WarSclerotic

Kerry in Israel: Threat of force against Syria is real – Israel News, Ynetnews.

In joint press conference with Netanyahu, US secretary of state says US-Russian plan has ‘full ability’ to strip Syria all chemical weapons. PM: World must ensure that radical regimes do not have WMDs

Attila Somfalvi, agencies

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday sent a strong warning to Syria, saying ‘the threat of force is real’ if it does not carry out an internationally brokered agreement to hand over its chemical weapons.

Kerry issued the warning during a stop in Jerusalem, where he briefed jittery Israeli leaders on the new US-Russian plan to rid neighboring Syria of its chemical weapons by the middle of next year. In comments aimed at his hosts, Kerry said the deal also served as a “marker” for the international community as it deals with Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

“We cannot have hollow words in the conduct of international affairs,” Kerry said.

The US has been formulating its response to an alleged chemical attack carried out by Syrian forces that killed hundreds of civilians last month. “These are crimes against humanity and they cannot be tolerated,” Kerry warned.

In a deal meant to avert a threatened US military strike, US and Russian officials reached an ambitious agreement over the weekend calling for an inventory of Syria’s chemical weapons program within one week. All components of Syria’s chemical weapons program are to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014. The Syrian government has yet to issue an official statement on the agreement.

The deal was greeted with cautious optimism in Israel, where leaders expressed satisfaction that Syria, a bitter enemy, could be stripped of dangerous weapons but also pessimism about whether Syrian President Bashar Assad will comply.

Israel has repeatedly voiced concern that Assad, locked in a two-year-old civil war, may fire his chemical weapons at Israel in a bout of desperation or that the weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah or other hostile groups fighting in the Syrian civil war.

Perhaps more critically, the Israelis also fear that a tepid international response to Syria could encourage Iran to press forward with what is widely believed to be a nuclear weapons program. Iran denies its nuclear program has a military purpose and says it is pursuing peaceful applications like cancer treatment and power generation.

Standing alongside Kerry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the US-Russia deal and stressed his belief that it would have deep repercussions on Iran, Syria’s close ally.

“The world needs to ensure that radical regimes don’t have weapons of mass destruction because as we have learned in Syria if rogue regimes have weapons of mass destruction they will use them,” Netanyahu said.

“The determination the international community shows regarding Syria will have a direct impact on the Syrian regime’s patron Iran. Iran must understand the consequences of its continued defiance of the international community by its pursuit toward nuclear weapons,” he added.

He said the deal proved that “if diplomacy has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat.”

With a nod toward these Israeli concerns, Kerry stressed that the deal with Russia was merely a “framework,” and much would depend on Syria.

“The threat of force is real and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal,” Kerry said.

He also said the agreement, if successful, “will have set a marker for the standard of behavior with respect to Iran and with respect North Korea and any rogue state, (or) group that tries to reach for these kind of weapons.”

Referring to an Aug. 21 attack that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people, Kerry said “The egregious use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against innocent men, women, children, their own citizens, all indiscriminately murdered in the dead of night is unacceptable.”

“And we have said in no uncertain terms that this should never happen again. This country (Israel) understands the words ‘never again’ perhaps more than any other,” he said, a reference to the Nazi Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed, many of them in gas chambers.

Kerry briefly addressed the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, saying he was speaking with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority directly and that everyone understands the sides are working towards – “two states living side by side in security.”

Israel has largely stayed on the sidelines of Syria’s civil war, a two-and-a-half-year conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people and pits the Iranian-allied Assad government against rebels who include Islamist militants deeply hostile to the Jewish state.

Netanyahu reiterated his call for a “credible military threat” to back up sanctions and diplomatic efforts aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says its nuclear work is entirely peaceful.

Ahead of Kerry’s arrival, some Israeli politicians voiced skepticism, saying Assad cannot be trusted.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said the plan was more “substantive” than earlier proposals, but warned the agreement’s deadline was not speedy enough and Assad could try to hide weapons.

