March 24, 2013
Ali Bluwi

Moscow is having a series of contacts with the Syrian opposition, particularly with those who were a part of the regime and who had then enjoyed political and security ties with Moscow.

Therefore, the Russian diplomacy has some effective tools of communication with all senior personalities who belong to the leftists and Pan-Arabist current. And yet, despite these contacts, Russia has projected a contradictory position with regard to Iraq and Libya in the past and Syria today.
Moscow is fighting to secure its regional, national and global interests.
Unfortunately, it is afraid of the rise of Sunni Islam in Syria. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia is concerned about the Sunnis in Syria. It is as if Russia has some kind of complex with the Sunnis.
According to the Israeli National Security Institute, Russia has doubled its efforts to cut a deal with the United States in order to enable the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition to reach an agreement. However, the US realizes that neither the Syrian opposition nor the Syrian president can decide the battle on the ground especially after some 85,000 casualties and some two million refugees. Supported by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the government of Nuri Al-Maliki in Iraq, the Syrian regime used all kinds of weapons to repress the Syrian revolution.

Not only does Russia support the Syrian regime, but it also backs the Iranian axis (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and perhaps some secessionists in Yemen). Moreover, Russia is trying to demoralize the Syrian people and supporting the Al-Maliki government to clamp down on Sunni protests in major Iraqi cities. The working assumption in Russia is that the Sunnis are supported by the West. Yet, Moscow does not acknowledge that it was incapable of defending its interests in Iraq in the past when the Iraqi groups — supported by and affiliated with Iran — jumped on the American bandwagon. Interestingly, Moscow had a strategic cooperation agreement with Saddam regime and still was incapable of coming to his aid in time of need. This begs the questions: Did not the West threaten the Russian national security in Afghanistan? Why is Russia holding on in Syria?

If anything, Moscow and Washington are negotiating over Russian national security issues that are not in Syria. Russia is using Syria as a card and will drop it once it reaches a deal with the United States. Seen in this way, I would argue that the current negotiations are on the future of Syria rather than on the Assad’s regime. Russia is trying to avoid a possible expulsion for the Middle East. The Sunni component — according to some Russian reading — will keep the Russians out of the Middle East. Of course, it is not as if the Sunni forces do not want to deal with Moscow. At the end, Russia is a neighboring country and can play a positive role especially after it abandoned communism. The Gulf countries have tried to build political, diplomatic and economic ties with Russia. The problem is that Russia is trying to use the Syrian crisis as a bargaining chip with the United States, a step that does not resonate well with the Arabs on political and ethical grounds. Russia still supports a failing regime in Syria and realizes that such support will only pave the way for a long civil war in Syria.

During the most recent Herzliya conference, the head of the Israeli military intelligence made the case that Iran was behaving in the nuclear issue as if the military option was not on the table. Moreover, Assad behaves as if using chemical weapons is possible in his war against the Syrian opposition. He argued that both Iran and Hezbollah came to the conclusion that the fate of Assad is already decided and that the negotiations will be only over the future of Syria. For this reason, they formed a sectarian army of 50,000 fighters and they are trying to recruit some 100,000 fighters.

The current negotiations between the regime and the opposition under the auspices of Russia are not a reflection of any understanding between Russia and the US over the future of the Syrian regime. While the two sides have not yet reached a final agreement, the new decisions made in the US — such as aid to the opposition — allowed for some coordination with the Russians. All of these decisions reflect changes in the position of the two sides.

It seems that Moscow is fighting to keep its political dignity. In fact it will be a costly fight as it is relevant to the Syrian people and countries in the region. For this reason, Moscow is trying to reconsider an agreement between the opposition and the regime in Damascus. This entails understanding with not only the US but also with the other players involved in the conflict.

Obviously, Russia will not succeed in facilitating an agreement between the Syrian regime and the opposition unless it leads to Assad’s departure. And yet, both Iran and Russia know very well that change is coming and they deal with that with a sense of realism.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213445/

March 27, 2013
Abid Mustafa 0



Lately, Iran has made headline news in a variety of ways. The Jewish entity regards Iran as an existential threat, the West continues to fret over its nuclear programme, the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) bitterly complains about Tehran's interference in Bahrain and Yemen, and Syrians blame Iranian forces for the slaughter of civilians. Yet, there is one piece of news that has only attracted a cursory mention and that is Iran's influence in the region is waning.

The Levant and Iraq is where Iran's influence is diminishing at a spectacular speed and eroding its ability to influence regional politics. The pivot for this transition is Syria. At the beginning of the revolution, Iran staunchly stood by its ally Assad. Tehran bolstered Syria's economy with enormous amounts of aid and strengthened Assad's forces with the elite Iranian commandoes to brutally suppress the uprising.

