How Putin Saved Obama, Congress and the European Union from Further Embarrassing themselves on Syria

By Juan Cole

"Secretary of State John Kerry was asked at a press conference in London Monday morning if there was anything that could forestall a US missile attack on Damascus, and he replied off the cuff that Syria could surrender its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community within a week.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pounced on Kerry’s comment, abruptly announcing that Russia would see what it could do. Lavrov said, “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus . . . We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons,”
Syria’s portly Foreign Minister Walid Muallim clearly knows how to chow down while the meal is still hot, and he wasted no time embracing Lavrov’s suggestion. Muallim said, “The Syrian leadership welcomes the Russian initiative because of its own eagerness to preserve the lives of Syrian citizens and ensure the security of the country, and given our confidence in the desire of the Russian leadership to prevent an attack on our country.”
Senate majority leader Harry Reid immediately postponed a vote on a Syria attack by his body that had been scheduled for Wednesday.
The indications were that President Obama might well not get 60 votes in the Senate for his attack on Damascus, and Reid must have exhaled a big sigh of relief. As for the House of Representatives, the likelihood of it voting to allow Obama to fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets is between slim and none.
To that extent, Putin’s suggestion (and it was his; Lavrov doesn’t have an independent power base and does as the president tells him) functions to save Obama a lot of trouble.
He can now possibly avoid the most embarrassing defeat in congress of a president on a major international issue since that body told Woodrow Wilson where he could stick his League of Nations.
Likewise, Putin’s proposal ironically helped soothe troubled waters in the European Union. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was by all accounts absolutely furious at Spain, Britain and France for issuing a statement at the G20 meeting in Moscow supportive of President Obama’s condemnation of Syria for chemcial weapons use (though they did not back a military attack on Syria). Merkel reprimanded Spain in particular for not waiting for a joint European Union statement. (For Spain to defy Germany at this point in time is rather like a deeply indebted gambler being rude to the casino owner). Spain for its part only talked a good game, going on to say that Spanish law forbade the Spanish military from in any way being involved with the US assault on Damascus, since it is not in self-defense.. It is not clear what Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was supporting at the G20, if he thinks military action so illegal that Spain has to avoid having anything to do with it. And, of course, the British Parliament had rebuked Prime Minister David Cameron for considering joining the US in air strikes on Syria.
Putin’s gambit is irresistible to the West, even if it amounts to nothing. After all, it will take time to amount to nothing, and with the passage of time the urgency of military action (already low) will dissipate irrevocably.
The Russian initiative is not attractive because it seems practical or likely to be swiftly implemented but because it allows everyone involved to save face. Obama can look statesmanlike. He is already taking credit for Putin’s move, saying it would not have come about without his own saber-rattling.
The US Congress might be able to avoid the uncomfortable position of agreeing that Syria is guilty of chemical weapons use but declining to do anything about it.
And, the European Union was desperately looking for some step that could avoid further friction within the deeply divided organization.
All this is good news for Western politicians and bad news for the Syrian rebels, who are denouncing the Russian initiative as mendacious. They had hoped that the US would degrade some key regime capabilities, especially the bombing of airports that the regime uses to resupply its troops. Of course, even before the Putin Plan, it was increasingly unlikely that Obama would gain authorization for such a step, in any case.
The one good thing about this development is that it strengthens Russia’s position with the Baath government of Bashar al-Assad and may lend new energy to Moscow’s determination to broker a compromise between the rebels and the regime.
Without a US or Western bombing campaign, the Syrian regime is likely just strong enough to hold on for years. The rebels’ advance of last spring has stalled and in some places been reversed. Some sort of negotiation now seems likely. While in my view the two sides are not yet desperate or exhausted enough to make that sort of agreement the Lebanese acquiesced in at Taif in 1989, they may be able to take small steps toward that eventual outcome, which increasingly seems the most plausible one."

Master Flip-Flopper

MASTER FLIP-FLOPPER......
"I OPPOSED THE WAR.......BEFORE I SUPPORTED IT!"

WHAT IS HIS POSITION TODAY?
STAY TUNED, AS THE STOMACH TURNS!

Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack

New Evidence based on Rocket Analysis, Witness Accounts

"(New York) – Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin.

The 22-page report, “Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria,”documents two alleged chemical weapons attacks on the opposition-controlled suburbs of Eastern and Western Ghouta, located 16 kilometers apart, in the early hours of August 21. Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims as documented by medical staff.

“Rocket debris and symptoms of the victims from the August 21 attacks on Ghouta provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “This evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning.”

The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces, Human Rights Watch said...."

How to get Syria to give up chemical weapons

 

US should put Russian offer to the test

 

By Brian Whitaker

"As regular readers of this blog will know, I have recently been advocating two things in connection with Syria:

First, to address the issue of chemical weapons separately from the wider conflict. 

That's because it IS a separate issue. Although the chemical crisis has arisen out of the wider conflict, maintaining the international ban is a matter of global importance. Whatever people may think about the principle of intervening in another country's internal struggle, the use of banned weapons – wherever it happens – requires a strong international response. 

Secondly, to explore diplomatic/political ways of dealing with chemical weapons in Syria.

On the first of these two points, things have got worse rather than better. In the US especially, the level of confusion – among the public and in the media – is now extraordinary. Much of the debate relates to internal politicking around Obama's "leadership" (or supposed lack of) rather than the matter in hand. As for chemical weapons, they have become little more than a peg for discussing more familiar but only marginally related topics like jihadists and Iran, as well as for expressions of isolationist sentiment.

On the second point, though, there are signs of progress. When I first suggested placing Syria's chemical stockpile in the hands of the UN, it was greeted with a mixture of silence and scepticism. But now it seems the idea may have legs after all.

Earlier today, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, suggested the Assad regime could avoid being attacked if it handed over its entire stock of chemical weapons. In the form delivered by Kerry it sounded like an ultimatum – hand them over within a week, or else – and Kerry added that he did not expect Assad to comply. 

But then something very interesting happened. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, chipped in, unexpectedly agreed with Kerry about handing over the weapons (though without the threatening tone) and even went a bit further. He said:

"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only [to] agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

"We have passed our offer to Walid al-Muallem [the Syrian foreign minister] and hope to receive a fast and positive answer." 

The best way the US can respond to this is not to add further demands, such as an admission of guilt from Assad, but to say to the Russians: "That's an interesting idea. Let's see what can be done."

