Islamic republic’s nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi says stocks have fallen from 240 kilograms to around 140 kilograms as it is converted into fuel for a medical research reactor

News agencies

Iran said it had significantly reduced its stocks of 20%-enriched uranium by converting it to reactor fuel.

The announcement appeared aimed at easing Western concerns over Iran’s continuing production of 20% uranium, which is enriched to a higher level that used to fuel most energy reactors, closer to the 90% needed for a warhead.

The US and its allies demand Iran halt all enrichment, which Tehran rejects.

Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi told state TV late Thursday that stocks have fallen from 240 kilograms to around 140 kilograms as it is converted into fuel for a medical research reactor. He said the remainder is also being converted.

Rohani, Putin in Kyrgyzstan, Friday (Photo: AFP)

 An August report by the UN nuclear watchdog put Iran’s stockpile 20% enriched uranium at 185.5 kilograms.

Iranian President Hassan Rohani said on Friday that he wanted a swift resolution to a dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program, which Western states fear is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

“Regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, we want the swiftest solution to it within international norms. Russia in the past has taken important steps in this sphere,” said Rohani, speaking at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin

FSA chief says U.S.-Russia deal is a blow to Syrian uprising – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

The head of the opposition Free Syrian Army on Saturday rejected an agreement between the United States and Russia to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stock by mid-2014.

“We cannot accept any part of this initiative,” General Selim Idriss told reporters in Istanbul, saying it is a blow to the two-and-a-half year uprising aiming to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“We in the Free Syrian Army are unconcerned by the implementation of any part of the initiative… I and my brothers in arms will continue to fight until the regime falls,” he said in a statement carried by Agence-France-Presse.

Idriss said the deal would allow Assad to avoid being held accountable for killing hundreds of civilians in a poison gas attack on Damascus on Aug. 21. Assad has denied responsibility for purported attack.

The United States’ strike plans were put off after Russia proposed that Damascus put its chemical arms under international supervision, Assad agreed to the proposal.

Idriss spoke shortly after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the agreed time frame, after three days of talks in Geneva.

“Are we Syrians supposed to wait until mid-2014, to continue being killed every day and to accept [the deal] just because the chemical arms will be destroyed in 2014,” asked Idriss.

“We respect our friends [in the international community], and we hope our friends understand our position… We cannot accept this initiative because it ignores… the massacre of our people.”

(With Reuters and AFP)

Kerry heading to Israel to update Netanyahu on Syria deal – Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz.

Kerry is in Geneva for talks with his Russian FM Sergei Lavrov over the plan to remove Syria’s chemical weapons and avert U.S. military action. He will meet with Netanyahu and Abbas on Sunday.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met in Geneva to discuss a plan to disarm Syria’s nuclear arsenal. Photo by Reuters

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive in Israel on Sunday, and he will update Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on developments in securing a deal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons.

Over the weekend, Kerry will continue with talks in Geneva with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, in an attempt to confirm the Russian plan to remove Syria’s chemical weapons, and avert U.S. military action.

A senior U.S. State Department official told Haaretz that Kerry’s visit will deal with Syria, but also with peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Kerry will meet Sunday with Netanyahu in Jerusalem.

Kerry and Lavrov said on Friday they hoped that talks on Syria’s chemical weapons would help revive an international plan for a “Geneva 2” conference to end the war in Syria.

After meeting UN special envoy on Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi in Geneva, where they are trying to confirm Russia’s plan, Lavrov and Kerry said they agreed to try and make progress on a broader effort to end a conflict that has divided the Middle East and world powers.

Kerry, who said the ongoing talks on chemical weapons were “constructive,” told a news conference in Geneva that he and Lavrov planned to meet in New York later this month and hoped to agree a date for the Geneva 2 conference then.

▶ Obama: Progress On Syria – YouTube.

President Obama highlights the progress that has been achieved toward the goal of stopping the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from using – or possessing – chemical weapons.

In Kerry-Lavrov Syrian chemical accord scant punishment. Assad is free to pursue war.

John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov close a deal on Syrian chemicals

The framework accord for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, which US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced at a news conference in Geneva Saturday, Sept 14, covers important ground – but leaves even more important issues unaddressed. Its implementation depends on the full cooperation of Bashar Assad and his army for securing the process. He is therefore assured of staying in power and free to wage war unhindered.
This assurance was incorporated in Kerry’s words that the agreement can end the chemical threat to the Syrian people, its neighbors and the region only “if fully implemented.”