On October 1, 2012, The "Times" newspaper reported that Tehran had given $10 billion to prop up Assad and his floundering regime. The revelation clearly demonstrates the value Tehran places on supporting Assad, despite the huge economic toll of international sanctions against the Iranian people.

In the summer of 2012, Tehran struggled to keep a lid on its clandestine military activities in Syria, and eventually the activities of the Quds Force became so pronounced and widespread that Tehran finally acknowledged its military operations in the country.

In September 2012, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said: "A number of Quds Force members are present in Syria and Lebanon.......we provide (these countries) with counsel and advice, and transfer experience to them."

As the Syrian jihadists draw near towards surrounding Damascus, Iran's billions of dollars and military assistance in propping up Assad appears insignificant - a wasted effort. Amongst Sunni jihadist, Iran has negligible influence and this is worrying the Iranian leadership, as it struggles to grapple with the situation. It is faced with a strategic choice whether to continue to embrace the Alawite faction and their militia, the Shabiha, after falling from power or to embrace the Sunni jihadists, who deeply despise the Iranian regime.

An article, entitled "Syria's Fate Hinges on Whom It Hates Most, US or Iran?", in Bloomberg on February 6, 2013, aptly summed up the strategic dilemma for Tehran as: “Thereafter Iran will face a strategic decision: whether to continue supporting a predominantly Alawite militia that represents only a small fraction of Syrian society or to engage the Sunni Islamists, who are poised to wield power in Damascus once Assad falls. Iran's leaders will try to embrace the Sunni radicals, and if that fails, they will work with the Shabiha to prevent the formation of a stable, anti-Iranian order in Syria.”

Equally troublesome for Iran is the spill over of Syria's instability into Lebanon and Hezbollah's precarious position. At the outset of the Arab Revolution, Iran's proxy Hezbollah and its surrogate leader Nasrallah publicly cheered the fall of autocratic rulers in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, but openly supported Assad and sent armed men to suppress the Syrian people. The hypocritical stance of Hezbollah jeopardised its ability to garner support amongst the Lebanese populace, especially amongst the Sunnis.

Furthermore, the movement was despised by Syrians as aiding and abetting Assad against them, and this prompted the jihadists in Syria to openly warn Nasrallah of dire consequences should he continue to support Assad.
Subsequently, Hezbollah's power has weakened both at home and across the Arab world. A weaker Hezbollah also implies the weakening of Iranian influence in Lebanese politics.

The weakening of Hezbollah-Assad-Iranian axis has been dealt a further blow by the rising wave of protests in Iraq. Sunni dominated areas in Iraq are witnessing a late Arab Spring that is threatening Al-Malki's grip on Iraqi politics. Al-Malki, who has close relations with Tehran, is struggling to contain the Sunni hinterland after the Iraqi soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians.
Between 2004 to 2008, the Iranian influence and power in Iraq was at its apex. It evoked King Abdullah to comment on the reach and magnitude of Iranian power by using the term Shia Crescent, which described Iranian influence stretching from Damascus to Tehran passing through Baghdad. The other side of the crescent passes through Bahrain, Eastern Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Today, the long reach of Iran is facing an existential threat in Syria, which surely spells the end of the Iranian efforts to create the Shia crescent and ends its ambitions to dominate the Middle East and its supplies of hydrocarbons.

Nonetheless, Iran is not the only loser in the political reconfiguration that will ensue in the aftermath of Assad's demise. The real loser is America. For the past four decades, America has secretly collaborated with Iran in a desperate bid to create a Shia Crescent that would eventually place oil away from the hands of Sunni despots into the hands of the Shia autocrats and mullahs, who, in turn, would be more loyal subjects to America than Sunnis. This also explains why America has been so reluctant to punish Iran over its interference in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, even though Washington has had ample opportunity to chastise Tehran.

Similarly, America has gone out of it way to assuage Israeli concerns over Iran's nuclear programme. America knows full well that if Iran is subject to any sort of military attack, its influence that stretches from Yemen to Lebanon will fade. By doing so, America's capacity to fashion political solutions and maintain its hegemony in the region would be severely impaired. Brzezinski has warned about such consequences for America should it choose punish Iran. He said: "A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years. High inflation, instability, insecurity.......probably, significant isolation for the United States in the world scene. In effect, the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 to $10 a gallon for the pleasure of having a war in the Strait of Hormuz."

Hence, America has little choice but to use Tehran to prop up Assad and hope that its long-term plan of using Iran to control the hydrocarbons of the Middle East via the Shia crescent remains intact.