There are two steps involved in dealing with the use of banned weapons:

1. Preventing any further use.

2. Holding accountable whoever was responsible.

As far as achieving these objectives is concerned, airstrikes are not a precise tool. They could hold the regime accountable to some extent by destroying some of its assets – in other words, punishment. Airstrikes would not directly prevent further use of chemical weapons, however. Bombing toxic stockpiles themselves could be dangerous, so the aim would be partly to reduce the military's ability to use them but mainly to serve as a deterrent – a message that further use of such weapons would result in increasingly severe airstrikes.

Apart from saving lives, the diplomatic route could prove more effective. Persuading Assad to hand over his chemicals to the UN, together with agreeing to inspections, etc, would – if done properly – ensure there could be no further use of these weapons. It would not address the issue of accountability, but that is less urgent and could be set aside till later.

In theory, it ought to be possible to secure Russian co-operation in a diplomatic initiative since President Putin has already said he regards use of chemical weapons as a crime. (As a side-note, Iran – another important ally of Assad – also takes a dim view of chemical weapons, having been on the receiving end during the Iran-Iraq war.)

It's necessary to recognise, though, that on other issues relating to the Syrian conflict Russia has been thoroughly obstructive, as Samantha Power, the US ambassador at the UN, explained recently. If the Americans want to test Russia's willingness to co-operate on chemical weapons, therefore, they will have to treat it as a self-contained issue in any discussions.

Another potential obstacle is that in the absence of any startling new evidence Russia will probably stick to its insistence that the Assad regime was not responsible for the attacks on August 21. If the Americans persist in trying to change the Russian view on point, talks will inevitably founder.

But, surprising as it may seem, disagreements over culpability need not necessarily be a problem. There are perfectly good arguments for urging Assad to give up his chemical weapons without blaming him for the events of August 21.

One is that surrendering the chemicals will protect him from further accusations (either true of false) of their use. Another is that it will prevent any of the weapons being captured – and even used – by rebel fighters.

The biggest unknown quantity in this, of course, is how Assad himself will react to the proposal. Currently, he seems to be neither confirming nor denying that he has chemical weapons (which is what Israel also does in connection with its nuclear weapons). But there's no real doubt that he has both actual weapons and a research programme which was originally developed as the "poor man's defence" against Israel's nuclear capability.

Assad might remain defiant, claiming that the weapons (if he admits to their existence at all) are purely for national defence. Or he could offer to give them up on condition that Israel does the same with its nuclear weapons.

That's the kind of bravado that made Saddam Hussein a hero among his supporters but ultimately led to his downfall. If Assad has any sense, though, he will weigh up the costs and benefits of keeping his weapons versus giving them up. If he's prepared to swallow his pride (and values his relationship with Russia) it shouldn't be a difficult choice to make."

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

Syria crisis: Russia calls on Assad to destroy chemical arsenal. A US-Russian Deal?? Something is Being Cooked for Sure.

From the Guardian:

"....
One of many questions surrounding the big news this morning that Russia has called on Assad to destroy his chemical arsenal – an astounding development, considering that a week ago president Putin was denying evidence of a chemical attack – is, to what extent the Russians are working with US secretary of state John Kerry and other US diplomats on the issue.

The timing of Lavrov's announcement– a few hours after Kerry said that Assad could resolve the crisis by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week, and a few days after Putin and Obama met at the G20 summit – seems to suggest coordination of some kind.
Lavrov played the announcement as Russia taking the US up on an offer to avoid strikes in exchange for the weapons' elimination – not, it should be noted, an offer that Kerry explicitly made....."

From an Earlier Post by Brian Whitaker

".....

The world has made considerable progress towards eliminating chemical weapons and the aim should be not to let that slip by allowing their use to become normalised now. There are two steps towards achieving that in Syria:

1. Preventing any further use.

2. Holding accountable whoever was responsible.

Of the two, preventing further attacks is plainly the most urgent. Accountability is important too, but if a way can be found to prevent further use, accountability could be set aside for a later date.

If the immediate issue can be narrowed down to one of prevention, and the UN inspectors produce irrefutable evidence that banned weapons have been used, Putin might – just might – be open to persuasion.

So, what might be done? One idea, from US Senator Joe Manchin, is to give Assad 45 days to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and begin securing and ridding the country of its weapons stockpiles. 

Couched in those terms – basically as an ultimatum – it’s unlikely to work. Russian wouldn’t support it and Assad would probably respond by calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a quid pro quo. – which isn’t going to happen, desirable though it might be.

Nevertheless, there’s the germ of an idea here. Another option would be for the UN to call on Assad to hand over his chemical weapons for safe-keeping outside Syria, with inspections to ensure there was no further production.

It’s certainly worth testing whether Russia would agree to that. Assad would still be reluctant, since he maintains that his chemical weapons are a national defence against Israel’s nuclear weapons. But with Russia's cooperation he might just be persuadable that clinging on to his stockpile is more trouble than it's worth."

Buthaina Sha'aban claims rebels kidnapped kids from Lattakia and gassed them in Ghouta (Video)

Rami Jarrah

"Her Highness Dr. Buthaina Sha'aban - Advisor to President Bashar al Assad has given her account of the recent events in Syria in a televised interview with Sky News and in-particualrly the chemical weapons attack in the Ghouta areas of Damascus on the 21st of August with the following:

"On the 21st of August I'll tell you what the Syrian people say, They have kidnapped Children and men from the villages of Lattakia and brought them here, put them in one place and used chemical weapons against them, thats the story that these villagers in these villages know"

Obviously Dr. Sha'aban is indicating to the opposition as being the kidnappers and that they managed to bring the victims of the attack (1400 men, women & children) from Lattakia to Damascus (450km away) through several hundred regime checkpoints then took them into an area named Ghouta which is totally under siege by government forces and gathered them in one place and bombed them with chemical weapons.
So Dr. Buthaina is enlightening us that not only did the opposition commit the chemical attack but in fact that those victims that millions of people across the world saw video footage of were actually regime supporters (I'm guessing that the rebels then evacuated all the families that oppose the regime so that they were not also harmed). Of course she based her findings on accounts by the villagers of Lattakia who were fortunately not kidnapped, I'm guessing that these villagers are telepathic and were able to receive brain signals from their kidnapped loved ones that carried this very vital information. We thank you Dr. Buthaina for your determination to find out the truth and the efforts you have provided to do so....."

Al-Jazeera Video: صور لقوات الحرس الثوري الإيراني تقاتل بجانب النظام السوري

Real News Video: The Countries Pulling the Strings in the Syrian Civil War

After a recent visit to Syria, Patrick Cockburn discusses the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey the US and Russia in the Syrian civil war 

American threats widen fault lines among Syria's rebels

Martin Chulov writes from a roadhouse near Aleppo where jihadists and al-Qaida affiliates prepare to face the US enemy

Martin Chulov

The Guardian, Sunday 8 September 2013

 

"When Barack Obama vowed to attack Bashar al-Assad, several thousand jihadists on the plains of northern Syria knew exactly what to do. Ever since, they have been hiding their big guns, evacuating bases, parking cars in cow sheds and spreading themselves thin among farms, factories and the communities that reluctantly host them.