“We know Assad. All kinds of things could happen,” he said, adding that an agreement on chemical weapons should not absolve Assad of punishment for the acts he has committed against the Syrian people.

Avigdor Lieberman, chair of parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, told Army Radio that Israel would compare its own intelligence assessments of Syria’s weapons to the inventory Syria submits, which the plan requires him to do in a week.

“After we see the list of what Assad has handed over in a week, we can know if his intentions are serious of if it is just deception,” Lieberman said.

After their news conference, Kerry departed for Paris where he was to discuss the Syria plan with his French, British, Turkish and Saudi counterparts on Monday.

AP, Reuters contributed to the report

Iran crisis more pressing than Syria, Obama says | JPost | Israel News.

US president: Threat of force, diplomacy can also work with Iran.

WASHINGTON — In an interview on Sunday, US President Barack Obama praised a deal with Russia that will rid Syria of its massive chemical weapons stockpile, but warned Iran’s leaders not to misinterpret his decision against using force to punish and deter the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“They  shouldn’t draw a lesson that, we haven’t struck [Syria], to think we won’t strike Iran,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “What they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically.”

Obama said in the televised interview that the Iranian crisis challenges America’s national security interests more directly than do recent developments in Syria, even after the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s forces against civilians on August 21.

“I think what the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical weapons issue – that the threat against Israel that a nuclear Iran poses is much closer to our core interests,” Obama said.

“That a nuclear arms race in the region is something that would be profoundly destabilizing.”

Obama said he has exchanged letters with new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani since his inauguration last month.

“My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact you can you can strike a deal,” Obama said.

The president’s comments came just a day after US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced a deal in Geneva that would require Syria to identify the whereabouts of its chemical weapons within one week, with destruction of its arsenal beginning in mid-2014.

Officials in the Obama administration admit that the logistics of the plan have not been worked out, and will prove “daunting” to execute, with over 1,000 tons of chemical arms scattered across the war-ravaged nation.

“We had CENTCOM do a quick paper for us before we left about sort of options for security. Broad parameters, nothing very complex,” said a senior State Department official. “Even in a regime-controlled area, we would need considerable security. OPCW would need considerable security for protection of the site, if nothing else.”

Assad has not publicly endorsed the deal, but his government ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention– which bans their production, proliferation and use– last week.

“What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement– they see it as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part,” Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham reacted in a statement. “We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon.”

Obama answered critics of his approach by asserting his interest in “getting the policy right,” as opposed to “style points” meant to demonstrate strength and resolve.

French President Francois Hollande said on Sunday that a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution on Syria could be expected by the end of the coming week, but urged the US to maintain military pressure on the Assad regime to keep its commitments.

The US had agreed not to push for the pending UN resolution to include the threat of force if Syria does not comply with its provisions.

Obama defends shift to diplomacy on Syria as ‘responsibility’ | The Times of Israel.

US president pledges to hold Assad accountable for WMD use by keeping military option on table

US President Barack Obama continued to make the case for his policy in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, arguing in his weekly address Saturday that pursuing a diplomatic solution after threatening military strikes was both morally prudent and strategically effective.

Obama’s moves over the last several weeks — including seeking authorization from Congress to use force and agreeing to back off a strike if Syria destroys its chemicals weapons — have left some pundits scratching their heads.

However speaking on Saturday as the US and Russia hashed out a deal to see Syria give up its chemical arms, Obama defended his decision to shift from military force to diplomacy.

“If there is any chance of achieving that goal without resorting to force,” Obama said, “then I believe we have a responsibility to pursue that path.”

Still, the president sought to keep alive the possibility of American force, and argued that “this plan emerged only with a credible threat of US military action.”

“We will maintain our military posture in the region to keep the pressure on the Assad regime,” he continued. “And if diplomacy fails, the United States and the international community must remain prepared to act.”