The writer is a political commentator, who specialises is Muslim affairs and global issues.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns

Betcy Jos


March 2013 will be notable in the history of the Syrian conflict for several reasons, two of which include the second anniversary of that conflict and the number of refugees surpassing the one million mark.

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, places the number of dead at approaching 70,000. That count very likely underestimates the toll this conflict has taken on the civilian population. These figures are difficult to absorb, and they tell us little about the individual experiences of those who make up these numbers caught up in this human tragedy.

Yet, the violence and bloodshed from all sides continues, and the international community remains stalemated as to its response to the ongoing crisis. It has explored a number of options, from diplomacy to more coercive action like economic sanctions and military force. Recently, there have been calls for judicial intervention by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Is this a viable option? This piece examines the effectiveness of an ICC investigation as a means of halting the Syrian conflict. It first discusses non-judicial options currently on the table. By illustrating how difficult these options are, a case can be made for why pursuing the judicial option right now may not be effective in helping Syrian civilians or sustaining international law.

Non-judicial options for ending the Syrian conflict
The UN Security Council has been stymied from acting because three of its members with veto powers - the United States, China and Russia - disagree on what to do about the civil war. The United States and its allies in the Security Council advanced a number of resolutions designed to pressure Bashar al-Assad's regime to end the conflict, including the threat of imposing economic sanctions. For the United States-led coalition, the mass atrocities attributed to al-Assad have delegitimised him as Syria's leader and thus, it is time for him to step down.

China and Russia have vetoed these resolutions. One reason is that Russia and China feel the resolutions are one sided, placing blame primarily on the Assad regime without acknowledging the contributions of the opposition to civilian suffering. Their actions also reflect a consistent policy of upholding the notion of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of a state. For them, intervention really means regime change in Syria; this would not only destabilise the country, but the region as well. To these countries, this possibility would be a far greater threat to human security.

Counterarguments in this critical debate are not solely based on appeals to humanitarianism. In fact, both sides also claim each other's arguments for intervention/non-intervention on humanitarian grounds are really a mask for more strategic, utilitarian considerations.

This impasse is centred around non-military intervention. Reaching an accord on UN-sanctioned military action is even less likely. One reason is that Russia and China feel burned by the UN-authorised military intervention in Libya. They felt a seemingly neutral Security Council resolution authorising military force to protect civilians transformed into an instrument for the pursuit of political objectives. However, a number of countries have lobbied outside the Security Council for support to arm the rebels. And there have been allegations that the Syrian regime receives arms from its state backers.
Judicial options - the International Criminal Court Acting out of frustration from inaction in the face of large scale suffering in Syria, 57 countries urged the UN Security Council to refer the Syrian situation to the ICC as another avenue to ending the conflict. These countries, representing various regions, state that the UN's Commission of Inquiry has uncovered evidence of human rights abuses committed in Syria. Furthermore, Syria has not heeded calls from the international community to pursue justice for these alleged crimes. Consequently, they conclude [PDF] that "[w]ithout accountability… there will be no sustainable peace in Syria". If Syrian authorities will not pursue a judicial process for examining possible crimes, then the international community must do so through the ICC.

The UN Security Council would have to refer the Syrian situation to the ICC in order for the ICC to investigate potential violations of international law there. This is because Syria has not ratified the Rome Statute [PDF], which established the ICC. Consequently, the ICC would have jurisdiction over Syria only if Syria refers itself to the ICC, or if the UN Security Council does so. Once a situation comes before the ICC, it can then investigate possible violations of international law committed by any relevant actor in that situation. In other words, it does not take sides by only investigating one party, say, for example, the Syrian government. Opposition forces are also liable to prosecution.

Why a Security Council referral could pose problems for the ICC
Getting the necessary consensus to pursue a referral is difficult for many of the same reasons the Security Council has been stifled in its other efforts to do something about Syria. Russia does not support an ICC referral. It also does not appear as if the United States would support a referral either. It did not sign the letter requesting the Security Council to advance an ICC referral, and Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, said calling Assad a war criminal would "complicate" matters.

But if the Security Council were able to muster the necessary votes to actually get the ICC involved, would this necessarily be a good idea? From an international law perspective, it might not be for a number of reasons. In order to explore these reasons, some background information about the ICC might be helpful to that discussion. The ICC was designed to be a permanent venue to try individuals accused of the most serious international law violations. It was to replace the UN's system of creating ad hoc tribunals with more limited jurisdiction like the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. It is also supposed to be an independent judicial body which can investigate alleged crimes wherever it holds jurisdiction. Thus, while the UN Security Council can refer situations to it, it is not a UN organ. It is separate and independent of the Security Council.