"We have learned the lessons from Iraq," said Abu Ismail, a leader of the main jihadist group in the north-east of the country, known to some now as the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). "Iraq has made us better fighters."
While Syria's mainstream rebels are enthusiastically welcoming talk of an American attack as a chance to break the stalemate, the jihadist groups among them see things through a very different prism, in which my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.
All across the north, al-Qaida and its affiliates are on a war footing; a rank and file convinced that an old foe is coming their way and that if and when the US air force does attack, they will have little trouble staying out of its way.
"There are many among us [who] fought in Iraq and Afghanistan," said a second jihadist, a 26-year-old softly spoken Saudi, who called himself Abu Abid. "Our emir knows how to deal with them. And all know that while the Americans say they want to attack the regime, we are their real enemy."......"

 

Egyptian Workers Rising Again After the Uprising

By Cam McGrath

Striking workers: Egypt’s new military-led government has adopted the same tough line on labour activism and trade unions as its predecessors. Credit: Cam McGrath/IPS.

"....
El-Beheiry’s ordeal exemplifies the extent to which the authoritarian regime of toppled president Hosni Mubarak was willing to go to isolate and intimidate dissident workers. The state tolerated a degree of political opposition, but when it came to labour issues, any action that threatened to galvanise workers into a cohesive labour movement was swiftly crushed.
Successive governments relied on the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), a colossal state-backed labour organisation with 24 affiliated trade syndicates, to control workers and prevent them from engaging in industrial action. When strikes did break out, the regime smothered them with the riot police and hired thugs – and if that failed, called in the army.
“Mubarak only knew one way to deal with labour disputes: force,” says El-Beheiry.....

Joel Beinin, professor of Middle East history at Stanford University argues that despite small concessions aimed at ending strikes, Morsi largely relied on the same apparatus to quash labour dissent, and proved no more willing than his predecessors to address its underlying causes. At the heart of the underlying causes lie gross inequalities.....

Impoverished workers are protesting for better wages, job security, payment of overdue benefits, and a liveable minimum wage. They have also demanded to exercise the right to freedom of association as guaranteed by international labour treaties to which Egypt is a signatory.
Workers have organised into thousands of independent trade unions since Egypt’s 2011 uprising, but their legitimacy is challenged by Mubarak-era legislation that only recognises ETUF-affiliated syndicates.....

Despite some promising signs, including the appointment of a veteran union organiser as labour minister, rights groups say the new regime is already shaping up to be a lot like its predecessors.
In August, security forces moved in to break up a month-long strike by steel mill workers protesting unpaid wages and bonuses. Days later, riot police forcefully put down a strike at a petroleum company over unpaid bonuses and intolerable working conditions.
Strike leaders have been sacked, and several protesting workers were reportedly referred to prosecutors under laws that criminalise unauthorised collective labour action.
The ruling regime has attempted to paint striking workers as counter-revolutionaries and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a loaded association given the military’s crackdown on the group.
Military leader General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has called on workers to take action against the “instigators” of strikes, and promised to deal firmly with those who disrupt the wheels of production.
“We will help quell this sedition,” he said. “Don’t let anybody interrupt production because this is another means of tearing the country down.”"

Israeli DM Ridicules Democracy in Middle East

Condemns Push for Palestinian Statehood

Antiwar.com

"In a new speech today, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon loudly rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood, arguing that the Palestinians are too divided to ever form a government of their own.
Ya’alon also went on to ridicule the idea of democracy in the Middle East as “naive” and “patronizing,” insisting that the region’s Arab nations simply aren’t suited to be democratic in nature.

Rather, Ya’alon insisted that in 1916 the Arab nations were unready to be independent of imperial powers, and are unready to be democracies today, and pointed to the Arab Spring as a proof of the unsuitability of democracy.

The Israeli position vis-a-vis democracy in the region is becoming pretty straightforward in the wake of their loud backing for the Egyptian military coup, and promises to use Israeli diplomatic pull to secure support for the new junta on the grounds that the “stability” the junta could bring trumps the idea of democracy or human rights."

Manufacturing a New Pharaoh: Mubarak's last PM backs army's Sisi for Egyptian president

"(Reuters) - Former Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq says he will back army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi for president, adding to speculation that the man who led the overthrow of President Mohamed Mursi could become head of state.
Shafiq, a former air force commander who came second in last year's presidential election, said he would not run if Sisi stood in the election expected next year.
The comment suggests why, just months before the election, there are no declared candidates as politicians wait to see if Sisi is going to run before announcing their own intentions.
In separate comments, former Arab League chief Amr Moussa, who also ran in last year's election, said Sisi would win by a landslide. Egyptians had become "angry and afraid of anarchy and terrorism" and wanted a decisive leader, he said.
Sisi has said he does not seek authority though speculation he will run has mounted since he toppled the Muslim Brotherhood's Mursi from the presidency on July 3. He is feted on state TV, while his picture appears across Cairo.
In an interview with Dream 2 television, Shafiq said he would run for president if he had broad support but he would not contest an election if Sisi did.
"May God give him good fortune. We would all support him and I am the first one to support him," said Shafiq, who came second to Mursi in the presidential election in 2012. "If Sisi is nominated I will not run."
The last election, which followed the ousting of strongman Hosni Mubarak, was the first time Egyptians had freely chosen their head of state. It was preceded by months of frenzied campaigning, in stark contrast to now.
Mursi was the first civilian to run Egypt since the army overthrew the monarchy in 1952. A Sisi presidency would mark a return to rule by men from the military.
Sisi has emerged as the public face of the new order, enjoying fawning coverage in Egyptian media and sowing doubts about the military's promise to hand over to full civilian rule with a "road map" to parliamentary and presidential elections.
The army-backed interim government, with the support of a sizeable section of the population, has been cracking down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood, a million-member movement that emerged from decades of repression under Mubarak's military-backed rule to win five popular votes in all.
More than 2,000 Islamist activists have been arrested since Mursi was ousted and most of the Brotherhood's leaders, including Mursi, have been jailed on charges of inciting or taking part in violence. Some have also been accused of terrorism or murder.
Over the same period, more than 1,000 people have been killed in political violence. Most were protesters killed by security forces breaking up pro-Mursi camps in Cairo. Abound 100 were members of the security forces.
Even if Sisi does not run, analysts say the military will remain at the heart of power, curbing the influence of the next head of state. Analysts have suggested retired or serving military officers might run if he does not.
Amr Moussa, who came fifth in last year's election, told Al-Shorouk newspaper that he did not intend to run.
He said Egyptians wanted a president able to take "decisive decisions regardless of their political impact".
A military president "immediately comes to the Egyptian mind", he said, adding that Sisi was the most popular person in the country.
"If he runs he will win a landslide, according to the current situation and the current moment," he said.
Hamdeen Sabahi, a leftist politician who came third in the 2012 election, has also said Sisi would win, while sidestepping questions on his own intentions.
The Brotherhood has accused Sisi of trying to rehabilitate the old order that ran Egypt for 30 years under Mubarak."