US and Russian officials reached an agreement Saturday that calls for an inventory of Syria’s chemical weapons program and the seizure of all its components. The agreement includes imposing penalties if Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government fails to comply.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and their teams had been meeting day and night in Geneva to develop a framework for ridding the world of Syria’s chemical weapons, in response to a gas attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.

The US and others blame Assad’s government for the attack, though Assad denies the charge. More than 1,400 people died, according to US estimates, the latest victims of Syria’s 2½-year-old civil war. Yet polls showed relatively little support among Americans for a military strike against Syria, even after the Obama administration’s efforts to argue that punishing Damascus for violating international norms of warfare was in the security interests of the US.

Obama emphasized that he was fully aware of the possibility that both Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin could be using the agreement as a stalling tactic, and said he would not allow them to manipulate the international community. “We are not just going to take Russia and Assad’s word for it,” Obama promised. “We need to see concrete actions to demonstrate that Assad is serious about giving up his chemical weapons.”

Obama also underlined the international community’s responsibility to respond to the events, and emphasized his administration’s own efforts to gather international support for his policy.

“We’ll keep working with the international community to see that Assad gives up his chemical weapons so that they can be destroyed,” he said. “We will continue rallying support from allies around the world who agree on the need for action to deter the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”

In Congress, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who are among Obama’s sharpest foreign policy critics and support greater US assistance for Syria’s rebels, said the agreement would embolden enemies such as Iran.

Other critics have also pounded Obama for his wavering and for decision not to pursue a punishing strike on Assad.

The New York Times’ Peter Baker called Obama’s reversal “the rare instance of a commander in chief seemingly thinking out loud and changing his mind on the fly.”

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that this episode represents “the most undisciplined stretch of foreign policy of his presidency.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, in contrast, credited the president’s “steadfast leadership” for “making significant progress in our efforts to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Looks good on paper – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: US-Russian deal to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons obviously positive, but its implementation will not be easy

The proposal to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons is favorable from the US and Israeli perspective, assuming of course that the agreement will be implemented to the letter and in accordance with the timetable that has been set for it – eight to 10 weeks. Russia and the US agreed to prioritize the near immediate neutralization of Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, and this is a very positive development for Israel.

Another positive aspect of the agreement is that if Syria fails to comply with it, it would face consequences under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the part that covers sanctions and military action. This clause is crucial as far as the US concerned because it wants to keep up the pressure on Syria and for the time being it is keeping its destroyers and aerial forces in the Middle East.

It is clear that by exercising its veto power in the UN, Russia can foil the implementation of this clause, but its inclusion in the agreement sends a clear signal to Assad that he had better follow orders.

The two superpowers have tasked inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with locating, neutralizing and – if possible – immediately destroying the chemical weapons and the apparatus used to fill warheads and bombs with chemical agents.

OPCW was established in 1997 and is based in The Hague. Syria is one of 189 countries that have signed its treaty. The agreement between the US and Russia determines that Syria must grant the organization’s inspectors unfettered access to its chemical weapons stockpiles.

Kerry (L) and Lavrov at press conference (Photo: AP)

Under the pact, a number of measures will be taken that will prevent the use of Syria’s chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Hezbollah (Assad may try to transfer some of his chemical weapons to the Lebanese Shiite group) and the jihadist organizations fighting against Assad’s forces.

OPCW is expected to set up a team that will include experts from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Prior to the arrival of the inspectors, Syria must provide 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. Once in Syria, the inspectors are supposed to verify the Syrian report and make sure the chemical weapons sites are secure. Later, the process of destroying some of the WMDs will begin. The production and mixing/filling equipment is scheduled to be destroyed by November.

The next phase will see the US and Russia try to move the chemical stockpiles and empty warheads out of Syria (probably to Russia, which has a lot of experience in such projects) for the purpose of destroying them. At the same time, chemical weapons that cannot be moved out of Syria will be destroyed.