The US Secretary listed the six points of that accord:

1. It included a shared assessment of the amounts and types of Syrian regime’s chemical weaopons stockpiles.

debkafile: Earlier reports spoke of a 40-percent disparity between the US and Russian assessments.
2. The Syrian regime has one week until Sept. 21 to submit a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions and local and foreign storage, production and research and development facilities.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-OPCW, which usually allows 30 days, has agreed to extraordinary procedures to assure the inspection and destruction of all CW stocks.
3. Inspectors must be on the ground by November and the destruction of CW completed by mid-2014.

— On this point, the Russian foreign minister was less specific: Implementation of the agreed framework for the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons must be supported by an “OPCW investigation and a Security Council resolution,” he said, indicating a process of several months.
debkafile: This timeline could stretch out even longer because of the technical difficulties of destroying not just stocks but also manufacturing plant and the facilities for mixing and loading the chemical and biological agents on weapons of delivery.
4. Syria must provide immediate and unfettered access to its CW sites.

5. All CW including stocks inside and outside Syria must be surrendered and destroyed on-site, or if necessary outside the country.
6. Non-compliance would entail the approval of Article 7 of the UN charter which provides for legally binding military or non-military sanctions.

Lavrov’s version

— On this point, too, Lavrov elaborated on Moscow’s position: Violations must be first investigated and confirmed by the OPCW before coming before the UN Security Council for a new resolution mandating “concrete measures.” These may not entail military action, said the Russian foreign minister, “which would be catastrophic.”
Although this word was not mentioned, the accord leaves Moscow free to use its veto once again to bar punitive action against Syria.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kerry later insisted that the Syrian regime would be held fully accountable for non-compliance with its commitments and the US president retained the power and right to pursue military measures ““commensurate with the [Syrian ruler’s] level of accountability” without UN approval if diplomacy failed to achieve its end.

At the same time, the US secretary allowed that the US and Russians were agreed that Syria would be disarmed of its chemical weapons by diplomatic, not military, means.
Lavrov departed from Kerry’s presentation of their accord on more points:

a) All chemical weapons must be destroyed – not just those in the hands of the Assad regime, but also the Syrian rebels. This laid the groundwork for the Syrian ruler to delay compliance by pointing a finger at Israel.
b)  Military action against Syria was ruled out a priori.
c)  The Russian-US accord on Syria’s chemical weapons must lead to an international conference to discuss the declaration of the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which is Moscow’s ultimate aim.
This supported Assad’s stipulation which has made his implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention contingent on Israel ratifying  the CWC which it signed in 1993, as a step on the road to demanding its  nuclear disarmament.

Secretary Kerry made no comments on this point.
d)  The US will contribute the funding and other resources for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and ask other world powers to participate.

More omissions

While the US secretary repeatedly praised President Vladimir Putin for initiating Syria’s handover of chemical weapons, Lavrov omitted to reciprocate with commendations of President Barack Obama.
debkafile’s intelligence and military sources see five conspicuous omissions in the way of the “full implementation” of the US-Russian Geneva Agreement:

— The timeline is left open. In none of his speeches and interviews did President Obama set deadlines for the eradication of Syria’s poison chemicals, and the dates set by Kerry Saturday in Geneva are unrealistic.

—  Russia and the Syrian ruler were left with the impression that Obama has opted against bringing Assad to account for using chemical weapons in order to keep his war afloat from a position of strength. Indeed the US president appears not to be averse to letting him stay in power.
Neither Kerry nor Lavrov answered the reporter who asked simply: “Why didn’t you first of all try and stop the war?”
—  Notwithstanding the impression Kerry tried to convey at the news conference, Obama has clearly discarded the military option as a means of keeping Assad under pressure to comply with his commitment to dismantle his chemical weapons. Even if Washington decided to invoke Article 7 to punish Syria for non-compliance with the accord, the Russian veto still hangs over this step.
—  Rescued from an  imminent American military threat, the Syria ruler is free to surrender only a small part of his chemical resources and, with the support of his Russian and Iranian allies, hold back sufficient poison gas to save himself if he risks losing the war.

He can continue to ignore the evidence found by US intelligence agencies that the Syrian army was guilty of using chemical weapons against civilians in Homs, Aleppo and Idlib – even before the poison gas massacre of Aug. 21 east of Damascus.