Where is Hezbollah from Syria Attack?

Ibrahim Al-Amin (Al-Akhbar Newspaper)


".....
Hezbollah is completely silent. It is not obliged at the moment to announce a significant position. It is that any statement issued by it will condemn the strike in advance and warn against the dangerous repercussions of this attack on the region. Some words between the lines might imply the party’s readiness to support Syria in defending itself against any foreign attack. As for those who are waiting Hezbollah’s decision, let them wait, but there are some main points that are good to be clarified for those who are concerned:

Firstly: In a case similar to what we are facing today, it is good to pay attention that Hezbollah is a part of a huge alliance led by Iran. Besides the special relationship, the non-secret one, between Hezbollah and Iran, it is better to those who are concerned to well-read Khamenei’s expressions that warn from a “catastrophe that will hit the region” in case a strike was launched against Syria. This position was also represented by distinguished army leaders and armed forces commanders noting that Iran will not accept its Syrian ally being attacked without intervening.

Secondly: Hezbollah is totally involved in the Syrian crisis, particularly in the confrontation between the western-backed or Takfiri armed groups. The party sacrificed dozens of martyrs thereat. It is playing a major role and considers itself concerned with what is going on in relation with a whole vision indicating that the most significant goal of the war is attacking the axis of resistance and reaching it. The party also doesn’t need to know the reasons of any foreign intervention, Israeli, American or European. It has rather been waiting this since a long period of time. Consequently, to those who think that Hezbollah, when it decided to intervene, had studied the issue from all sides and will not retreat now; it is totally opposite because any western strike against Syria will represent an additional motive to the party not only to stand more strongly by the side of its ally President Bashar Assad, but also to be in the heart of the battle to defend Syria against this strike. As for its behavior, it is a question whose answer is still hidden within the party."

Real News Video: Palestinian Critics Say "Peace Talks" Only Benefit The Israeli Occupation

Critics say a weak Palestinian leadership is continuing a two decade old so-called "Peace Process" that harms their national interests

Put Russia to the test

One final chance to co-operate on Syria

By Brian Whitaker

"....

On the other hand, there's little doubt that Russia and the Assad regime would prefer not to see American airstrikes – so the question is what price they would be willing to pay in order to avoid them. At present we don't know, but it might be worth finding out.

The bare minimum would be to prevent any further attacks in Syria using banned weapons (and I have suggested how that might be achieved in an earlier blog post). Putting the regime's chemical stockpile under UN control would not only prevent its use by the regime – thus avoiding further international confrontations on that issue – but would also remove the risk of it falling into rebel hands.

If that idea could be sold to Russia without endless quibbling, Assad would have to fall in line too or risk losing his key ally, and we might see some progress. Rejection, however, would close the diplomatic door and Assad would then face the military consequences."

روسيا كإمبريالية غبية

سلامة كيلة

التطورات الأخيرة في الوضع السوري تظهر بأن روسيا هي بالفعل إمبريالية غبية، فقد عادت الأمور لتصب في مصلحة أميركا بعد كل التنازلات التي قدمتها خلال السنة الأخيرة لروسيا، وبعد الدور الذي قامت به لإنجاح "الحل الروسي". ........

Al-Jazeera Video: حديث الثورة- انتهاكات السلطات المصرية لحقوق المعارضين

Egyptian activists fear crackdown on Islamists will widen to other dissidents

Fears grow of expanding campaign against government opponents as leading activist from 2011 revolution is arrested

Patrick Kingsley in Cairo

theguardian.com, Sunday 8 September 2013

"Egyptian activists fear the country's new army-backed regime will follow a crackdown on Islamist allies of the former president, Mohamed Morsi, with a wider campaign against those opposed to both Morsi and the military.

It follows the arrest of one of the leading activists from the 2011 revolution on charges of attempting to bring down the government, and the news – published in Egypt's flagship state newspaper, and then later denied – that 35 other prominent secular activists are also under investigation.
Haitham Mohamedein, a high-profile lawyer and key figure in Egypt's labour and revolutionary movements, was released without charge after being arrested and taken to a police court on Friday. The state prosecution office also denied to the Guardian on Sunday that any of the 35 other activists were at risk of legal proceedings.
But activists feared both instances indicated an attempt by the state to intimidate anyone likely to question the idea that the army's heavy-handed governance is the only alternative to Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt's new army-backed government currently has widespread public support for its crackdown on Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood – a status quo those in power are keen to maintain.
"There is a crackdown on all those who oppose military rule," said Wael Abbas, a well-known journalist and rights activist initially listed on Saturday as one of the 35 activists under investigation. While officials categorically denied on Sunday that he and others were currently at risk, Abbas argued it was likely they had leaked information about a potential investigation to gauge public support for a widening of a crackdown on dissidents that has previously centred mainly on Islamists.
"It's a technique they've been using since the revolution," said Abbas. "We call it a test balloon."
Mohamedein's arrest and court hearing also suggested that the government was keen to frighten those involved in Egypt's influential workers' movement, Mohamedein's allies argued. Thousands of Egyptians – some of them represented by Mohamedein – have been on strike in recent weeks in the industrial cities of Suez and Mahalla in protest at poor conditions, and the government is concerned that the strikes might spread. Strikes played a key role in the downfall of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, and were a destabilising force during the final months of Morsi's tenure.
"It's really scary for the state and they do not want this to happen," said Tarek Shalaby, a colleague of Mohamedein's in Egypt's Revolutionary Socialist party. In an apparent attempt to smear all opposition to the state with the same brush, Mohamedein was asked in court if he was a Brotherhood member, despite having opposed Morsi's rule.
Comparing Egypt's current climate to the McCarthyist witch-hunts of 1950s America, Shalaby added: "They're scared of people thinking that this is not a binary situation. They want to make sure that people who are opposed to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the military are not a threat."
Mohamedein's was not the only arrest to concern campaigners this weekend. The Sinai-based journalist Ahmed Abu Draa – critical of the army's recent behaviour in the restive peninsula – was also detained, and both detentions are seen as just the latest symptoms of the new government's increasing authoritarianism.
They follow the public rehabilitation of secret police units nominally disbanded after the fall of Hosni Mubarak; heavy-handed policing that has seen hundreds killed in state-led massacres; the use of unregulated military trials to fast-track the sentencing of Muslim Brotherhood members; and moves to alter Egypt's constitution to allow senior Mubarak-era officials to return to politics.
Morsi's own year in office was no better. His presidency was also characterised by police brutality, persecution of political activists and journalists, and a failure to curtail either army influence or condemn police abuse."