The most important clause of the agreement states that the US and Russia have decided that to achieve accountability for their chemical weapons, the Syrians “must provide the OPCW, the UN, and other supporting personnel with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in Syria.” Meaning, the inspectors will be able to conduct surprise visits to the sites.

All this is very promising, but it is safe to assume that the tight schedule will be extended and that the inspectors will encounter difficulties from both the Assad regime and the rebels. They will constantly be in danger and will have to be protected by a special force. This requires a lot of preparations and funding.

The agreement was worded in such a way that it does not accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons. On this issue, the Russians had the upper hand. They also succeeded in subjecting the agreement and its implementation to the decisions of the Security Council and UN General Assembly.

This condition will allow Russia and China to prevent a military operation against Syria and even the imposition of sanctions – should the Arab country fail to comply with the deal.

What appears on paper looks good, but the real test lies in the implementation of the agreement, and in this regard we are surely in for many months of ups and downs in which the US will most likely have to renew its threat of force and Russia will try to give Assad a chance to get out of the mess he has gotten himself into. The story is not over, and it is too early to determine who won and who was defeated.

Kerry looks to reassure anxious Israel over US resolve on Syria, Iran | JPost | Israel News.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrives in Israel for one-day visit; Kerry is expected to brief Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the US deal reached with Russia that will see Syria dismantle its chemical weapons cache.

Steinitz: Israel can see if Assad is moving Syria’s chemical weapons | JPost | Israel News.

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz says giving up non-conventional weapons should not excuse Syrian President Bashar Assad from punishment for war crimes; declines to “grade” US, Russia deal.

Syria deal restores Russia’s role as Mideast player | The Times of Israel.

The chemical weapons agreement checks US power while offering Obama a chance to buttress his anti-war bona fides

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, June 17, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The US deal with Russia to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons has pulled the Obama administration into deep Russian waters as the Kremlin tries to restore Moscow to its place as a pivotal Mideast player.

If Syria, which relies on Russian patronage, signs on, then the deal temporarily would solve a big domestic political problem for President Barack Obama. Russian President Vladimir Putin would walk away with two immense prizes, at the least.

The framework does not settle the larger issue, ending the civil war that has ravaged Syria for more than two years. Nor does it address Obama’s calls for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s departure and his replacement by democratic order in a country that has never known one.

For Obama, the agreement hammered out in Geneva would buttress his inclination to find answers through diplomacy rather than military means.

It could, for a time, distract Americans who had grown critical, or at least doubtful, about his foreign policy bona fides, given White House waffling and course changes on threatened airstrikes against Syria. That was Obama’s declared response to punish Assad for what the US says was his use of chemical weapons in an attack last month, killing more than 1,400 people.

Putin, on the other hand, will have taken great strides in showing that Russia must play a critical role in the Middle East, something it surrendered with the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.

What’s more, Putin has for the time being shored up Assad. Equally important to the Kremlin, Russian intervention will enhance Putin’s stature as a geopolitical counterbalance to American power.

The deal calls for unspecified UN penalties against Syria should Assad fail to comply, but stops short of authorizing a military strike. That would leave Obama in a position of ignoring the world body’s directive should he revert to airstrikes.

“It was a brilliant tactical move” for Russia, said Jonathan Adelman, a professor at the University of Denver Korbel School of International Studies.

“It makes them the savior of Syria, and the savior of their closest ally. It kind of highlighted the message that the Americans are clearly, totally unreliable,” he said.

To R. Nicholas Burns, professor of international relations at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the Russian gambit is part of a long-term strategy.

“One of Putin’s abiding objectives for the last decade has been to limit the power and maneuverability of the United States,” said Burns, a former ambassador to NATO and Greece, and a former undersecretary of state for political affairs.

“They don’t want to live in a world where the United States is dominant. If there are opportunities to limit, clip the power of the United States, to harry and harass the United States, they will do it,” said Burns, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Assad and his father before him have been Moscow’s foremost Arab allies for decades. Much of the weaponry Syria deploys against the rebels fighting to overthrow his government comes from Russia.