When on April 24, Brig. Gen. Itay Brun, head of Israeli Military Intelligence research stated publicly: “We have recently detected the Syrian army’s repeated use of lethal chemical weapons, apparently sarin,” the White House in Washington was up in arms and made Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon promise that such slips of the tongue would not recur.
Sunday, Sept. 15, Secretary Kerry is expected in Israel for a one-day trip.

He faces two uphill tasks: He must convince Israel that there is no danger of Syrian chemical weapons being passed to the Lebanese Hizballah and so diverted from international control; and that the US-Russian deal on Syria is not a template for letting Tehran off the hook on its nuclear program. That is the foremost of Israel’s concerns.

Obama’s overall Syria strategy in disarray | The Times of Israel.

President’s hodgepodge of contradicting goals and strategies won’t be resolved by the new effort to get Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons

In this April 1, 2012, file photo, then-U.S.Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks with an Arab official as she arrives to join foreign ministers from dozens of countries gathered to set conditions for a new Syria. Clinton believed she secured Russia’s commitment on a path forward in June 2012 with the “Geneva process.” Within hours of signing on to the strategy, the U.S. and Russia bickered over whether the agreement included Assad relinquishing power. (photo credit: AP Photo)

WASHINGTON (AP) — After 2½ years of civil war in Syria, President Barack Obama’s larger policy is in disarray even as his administration, with help from Russia, averted a military showdown for the time being.

In an address to the American people earlier this week, Obama said he was working with U.S. allies to “provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement” for ending a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people and made refugees of millions more.

That simple message belies a hodgepodge of often contradicting goals and strategies unlikely to be resolved by the new international effort to get Bashar Assad’s government to relinquish its chemical weapons. These include Obama’s vacillations on providing military assistance to rebels as part of a peace strategy and his repeated demand that Assad relinquish power but still retain a veto over any replacement government.

The difficulty in understanding what America is trying to do in Syria has persisted in the current debate over how to respond to the Assad government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Threatening military reprisals, Obama said that the “United States military doesn’t do pinpricks” only a day after Secretary of State John Kerry promised an “unbelievably small” operation.

In the last few days Obama has turned again to help from Russia, a Syrian ally the U.S. repeatedly has accused of being complicit in the Assad government’s wartime atrocities.

A look at how U.S. policy in Syria has evolved:

THE END OF ENGAGEMENT

Arab Spring-inspired demonstrations erupt across Syria in March 2011. The unrest comes as the Obama administration is hoping to coax Assad into ending Syria’s alliance with Iran and support for militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. As the protests spread and reprisals worsen, U.S. engagement narrows to trying to get the Syrian government to respect political opponents and move toward democracy.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says Assad is seen by some U.S. lawmakers as a “reformer.” Days earlier, Kerry, then a U.S. senator, argues that Syria is poised for change “as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West.” The administration resists calls over the next months to recall the U.S. ambassador, the first senior American posted to Damascus in five years. Obama reacts to increased brutality by Assad’s forces in April by ordering a new set of sanctions against Syria. Violence escalates, with Assad sending tanks into cities throughout the summer. Citizens and defecting soldiers take up arms against government. By August, Obama publicly calls on Assad to resign.

REBUFFED AT THE U.N.

The U.S. and allies take their case to the United Nations in October 2011, asking the Security Council to condemn human rights violations in Syria and demand an end to violence. Russia and China veto the resolution. That month, the U.S. pulls Ambassador Robert Ford out of Damascus because of security concerns. Ford returns in December, then leaves for good two months later. The U.S. tries anew at the U.N. in February 2012, backing an Arab-proposed plan to hold Syrian human rights violators accountable. Russia and China again exercise their veto.

The U.S. turns to Arab and European allies and convenes the first “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunisia to seek ways to support Syria’s opposition. U.S. intelligence officials start warning about al-Qaida and other extremist militants joining the fray. Still hopeful of finding a peaceful resolution, the U.S. urges that no one send weapons to either side. The violence worsens. In March 2012, Obama pledges “nonlethal” aid to the rebels. The U.N. says about 8,000 are dead after a year of violence.

FALSE DIPLOMATIC HOPE

Secretary of State Clinton believes she secures Russia’s commitment on a path forward in June 2012 with the “Geneva process.” It calls for a Syrian transitional government through negotiation between Assad’s government and the opposition.