النيابة المصرية تفتح بلاغات في رموز 25 يناير

The Egyptian Military and the 2011 Revolution

by Sara Salem
Jadaliyya

"The Egyptian military has emerged as one of the most powerful and influential actors since the inception of the modern Egyptian state. Despite this, since the late 1970s, there has been relatively little work that contextualizes and historicizes the military, even though it has continued to play a role in Egyptian political and economic life, as an institution and a community of elites.[1] The importance of such a line of inquiry cannot be overstated in our current moment. Specifically, it could shed a great deal of light on the conditions that deepened the military’s engagement in politics in recent years, most notably during the 2011 eighteen-day uprising and its aftermath.

For example, one way of understanding the position the military took vis-à-vis the 2011 revolution is to analyze the ties between the military and other members of the ruling class in Egypt, particularly in light of realignments among political actors over time. The question of interest is: What power shifts have occurred within the ruling class and how have they generated constraints on its cohesion and ability to govern Egypt? More specifically, how did these shifts within the ruling class relate to the societal tensions that contributed to the 2011 uprising and the military’s intervention? It is useful to conceptualize the military and the security forces as forming part of the ruling class, alongside other elites. When an imbalance or major shift occurs within this power dynamic, changes within the ruling class may lead to policies exerting economic and social pressure on the population. This in turn can lead to unrest, weakening the ability of the ruling class to govern—a shift that has serious ramifications for the entire ruling class.

This article puts the military’s decision to break ways with Egypt’s civilian ruling elite in 2011 in historical context, and analyzes the position of the military vis-à-vis new, emergent groups within the ruling class in the 1990s. It argues that shifts in the power dynamics within the ruling class can help us understand both why the 2011 revolution occurred when it did, and why the military had an incentive to intervene in 2011. Leading up to 2011, the growing influence of a new group of elites not only challenged the military’s position within the ruling class, but also set the stage for the 2011 uprising and the subsequent intervention of the military......"

Egypt army attacks Sinai Islamists as militancy spreads

"(Reuters) - The Egyptian army launched an attack against Islamist militants in North Sinai on Saturday, killing at least nine people, security officials said.
Two Egyptian soldiers were killed late on Saturday when an improvised explosive device detonated in a road in the North Sinai town of Sheikh Zuweid near the border with the Gaza Strip, security sources said......

NEW TARGETS

The military-backed government now also appears to be turning its sights on other groups - opposed to the Islamists - who helped topple Mubarak in 2011 hoping to establish an open civilian democracy in Egypt.
A judicial source said the public prosecutor was examining complaints from private citizens against 35 prominent democracy and rights activists, many of them important players in the 2011 uprising.
They include activist Ahmed Maher, blogger Ahmed Douma and liberal politician Amr Hamzawi, the judicial source said.
Such prosecutions have long been seen as a tool of political intimidation in Egypt and are often instigated by supporters of the government. Liberal politician Mohamed ElBaradei, who was deputy president in the interim government before resigning, has been targeted in a similar case.
The latest complaints accuse activists of accepting money from the United States and other countries, the source said.

(The Egyptian military Junta accuses activists of receiving US money, while the Junta feasts on $1.3 billion in yearly, direct US support)

Hamzawi said on Twitter that "claims that I got foreign money are completely untrue, the campaign of fabrication and distortion must immediately stop".
"These are fake accusations," rights lawyer Gamal Eid told Reuters. "(The complaint) is from people who know that it is false but who try to silence activists' demands for the realisation of the demands of the revolution."
The prosecutor's office was not available for comment on the issue.
Separately, a leftist lawyer accused of belonging to a secret organisation and spreading lies about the military appeared before military prosecutors in Suez, but was later released, judicial sources said.
Haitham Mohamedeen, a rights activist who belongs to the Revolutionary Socialist movement, a group critical of the army, had been arrested in Suez on Thursday. It was not clear whether the case against him had been dropped.
Egyptian journalist Ahmed Abu Deraa also remained in detention after his arrest in North Sinai on Wednesday.
The military prosecutor accused him of spreading lies and giving military information to secret organisations, a source at the prosecutor's office said.
"The detention of Ahmed Abu Deraa harks back to the Mubarak era, when journalists faced formidable obstacles reporting on military activity in the Sinai peninsula," said Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists."

Political Scene: Are There any Good Options for Syria?

The New Yorker

"President Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for military action in Syria has been applauded by many observers—including, for example, our own Amy Davidson. But in such a complex situation, even what may appear to be the best move is fraught with pitfalls. “I think he’s boxed himself in—left, right, and center—with a set of options that he’s very unhappy with, and rightly so, because they’re bad,” Philip Gourevitch says. The President has yet to provide any convincing arguments for how the U.S. can be effective in stopping the atrocities in Syria, and it’s still not even totally clear what he would do if Congress votes not to intervene. (Deputy national-security adviser Tony Blinken did tell NPR on Friday that Obama has no “intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” but the President hasn’t answered that question directly himself.) Gourevitch and John Cassidy join host Dorothy Wickenden on this week’s Political Scene podcast to discuss how we got to the brink of intervention and what other options might still be available to the President.
“Everything about him and his entire history would suggest that he would much rather be going down the U.N., multilateral route,” Cassidy says. Gourevitch, who has written about the United Nations, agrees, and adds, “There’s a lot that hasn’t been done,” namely leveraging diplomatic pressure against China in order to better negotiate with Russia. “It looks to me like, so far in his Presidency, Obama’s big mistake,” Gourevitch says."

Pentagon adjusts plans for more intense attacks on Syria

U.S. war planners are preparing for three days of attacks on Syria, a longer bombardment than originally envisioned.

Los Angeles Times

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is preparing for a longer bombardment of Syria than it originally had planned, with a heavy barrage of missile strikes followed soon after by more attacks on targets that the opening salvos missed or failed to destroy, officials said.