Even as evidence mounted that Assad’s military launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack, Russia insisted that the rebels were to blame. Until now, the Russians have used or threatened to use their Security Council veto to block UN action to punish Assad.

Despite a civil war death toll above 100,000 in Syria and millions more made refugees, Putin is banking on the world seeing the contrast between his steadfastness in standing with an isolated Syria and Obama’s less than sure-footed handling of the crisis.

Besides calling for Assad’s overthrow on two occasions, Obama had said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. Obama pledged to arm Syrian rebels but the flow of arms has been minimal and sluggish.

He prepared Americans for airstrikes after the chemical attack, had Secretary of State John Kerry deliver an impassioned argument for striking Assad, then pulled back and asked Congress for support. He hasn’t gotten it.

The rebels feel cut adrift, abandoned. In less than a week they went from optimistic expectations of a greater weapons flow and a US air assault to degrade Assad’s forces to the reality of Russia, Syria’s No. 1 ally, involved in a lengthy chemical weapons process with Washington, the rebels’ would-be mentor.

On the opposition front, Obama and Putin appear to share common concern.

While the Syrian uprising began as an internal matter, the rebels were in dire need of military assistance and were far outnumbered. The manpower vacuum has been filled by foreign Islamic extremists.

Neither the United States nor Russia wants to see a strategic country such as Syria come under control of religious extremists. Russia is particularly concerned given its long southern border populated by Muslim countries that were once Soviet republics.

Moscow spent nearly two decades crushing an Islamic uprising in Chechnya, a Russian republic in the Caucasus region in the deep south and not far from Syria. The US worries about the further spread of territory under control of militant Islamists and al-Qaida franchises.

Both Obama and Putin will find satisfaction, for different reasons, in having avoided — again for the time being — a US attack on Syria.

For Putin, the talks bolster Moscow’s global standing and could, either through delay or success, preserve their crucial Middle East ally.

For Obama, a deal would pull him out of a deep political hole, the one he created for himself by declaring a readiness to strike, then pulling back in an attempt to share the responsibility with Congress, which wanted no part of an attack.

But now, should the deal fail to take chemical weapons away from Assad, Obama would again find himself having to decide whether to stand down or act, likely without support of Congress, the American people and a UN resolution. All options would weaken him for the rest of his second term.

Even so, supporters claim Obama has gained strength, contending his threat to use force precipitated the Geneva talks between Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who jointly announced the deal.

Either way, he seems to have had little choice.

“I think President Obama is absolutely right to walk down this diplomatic path with Putin and to agree initially that we’ll accept the proposal for a diplomatic solution,” Burns said. “He had to do that. If there’s a chance to resolve this peacefully, then we have to take it. But I think this proposal may have lots of internal difficulties and contradictions.”

Burns said the United States “is in such a disadvantageous position that we need to be very tough right now.”

But Putin, too, has a history of extreme ruggedness in global give-and-take, almost always taking more than he will give.

Doc’s Talk: “The Saudis are Trembling – Quietly”‏.

Mordechai Kedar

These days, the Arab media are full of reports about diplomatic activities regarding the Syrian issue, and commentators’ articles dealing with this matter fill whole pages in the newspapers of the Arab world. They all try to ascertain if there will be an American military action, what its scope will be, how powerful it will be, what its goals will be, how long it will last, and especially, what the consequences of the action will be. But there is one important voice which is almost not heard at all in this whole chorus of analysts – the Saudi voice –  and it seems that someone there – the king? – may have imposed a gag order on the commentators.


To get a deeper understanding of the reason for this, I contacted a Saudi colleague, with whom I  am in contact occasionally. He is a member of the royal family, but is not in the inner circles of decision making. Nevertheless, he is well acquainted with the way the Saudi leaders think, he is aware of the considerations and feelings that drive it and has a deep understanding of what is said and what is not said there. At first he refused to speak, and only after a “preliminary conversation” did he consent. This is how it is in the Middle East: everything is based on personal relationships, and Arabic is the entry bridge into the emotions of the region’s people.