Within hours of signing on to the strategy, the U.S. and Russia bicker over whether the agreement includes Assad relinquishing power. Russia and China veto a third U.N. resolution in July after the U.S. and its allies try to make the agreement enforceable. The process fizzles out without delivering peace talks.

Arab governments disregard the U.S. call for a weapons embargo and supply the rebels with increasingly advanced weaponry. Obama rebuffs suggestions by Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus and other senior U.S. officials to provide weapons to moderate opposition forces. By July, the U.N. says 5,000 Syrians are dying each month in the fighting.

RED LINE

Responding to worrying intelligence indications, Obama declares in August 2012 that the use or deployment of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stockpiles is a “red line,” which if crossed would change America’s calculus in the conflict.

Rebel military advances stall. At the behest of Washington and others, the Islamist-dominated political opposition reforms itself in November 2012 to include more moderates and minorities. The U.N. puts the death toll since the beginning of the conflict at 60,000. In December, the U.S. recognizes the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the Syrian people’s legitimate representative. U.S. humanitarian aid increases significantly.

NEW ASSERTIVENESS

Obama starts his second term as president and Kerry replaces Clinton as secretary of state. The U.S. becomes more assertive in its rhetoric about shifting the Syrian civil war’s momentum and trying to convince Assad that he cannot prevail militarily and should relinquish power.

In February 2013, the U.S. decides to send medical kits, food and other forms of nonlethal aid directly to the rebels but refuses to send weapons. In March, Syrian rebels and Assad’s government accuse each other of using chemical weapons. In May, Kerry travels to Moscow and revives the Geneva peace process. U.S. and Russian officials again differ on whether Assad must relinquish power. Like its predecessor, the “Geneva II” effort delivers no progress.

CHEMICAL WARFARE

U.S. intelligence concludes in June that Assad’s forces used small amounts of the nerve agent sarin in several attacks. Obama responds by authorizing the delivery of lethal aid to Syria’s rebels, but no weapons or ammunition are sent.

Military officials express increasingly dire assessments of the role al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are playing in Syria and the options available for U.S. military intervention. By July, the U.N. secretary-general says more than 100,000 people have died. The war takes an even more ominous turn on Aug. 21 with a massive chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.

RED LINE CROSSED

Obama and top aides threaten limited military action. Four U.S. destroyers equipped with cruise missiles are put on standby in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The Parliament in Britain, America’s closest military partner, rejects using force in an Aug. 29 vote and U.S. officials raise the possibility of a unilateral American attack. Two days later, Obama asks Congress for official authorization to strike. Encountering resistance, the president and his advisers say he can act even if Congress rejects his request.

PRESIDENT REBUFFED

Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate increasingly voice opposition to Obama’s strategy. Obama meets Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a global economic summit on Sept. 6 and they discuss diplomatic alternatives to get Assad to surrender his chemical weapons stockpiles.

Obama asks Senate leaders on Sept. 9 to delay voting on authorizing military action. Assad’s government says it will sign the U.N. treaty banning chemical weapons and hand over its stockpiles. Diplomatic wrangling continues between the U.S. and Russia over how to verify that Syria lives up to the deal and what consequences it should face if it doesn’t. U.S. officials say the Syrian rebels have received a first package of U.S. lethal aid.

What’s resolved, and what isn’t, in the US-Russia deal on Syria | The Times of Israel.

A critical first hurdle: There is no indication that the Assad government will sign off on the agreement

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, shakes hands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, right, after making statements at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland, Saturday Sept. 14, 2013. (photo credit: AP Photo/Keystone,Martial Trezzini)

POINTS OF AGREEMENT:

—The U.S. and Russia agree to work together on a U.N. Security Council resolution that would ensure verification of the agreement to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stocks and remove its capability to produce such weapons.

The resolution would come under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter, which allows for military action. But U.S. officials acknowledge Russia would veto such a step and they do not contemplate seeking authorization for the use of force.

U.S. officials stress that President Barack Obama retains his right to conduct military strikes to defend American national security interests in the absence of U.N. authorization.

—The U.S. and Russia give Syria one week, until Sept. 21, to submit “a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.”

—The U.S. and Russia agree that international inspectors should be on the ground in Syria by November and complete their initial work by the end of the month. They must be given “immediate and unfettered” access to inspect all sites. The destruction of chemical agent mixing and filling equipment must be completed by the end of November.