The planning for intense attacks over a three-day period reflects the growing belief in the White House and the Pentagon that the United States needs more firepower to inflict even minimal damage on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, which have been widely dispersed over the last two weeks, the officials said.

Two U.S. officers said the White House asked for an expanded target list in recent days to include many more than the 50 or so targets on the initial list. As a result, Pentagon planners are weighing whether to use Air Force bombers, in addition to five warships now on patrol in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, to launch cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles from hundreds of miles offshore, well out of range of Syrian air defenses.
Syria is also within range of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Red Sea, which includes one cruiser and three destroyers, all capable of firing cruise missiles.
"There will be several volleys and an assessment after each volley, but all within 72 hours and a clear indication when we are done," said one officer familiar with the planning.
The officers requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the campaign.
The stepped-up military planning comes as President Obama and his aides prepared to press their own offensive to seek public support, as well as congressional votes for authorization to use military force to punish Assad's government for alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last month.
Obama plans to blanket the nation's airwaves in coming days to make his case to a skeptical public. Aides say he will tape interviews Monday with the anchors of CBS, NBC and ABC, the three major broadcast networks, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News. He also will address the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday, the night before the full Senate is expected to vote......"

Shady PR Operatives, Pro-Israel Ties, Anti-Castro Money: Inside the Syrian Opposition’s DC Spin Machine

By Max Blumenthal

"During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria on September 3, Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain both cited a Wall Street Journal editorial by Elizabeth O’Bagy to support their assessment of the Syrian rebels as predominately “moderate,” and potentially Western-friendly.
“She works with the Institute of War,” Kerry said of O’Bagy. “She’s fluent in Arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying Syria. She just published this the other day. Very interesting [Wall Street Journal] article, which I commend to you.”
Kerry added, “I just don’t agree that a majority are al-Qaida and the bad guys.”
What Kerry and McCain neglected to mention was that O’Bagy had been recently hired as the political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a little known outfit that functions as a lobbying arm of the Syrian opposition in Washington.
Until today, O’Bagy had failed to note her role as a paid Syrian opposition lobbyist in her Wall Street Journal byline and did not note the position in her official bio at the Institute for the Study of War. Only after a storm of criticism did the Wall Street Journal insert a note in O’Bagy’s recent op-ed disclosing her paid position at SETF. O’Bagy was also compelled to amend her bio with a lengthy clarification about her work at SETF.
But her work at the Institute for the Study of War should have been enough to set off alarm bells.

“Logrolling for war”

The Institute for the Study of War’s (ISW) board of directors is led by William Kristol. Kimberly Kagan, the group’s president, was on General Stanley McChrystal’s strategic review team in 2009, advocating for a dramatic expansion of the US presence in Afghanistan. Her husband is Frederick Kagan, the AEI fellow who is the uncle of fellow neocon Robert Kagan.
In its 2011 annual report [PDF], the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) detailed its close working relationship with Palantir Technologies, a private surveillance firm contracted by Bank of America in 2011 in an unsuccessful plot to dismantle Anonymous and sabotage Glenn Greenwald.
The report listed New York Times reporter Michael Gordon as “ISW’s journalist in residence.” Back in January 2013, Gordon published an article pushing claims that Syrian army forces had used sarin gas, thus crossing Obama’s “red line” and triggering a US intervention. Noting that the State Department could not confirm the information in Gordon’s report, former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Pat Lang accused Gordon of “logrolling for war in Syria.”
Despite his past affiliation with a think tank dedicated to pushing for US intervention in Syria, Gordon remains on the Times’ Syria beat.

Rebel marketing

When O’Bagy took to Twitter to boast about McCain’s “shout out” to her during the Senate hearing on Syria, the conservative writer Charles C. Johnson (who recently reported on O’Bagy’s lobbying) asked her if she was in fact employed by the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
“Yes I do humanitarian aid work through the organization,” O’Bagy told Johnson. “Can’t go to Syria frequently and not help the people.”
But O’Bagy’s work has less to do with tending to the needs of war-stricken refugees than it does with leveraging the media to agitate for US intervention. Indeed, she has been among the most prominent and widely cited commentators marketing the Syrian rebels as a bunch of America-friendly moderates.
As she said during an August 26 appearance on Fox News, “What I’ve tried to show through this research and by traveling around with many of these rebel groups is that there are actually a majority of the opposition that would be aligned with U.S. interests.”

The Cuban Connection

Last summer, I encountered an exceptionally talkative young Syrian man at a tweet-up of Middle East-oriented activists in Washington DC’s Woodley Park area. Having learned that I was a journalist, he struck up a conversation, telling me eagerly about his work on behalf of the Syrian opposition through something called the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
About thirty seconds into our chat, I could tell that the young man was not the most sophisticated operator. “We’re really trying to get in with the Jews,” he told me. “We feel like the Americans really listens to them the most, so we’re working with them all we can.”
“We prefer to be referred to as the yahood,“ I responded in a deadpan tone, prompting nervous laughter from a few friends who were listening in on the conversation.
Unfazed by the sarcastic aside, the activist told me about meetings at WINEP and entreaties to AIPAC. He mentioned Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Syrian Center for Political & Strategic Studies, as a key emissary between SETF and pro-Israel lobbyists.
Ziadeh appeared at the American Jewish Committee’s 2011 Global Forum to make the case for Western intervention in Syria. Ziadeh was among the self-proclaimed “foreign policy experts” who signed an August 27 open letter to Obama calling for military intervention in Syria. Other “experts” lending their names to the letter included Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Governor Tim Pawlenty, and veteran anti-abortion activist Gary Bauer.
As our conversation continued, the Syrian activist revealed to me a recent training session SETF had arranged between Syrian opposition figures and Cuban exiles in Coral Gables, Florida. Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott attended the seminar, he said with pride, greeting a who’s who of hardline anti-Castro activists who had spent decades pushing for the overthrow of Cuba’s socialist regime.
When I returned home, I searched for details of the meeting and discovered a single press release posted on the anti-Castro web portal Directorio. I could find no coverage of the seminar in any US media.
According to the press release, participants in the seminar pledged “To coordinate all of our political, diplomatic, logistic and humanitarian efforts in pursuit of the liberation of Cuba and Syria; hence constituting a United Front for Freedom and Democracy; Therefore, the Cuban Resistance and the Syrian Revolution jointly declare: The people want the overthrow of the dictatorial regimes of Assad and Castro.”
On its website, SETF cites as one of its landmark achievements securing $1 million in humanitarian aid “from the Cuban-American community.”