He preferred to speak about “The Gulf”, not Saudi Arabia, in order to present a united front regarding the events in Syria and its environs. This is not exactly correct, because the positions of Saudi Arabia (which is the main supplier and supporter of the Salafi fighters in Syria) and those of Qatar (which stand behind the Free Syrian Army), are not identical, and  the United Arab Emirates is much more active than Oman. But despite the differences in approach among the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, their basic attitudes are very similar.

My colleague hinted at an important aspect of Middle Eastern character, which is “murou’a” – “manliness”. A man will always be sure to act according to rules of manly conduct, and will make every effort to avoid feminine patterns of behavior. Emotionality and whining are considered feminine qualities that express weakness, while a male is expected to keep a cool head and emotional balance and remain calm and functional even in difficult and complex situations. It seems that the Saudi government’s silence during the last few days stems from this characteristic. One could say that the greater the internal emotional stress, the quieter and more relaxed the Arab man will try to appear. It relates to the obsession with honor, because if a man sounds like a woman he is considered contemptible.

The longer the conversation continued, the more open it became, and the more my colleague complained about the Western world in general and the United States in particular. “You (he included Israel in the Western world) speak all the time about human rights, so why are you quiet about what is happening in Syria? After chemical weapons have been used ten times, you still do not manage to find a reason to eliminate Asad? Are two hundred thousand fatalities not enough to bring you out of your complacency? Is issuing condemnations the only thing you can do? Making threats without carrying them out? You have all of the proof you need to do what you said you would do, so why are you not doing what you promised?” And then came the knockout question: “Is the Libyan’s blood redder than the Syrians’? Or maybe Libyan oil is blacker than Syrian oil?” These things were said somewhat scornfully, because the coalition of Europe and America attacked Qadhaffi for less terrible things than Asad is doing.

I asked him: “So how should the Arab world deal with a mass murderer?” He answered with a rhetorical question: “Don’t you know what Saudi Arabia has done and is still doing for the Syrian people?” He was referring to what Saudi Arabia usually does: it gives money, lots of money, for purposes that it believes in. Saudi Arabia – and all of the other Gulf countries – have poured many billions of dollars into the Syrian rebellion to pay the fighters, to buy weapons, ammunition, communication devices and civilian aid, and even to bring women to Syria in order to “serve” the fighters. Saudi Arabia funds training camps in other countries that train fighters to join the fight against Asad in Syria.

The Saudi activities are what put Asad into the military and emotional state where he felt that he had to use a doomsday weapon, a chemical weapon. And if it hadn’t been used on August 21st, Damascus would have been conquered by trained, armed and equipped troops who came in from a neighboring country after Saudi Arabia had participated in funding their training, and they situated themselves the night before August 21 in the Eastern suburbs of Damascus. Asad understood that if he did not destroy these troops with gas – together with the citizens that the troops were hiding among, using them as human shields – the troops would take control of the government institutions in Damascus and his rule would come to an end, along with himself.

The Saudis were on the brink of victory, and Asad’s use of gas took it away from them. That’s why they are so angry with Asad, and with the West as well, which did not take the necessary steps immediately, to act without discussions, without votes, without Congress and without Parliament. They are concerned that Obama never intended to act in Syria, and all of his fiery speeches about red lines and what would happen if those red lines were crossed, were only words, which he had no intention of carrying out. My colleague used the expression “the roar of a mouse” to describe Obama’s words.