—The U.S. and Russia agree that all of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, material and equipment must be destroyed by mid-2014.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

—Despite Russia’s close relationship and influence with Syria, there is not yet any indication that the Assad government will sign off on the details of the agreement. It contains requirements that are above and beyond the normal criteria for countries bound by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria agreed to join earlier this week under pressure from Moscow.

—Although Russia has accepted the U.S. intelligence estimate that Syria has about 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons and precursors, the two sides have not agreed on the number of sites where they are manufactured and stored.

U.S. officials say they believe Syria maintains roughly 45 sites associated with chemical weapons, about half of which have “exploitable quantities” of chemicals. The Russian estimate is considerably lower, but U.S. officials would not say by how much. This could be an issue in determining where the inspectors are to work.

—Details about the composition of the inspection teams and their security must still be determined. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which technically is in charge of the inspections, has never mounted an operation as complex as this and will require assistance from outside parties to conduct the work. Nationalities of inspectors as well as the guards who will provide security for them must still be determined.

—No specific penalties for Syrian noncompliance have been agreed on. Those will be left up to the Security Council. Russia has made clear that any allegation of noncompliance will have to be thoroughly investigated before the council can take action, meaning Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh.

Obama: Military action still on table if Syria diplomacy fails | JPost | Israel News.

Report: Putin to travel to Iran for nuclear strategy talks | The Daily Caller.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted Iran’s invitation to visit Tehran to work out a strategy for the Islamic regime’s nuclear program, Fars News Agency reported Saturday. The West believes the Iranian program is a front for developing nuclear weapons.

Putin, seen by Iran’s clerical establishment as a strong opponent to America and the West — especially after his successful political play on averting a U.S. missile strike on Syria — was approached by Iran to protect the Islamic regime in the face of continued pressure by the West over its illicit nuclear program. Russia and the U.S. reached agreement Saturday to take control of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal by mid-2014.

Fars, the media outlet run by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said Putin will soon travel to Tehran, although details of the trip have yet to be announced. Fars said Iranian President Hassan Rowhani issued the invitation to Putin on Friday while both leaders were attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the Russian president accepted.

“Russia could possibly take new steps in solving the Iranian nuclear dossier,” Rowhani said. “The Russian initiative in relation to the Syrian chemical weapons and the steps taken by the Syrian officials provide this hope that a new war can be averted in the region.”

“Russia looks at Iran like a good neighbor,” Putin was quoted as saying. “I am very happy meeting the new Iranian president and personally congratulate him for his [recent presidential] victory. … We are aware of the opinions on the world’s stage in relation with Iran’s nuclear program; however, we have to also consider that Iran is our neighbor, a good neighbor.”

There were conflicting reports last week that Russia might increase its arms sales to Iran should Syria be attacked, including the delivery of its sophisticated surface-to-air missile system, the S300.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant had reported that Putin had decided to deliver five battalions of the S300s should Iran withdraw its claim of $4 billion in damages due to a breach of an original contract by Russia signed in 2007 worth $800 million.

In September 2010, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, under pressure by America and the West, signed a decree that banned the delivery of the S300 systems to the Islamic Republic. Iranian leaders, infuriated by this action, then filed a complaint against Russia’s arms export company, Rosoboronexport, with the International Court in Geneva.

Both Russia and Iran have strongly supported Syria’s Bashar Assad, with Iranian leaders warning that any intervention in Syria would cross a red line.

Meanwhile on Saturday, the leader of Iran’s proxy militia group in Iraq, Al-Mukhtar, warned that if America at any time attacks Syria, its forces would attack the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, thereby cutting off the “economic jugular” of the West.

“America’s attack on Syria will be the end of Saudi Arabia because the Saudi leaders promote the Syrian attack,” Wathiq al-Battat said, according to Keyhan newspaper, which is directly supervised by Iran’s supreme leader.

Battat threatened that his group would target the Saudi ports of Abqaiq, Juaymah and Ras Tanura, one of the largest in the world, and that his militants would also attack Saudi gas and oil pipelines, power lines and communication towers.

Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Forces, addressing a forum on Saturday, boasted about the power of the “Resistance Front” [Iran, Syria and Hezbollah] and stated, “In the eyes of the West, Zionists and the reactionary regimes, Syria’s real problem is not the ruling of the minority Alawites [who rule Syria] or the lack of democracy, but the reality is that the West and the reactionary regimes know that the Resistance’s powerful position in the region is indebted to the Syrian government.”

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book ”A Time to Betray“ (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).