WINEP ties, pressing for regime change

At the helm of the SETF, which is registered as a 501 c-4 lobbying organization, is a previously unknown activist named Mouaz Moustafa. Back in May, Moustafa arranged a meeting between John McCain and a group of Free Syrian Army fighters. The photo-op quickly transformed into a public relations disaster when Lebanon’s The Daily Star reported that one of the man posing with McCain had kidnapped 11 Shiite pilgrims a year before.
Since emerging as SETF’s Executive Director, Moustafa has forged close ties with WINEP, the neocon-oriented think tank founded as an ancillary of AIPAC. Formerly listed as a WINEP “expert” – his page on the think tank’s site has disappeared – Moustafa spoke at WINEP’s Soref Symposium this year.
By Moustafa’s side at the conference was Louay Sakka, the founder of the Syrian Support Group, the only organization licensed by the US government to send financial and supposedly non-lethal support to the Free Syrian Army. In soliciting donations, the group notes, “We leave it up to the people on the ground to judge how financial assistance can best put to use.”
With Congress set to vote on a resolution authorizing the US to strike Syria, SETF has issued an action alert on its website urging supporters to light up congressional phone lines urging “yes” votes. In a call with the White House, SETF urged much broader action in Syria than the “limited strikes” Obama has asked Congress to authorize. The group is dedicated to regime change, and is pressing for any and all military measures to accomplish the mission — even, apparently, boots on the ground."

Al-Jazeera Video: حديث الثورة.. إقصاء الخصوم والانتهاكات ضد النساء بمصر

"إيباك" تنشط لإقناع أعضاء الكونغرس بتأييد الهجوم العسكري على سورية

عــ48ـرب


"أفادت صحيفة "يديعوت أحرونوت"، نقلا عن مراسلها في واشنطن، أن أعضاء الكونغرس الأمريكي الذي يواجهون ضغوطا من قبل مصوتيهم للتصويت ضد الهجوم العسكري على سورية، يواجهون ضغوطا مضادة من"إيباك" (لجنة الشؤون العامة الأمريكية والإسرائيلية)، الذي يعتبر اللوبي الأقوى من أجل إسرائيل في الكابيتول، وذلك لحث أعضاء الكونغرس على التصويت مع قرار الهجوم.

وتشير الاستطلاعات التي تنشر مؤخرا، إضافة إلى لقاءات أعضاء الكونغرس مع المصوتين، والإيميلات والمكالمات الهاتفية من المواطنين، إلى وجود معارضة شديدة من قبل الجمهور الأمريكي للتدخل الأمريكي في سورية.

وبحسب استطلاع "غالوب"، الذي نشر يوم أمس، الجمعة، فإن 51% من الأمريكيين يعارضون شن الهجوم على سورية، مقابل 36% عارضوا الحرب على العراق في العام 2003، و 14% عارضوا الحرب على أفغانستان.

كما أشارت الصحيفة إلى أن السناتور جون ماكين وقف على حجم المعارضة في لقائه مع مصوتين في أريزونا يوم أمس الأول، حيث طلبوا منه معارضة شن الهجوم على سورية، علما أن غالبية أعضاء الكونغرس حتى اليوم يعارضون شن الهجوم أو يميلون إلى معارضته.

وعلى صلة، نشر وزير الخارجية الأمريكية جون كيري مقالا في موقع "هابنغتون بوست" الإخباري كتب فيه أن الرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما يستطيع إصدار أوامر بشن الهجوم على سورية حتى بدون دعم الكونغرس. وفي المقابل نقل عن زعيم الأغلبية الجمهورية، أريك كنتور الذي يؤيد الهجوم، قوله إن غالبية الديمقراطيين لم يقرروا بعد ما إذا كانوا سيصوتون مع الهجوم.

وأشارت "يديعوت أحرونوت" إلى أن إسرائيل أخذت جانب الحذر حتى لا تبدو كأنها تدفع الولايات المتحدة للحرب في الشرق الأوسط. كما أشارت إلى أن المسؤولين الإسرائيليين و"إيباك" التزموا الصمت في الأسبوع الماضي، إلا أنه اتخذ قرار في إسرائيل مؤخرا بالعمل بشكل علني من أجل شن الهجوم على سورية.

كما أشارت الصحيفة إلى أن الإدارة الأمريكية برئاسة أوباما طلبت دعم إسرائيل و"إيباك". وكتبت أنه بعد أن أصدر السفير الإسرائيلي في واشنطن مايكل أورون و"إيباك" بيانات تأييد للهجوم، فإن الأخيرة تستعد لممارسة كل نفوذها مع مطلع الأسبوع القادم لإقناع أعضاء الكونغرس بـ"تأييد القيام بعملية عسكرية محدودة في سورية لا تورط الولايات المتحدة في حرب أخرى في الشرق الأوسط".

وكتب موقع "بوليتيكو" أنه في بداية الأسبوع سيصل إلى الكونغرس نحو 250 من قادة اليهود الأمريكيين وناشطي "إيباك" من أجل إقناع الكونغرس بتأييد شن الهجوم على سورية، بادعاء أن خلاف ذلك ستتوصل إيران إلى نتيجة مفادها أنها تستطيع المضي ببرنامجها النووي بدون الخشية من الإدارة الأمريكية.
"

More "Red Lines"

Iran-Contra Redux? Prince Bandar Heads Secret Saudi-CIA Effort to Aid Syrian Rebels, Topple Assad

Democracy Now!

AN IMPORTANT REPORT


"The Wall Street Journal recently revealed new details about how Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud — Saudi’s former ambassador to the United States — is leading the effort to prop up the Syrian rebels. Intelligence agents from Saudi Arabia, the United States, Jordan and other allied states are working at a secret joint operations center in Jordan to train and arm hand-picked Syrian rebels. The Journal also reports Prince Bandar has been jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime. “Really what he’s doing is he’s reprising a role that he played in the 1980s when he worked with the Reagan administration to arrange money and arms for Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and also worked with the CIA in Nicaragua to support the Contras,” says Wall Street Journal reporter Adam Entous. “So in many ways this is a very familiar position for Prince Bandar, and it’s amazing to see the extent to which veterans of the CIA were excited to see him come back because in the words of a diplomat who knows Bandar, he brings the Arabic term wasta, which means under the table clout. You know his checks are not going to bounce, and that he’ll be able to deliver the money from the Saudis.”...."

Al-Jazeera Video: حديث الثورة- جهود أوباما لحشد التأييد لضرب سوريا

ABC: البيت الأبيض يخطط لهجوم جدي على سورية أكبر بكثير مما كان متوقعا

عــ48ـرب

قالت شبكة "ABC"، اليوم الجمعة، إن البيت الأبيض يخطط لهجوم جدي في سورية أكبر بكثير مما كان متوقعا.