But the Saudis cannot attack Obama personally, because they still depend on him to deal with the great, real, serious threat to their east, Iran. They heard the words of the “moderate”, “reformist”  (my colleague laughed when he said these words) Iranian president very well when he said this week that Iran will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights. He attributes this declaration to the West’s weak behavior in the Syrian issue. He used an Arabic expression meaning that Iran completely ignores the United States.
He doesn’t believe that Asad will give up his chemical weapons, and he will do any sort of trick in order to conceal them and hide what he has in his stockpiles of death. The Russians have won a big victory over the United States, and they are taking advantage of Europe’s lack of will to use force. And in general, what is all this business about giving up chemical weapons? Can a murderer’s punishment be mitigated by confiscating the pistol that he used to commit murder? What kind of ethical or legal standard is that? Why don’t they even issue an international arrest warrant against al-Assad to bring him to justice in the International Criminal Court? How is he different from Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Milosevic of Yugoslavia?

According to my Saudi colleague, Iran is the big winner in the whole Syrian fiasco. Iran is reaping the fruits of its success in Iraq, because of the thousands of Americans that Iran killed in Iraq between the years 2003 and 2010, which will deter the United States from becoming involved in Syria. This is how Iran has acquired Iraq – where Iran now has unlimited control – and Syria. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards fight on Asad’s side in Syria, despite it being a violation of Security Council resolutions, and no country does a thing.

The ruling family of Saudi Arabia is concerned, very concerned, that the weakness that the West conveys regarding Syria today will also be reflected in the way the West relates to Iran, and that if Iran takes some action against Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries in the future, the West will not have the strength and the courage to emerge from its impassivity and support Saudi Arabia on the day of reckoning. The Saudis are tense and concerned, and this is the reason for the quiet from Saudi Arabia during these trying days.

It may be that in the Middle East there are more countries whose leaders are quite concerned about the future of the Middle East and the world in general.

—

Dr. Mordechai Kedar(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Israel Matzav: Iraq returns the favor? Lebanese paper reports Syria hiding chem weapons in Iraq.

You will recall that I have presented proof in the past that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein transferred chemical weapons to Syria in the lead-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Lebanese daily al-Mustaqbal, Syria is now returning the favor.

Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.

The government in Baghdad has denied allegations that it is helping the Syrian government conceal chemical stockpiles.

…

The newspaper reported that the trucks crossed the boundary separating Syria with Iraq over the course of Thursday and Friday. Border guards did not inspect the contents of the trucks, which raises suspicions that they contained illicit cargo, according to Al-Mustaqbal.

…

Last week, the head of the Free Syrian Army told CNN that opposition intelligence indicated Assad was moving chemical arms out of the country.

“Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq,” General Salim Idriss told CNN.

“We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled,” Idris told reporters in Istanbul.

Hmmm….

Syria has become Iran’s Vietnam – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

As if the Iran nuclear issue was not already difficult enough, it became even more complicated when Bashar al-Assad unleashed his chemical weapons across Damascus suburbs last month. Suddenly, the Syria issue is overshadowing all other factors concerning Iran.

The Obama administration is increasingly justifying its decision to respond militarily to Assad’s chemical weapons use in terms of the likely impact on Iran. Certainly, punishing Assad for crossing Obama’s red line on chemical weapons will make it less likely that Iran will cross Obama’s red line on the production of nuclear weapons.

U.S. deterrence against weapons of mass destruction will be strengthened worldwide. North Korea, for example, which has even more chemical weapons than Syria, will be on notice not to even think about using them in any provocation against South Korea or in any conflict that might erupt as a result of a provocation.

Retaliatory strikes against Assad will also reinforce allies’ confidence that the United States has their back. In deciding last year not to order a unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was persuaded that Obama would not let Iran become nuclear-armed. Netanyahu’s faith in that assurance will be stronger if Obama demonstrates he is both willing and able to employ military power against Syria.

Personal credibility

It’s not so much Obama’s personal credibility as the United States’ strategic credibility that is at stake. Letting Assad go unpunished could be the straw that breaks Netanyahu’s faith in the United States and leads to a premature and counterproductive Israeli attack on Iran that then brings the United States into an unwanted war.