وقالت أن الحملة الجوية المخطط لها أن تستمر ليومين على الأقل سوف تتضمن استخدام قاذفات شبح من طراز "B2"، وقاذفات ضخمة من طراز "B52" والتي ستقلع من قواعدها في الولايات المتحدة، وتطلق قنابل موجهة عن بعد خارج مجال عمل الدفاعات الجوية السورية.

ونقلت "يديعوت أحرونوت" النبأ مشيرة إلى أنه في حال استخدام القاذفات الضخمة فإن أهدافها ستكون الصواريخ التي استخدمت لإطلاق أسلحة كيماوية وتلك التي تشكل تهديدا لإسرائيل. وأضافت أن الولايات المتحدة تخطط لإطلاق نحو 200 صاروخ موجه من طراز "توماهوك" المنصوبة في المدمرات الأربعة التي تبحر في شرق البحر المتوسط.

ونقلت شبكة "ABC" عن مسؤول مرافق للرئيس الامريكي باراك أوباما في روسيا قوله إن الهجوم الأمريكي "سيببب لبشار الأسد خلال يومين أضرارا أشد بكثير من تلك التي سببتها المعارضة طوال سنتين من القتال".

وعلى صلة، كتبت "يديعوت أحرونوت" أن أوباما يواجه مشاكل في مجلس النواب، حيث تمارس ضغوط من قبل المصوتين المعارضين للتدخل الأمريكي في سورية على الأعضاء. وأشار إلى أن هناك 217 عضو كونغرس "يعارضون تأييد حملة عسكرية أمريكية على  سورية أو يميلون إلى معارضة الحملة".

وأشارت في هذا السياق إلى أن السناتور جون ماكين واجه وقف يوم أمس، الخميس، على حجم المعارضة للتدخل الأمريكي، خلال اجتماع عقد في ولاية أريزونا، حيث هوجم من قبل جمهور يطالب بشدة بعدم شن هجوم على سورية. وأضافت أن الجمهور لا يثق بالإدارة الأمريكية حين تقول إن الهجوم سيكون قصير الأمد، ويخشى من التورط في سورية مثلما حصل في العراق.

وتابعت الصحيفة، نقلا عن مراسلها يتسحاك بن حورين في واشنطن، أنه في ظل المعارضة الشديدة من قبل الجمهور الأمريكي، والذي يظهر في الاستطلاعات والرسائل والإيميلات الغاضبة الموجهة لأعضاء الكونغرس، فإن الرئيس الأمريكي أوباما يدرس إمكانية الظهور أمام الجمهور الأمريكي في الأيام القريبة بهدف تخفيف الضغوط عن أعضاء الكونغرس. علما أن أعضاء مجلس النواب، البالغ عددهم 435 عضوا، سيتم انتخابهم في العام القادم وتتزايد الضغوط عليهم بهدف معارضة شن الهجوم.

وأضافت الصحيفة نقلا عن مسؤولين رسميين أمريكيين قولهم إن إدارة أوباما تدرس إرسال عناصر عسكرية لتدريب المعارضة السورية، وأن التدريبات لن تجري على الأراضي السورية، ومن المحتمل أن تكون في الأردن. وأشارت في هذا السياق إلى أن الوكالة المركزية للاستخبارات "CIA" دربت عشرات المعارضين في الأردن على استخدام أجهزة الاتصال والسلاح، وأن الحديث الآن يجري عن تدريبات على نطاق أوسع.

وعلى صلة، كتبت صحيفة "وول ستريت جورنال" أن الولايات المتحدة التقطت إرسالا إيرانيا لـ"عسكريين من الشيعة في العراق" لمهاجمة السفارة الأمريكية ومصالح أمريكية أخرى في بغداد في حال هاجمت الولايات المتحدة سورية. كما أشارت إلى أن السفارة الأمريكية في بيروت قد تكون هدفا آخر للعمليات.

B52

مدمرة أمريكية تطلق صاروخ "توماهوك"

The Russian Enabler, by Emad Hajjaj

Pentagon Ordered to Expand Syria Target List, Mulls Doubling Attack Force

Antiwar.com

"Starting with a handful of warships and a promise of “punishing” attacks that did little to nothing to change the face of the ongoing civil war, the Obama Administration seems determined to keep escalating the planned Syrian War, even before they get authorization to engage in it.After adding a whole carrier strike group, including the USS Nimitz, to the area over the weekend, the Pentagon is now reportedly giving serious consideration to “doubling” its overall firepower for the war with the addition of significant Air Force deployments.

The Pentagon is also saying that it has been ordered to expand it’s potential target list, initially said to center around 50 or so places that the US planned to lob missiles at, though they still maintain the operation would be “limited” in nature.

Even more disturbing, officials also say that there is a renewed push to get NATO on board, with the administration arguing that NATO assets are needed to conduct the broader war. With considerable opposition internationally and domestically, it’s hard to see how they could get NATO on board, but that it is being discussed suggests the administration remains determined to start a war and escalate it."

AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

"The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.

“History tells us that ambiguity [in U.S. actions] invites aggression,” said the AIPAC source who asked not to be named. The source added the group will now be engaged in a “major mobilization” over the issue....."

Real News Video: Understanding the Players in Syria

After a recent visit to Syria, Patrick Cockburn describes the pluralistic, militant groups that make up the "failed opposition" in Syria and provides the brutal truth about the history of Syrian President Assad

Obama's "Red Line," by Khalil Bendib

Syria

By Clay Bennett

Obama's 'pass the buck' policy on Syria

The president has sacrificed coherent strategy against Assad for political expediency. Leading from behind never looked weaker

Michael Boyle

theguardian.com, Thursday 5 September 2013

(Cartoon by Mike Luckovich)

 

"The decision of Senate foreign relations committee to endorse a strike against Syria will be interpreted as a victory for the White House, but in practice, it represents the triumph of politics over strategy. President Obama has centered his case to strike Syria on the need for moral clarity in the face of the chemical weapons attack, but his policies have been directed more towards appeasing a restive Congress, and inoculating himself against the toxic political fallout of a strike, than influencing the calculations of Bashar al-Assad......

 

Because the administration has prioritized domestic politics over the strategic logic of the strike, they have almost guaranteed that it will be ineffective. It is possible that if Obama had sought congressional authorization for a strike immediately following the attack, and struck before Assad had a chance to prepare himself, that an American air operation might have been successful in deterring future chemical attacks.

But by handing off the decision to the Congress and producing such a substantial delay, and by telegraphing his reluctance to the American electorate so obviously, Obama has all but guaranteed that this attempt to "lead from behind" will be unsuccessful."