Letting Assad go unpunished could be the straw that breaks Netanyahu’s faith in the United States and leads to a premature and counterproductive Israeli attack on Iran that then brings the United States into an unwanted war.

 

Mark Fitzpatrick

On the other hand, U.S.-led air-strikes against Syria could set back prospects for peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue. A real solution to the problem is probably impossible, given the depth of differences between the protagonists: Iran wants a nuclear weapons capability and its adversaries don’t want Iran to have it.

Short-term confidence-building measures may be possible now that Hassan Rowhani is in the presidency, but even such interim steps will require Iran to accept limits, such as shutting down operations at the Fordow enrichment plant, that so far have been out of the question in Tehran. Rowhani would be hard-pressed in the best of circumstances to persuade hardliners to accept such compromises. If their Syrian comrades-in-arms are attacked by the United States, the hardliners will be smarting for revenge, not reconciliation.

The hardliners’ mood will be especially dark if Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ‘advisors’ suffer losses in the bombing. Given the extensive military support that Iran has been providing Assad, some Quds forces are likely to get caught in the crosshairs. This could trigger an asymmetric response.

Already there is a report that the IRGC has instructed militia proxies in Iraq to attack U.S. interests there in reprisal for any U.S. strikes on Syria. Iran won’t want to get dragged into a war with the U.S. because of Syria, but unintended escalation could ensue anyway.

As much as Rowhani will oppose action that could lead to conflict with the United States, he does not control the IRGC. At the very least, they will redouble their supply of armaments to Assad’s forces, using Iraqi airspace and highways as transit routes.

Gaming out the potential impact on the Iranian nuclear program is one reason to limit U.S. air-strikes, which should in any case be proportionate to Assad’s crime. Rowhani likely will have heard from former U.S. diplomat Jeff Feltman, now U.N. Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, who visited Tehran last week, that the limited U.S. strikes are not directed against Iran’s interests.

Mission creep

That message should be repeated and honored. The Iran angle is not a justifiable reason for refraining from punishing Assad, but it is among the reasons for avoiding mission creep.

Meanwhile, it is Iran rather than the United States that stands to lose most from the Syrian conflict. Tehran’s backing of Assad’s brutality casts it in a villain role on the Arab street throughout the Sunni world. Iran’s pretentions that its own 1979 Islamic revolution was a precursor to the Arab Spring have been shown to be manifestly hypocritical.

And now Assad’s chemical-weapons slaughter of women and children has exacerbated divisions in Iran itself, with former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani accusing the Syrian government. The Iranian people know that the armaments and financial props that Iran provides Assad soak up revenues that are more precious with each new sanctions measure Iran faces. In many ways, Syria has become Iran’s Vietnam: a quagmire from which it has no apparent escape.

Best option

Iran’s Syria predicament gives the United States new-found leverage. The best option for Iran is to lend its weight to a negotiated settlement on Syria. Seeing itself as the major power in the region, Iran has always wanted to be part of any Syria peace talks. Now, more than ever, it desperately wants to join Geneva-II as a way out of its predicament.

Whether or not Obama can bring the fractious Syrian opposition into peace talks, he does have the power to say yes or no to Iranian participation. To date, the arguments for not inviting Iran have won out: it has been part of the problem. But the Iranians can also be part of the solution, not least because of their leverage over Assad.

Iran’s desire to be at Geneva-II is why U.S. air-strikes against Syria need not set back nuclear negotiations for very long. Obama should play the Syria card to get Iran to engage meaningfully on the issues of most importance for each.

This article is from the IISS and was originally published at IPS New Service on September 6, 2013.

_______________________
Mark Fitzpatrick directs the IISS Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program. Mr. Fitzpatrick’s research focus includes nuclear proliferation concerns and preventing nuclear danger in the emerging ‘nuclear renaissance’. He is the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding worst-case outcomes (IISS Adelphi Paper 398, 2008) and has written articles on non-proliferation in the Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Survival, and other publications.