It is from this independence that the ICC can ostensibly promote the viability of international law. The core element in the concept of rule of law is equality before the law. In other words, the law is supposed to apply equally to all relevant parties, regardless of their status or the power they possess. Compromises made on this core principle can lead to diminished legitimacy, undermining the ICC's ability to effectively carry out its mission.

An ICC investigation on its own is not going to stop the atrocities in Syria. The scale of destruction and pain there strains comprehension, yet is beyond the mission and capacity of the ICC to address. At this point in the conflict, the international community needs to be engaged in a more unified and meaningful manner if it is serious about ending civilian suffering. It will have to make a tough choice among unattractive options. The international community cannot expect the ICC to do its dirty work. Such expectations are not only unrealistic, they also threaten to weaken international law. In the interests of Syrian civilians and those caught up in future conflicts elsewhere, the ICC might do well to exercise restraint in the unlikely event a referral materialises, especially if it contains jurisdictional limits. Instead, it should wait until it is in a better position to negotiate an unconditional referral from a new Syrian regime. In doing so, not only does the ICC potentially guard itself, it can also preserve the idea of rule of law in the long term, enabling it to be used as part of a large toolkit to protect civilians wherever they may be threatened.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/front%20story01.htm

It’s been hitherto a fragmented and disorganised entity, but recently the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) has shown signs of getting its act together.
On Tuesday, the opposition body won a small victory, when its head Ahmed Moaz Al Khatib took Syria’s official seat at the Arab League summit in Doha. A heartening applause broke out as the coalition assumed the country’s official seat, which carried the flag of the Syrian Republic that existed before the rise of the Ba’athist regime. After an impassioned speech by Khatib that described the long-drawn suffering of the Syrians, the Arab League authorised its member states to give military support to the rebels.

The developments at the summit have raised hopes of a rebel victory in Syria. Despite several predictions of its collapse, the Syrian regime continues to survive. Recently government troops were reported to have regained control of the fiercely contested district of Baba Amr after two weeks of fighting. One of the reasons why the Syrian regime has not crumbled yet is because of its military superiority — an advantage that has been maintained, according to analysts, by covert Russian assistance. With Arab League’s resolution, it seems like the rebels have a real chance of winning the civil war against Assad’s resilience regime.

But this decision must be viewed with guarded optimism. Firstly, the internal dissent among the ranks of the opposition is quite obvious — Khatib’s recent resignation days after the election of US-returned Ghassan Hitto as provisional prime minister of rebel-held territory was a clear sign of fissures in the SNC. While Khatib’s resignation was not accepted by the coalition, the incident showed the power struggles that divide the forces opposing Assad.
Moreover, coordination among the Syrian leadership and the rebel fighters, seems to be rather poor. With several rag-tag groups, including Islamists, fighting against Assad’s forces, it seems unclear how the flow and distribution of arms will be coordinated on ground. So, before providing military assistance, the Arab League needs to give the Syrian opposition a hard push to organise itself properly for the endgame.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/46/

By:Arif Ansar


Quite a bit of media attention last week was focused on the BRICS conference in Dublin, including the two-day 24th Arab League Summit held in Doha. What came as a surprise was the presence of Gen Kayani in the Middle East, holding a meeting with John Kerry in Jordan.

While his visit to Saudi Arabia was cited as private, that to Jordan was an official one. Most of the reporting on Gen Kayani’s meeting with Kerry indicated that discussion was mostly related to the issues of Afghan reconciliation. However, these reports missed the other angle. Middle East is passing through a peculiar state of affairs, especially related to the situation of Syria and the chances of its spillover. In this context, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are especially worried.

While King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia could not attend the Arab League meeting due to health reasons, Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz amply conveyed his security fears over the Syrian quagmire. According to news reports, differences have also emerged between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the future dispensation of Syria. The kingdom has accused the Qataris for attempting to position Muslim Brotherhood and AQ-linked groups to the fore. The Saudis are also concerned about Doha’s closeness to not only Turkey and Iran, but also its attempts to increase influence in Gaza.

The apology rendered by Israel to Turkey during President Obama’s trip to the Middle East appeared to have created a sense of urgency and angst among the Gulf States that was visible during the Arab League conference. In the aftermath of Israeli apology, a competition of sorts is emerging between the Gulf heavyweights and Turkey, on the influence each is likely to play in shaping the future of not only Palestine and Syria but also the entire region. These tensions are apparently causing both Doha and Riyadh to undo each other in Syria and possibly in Afghanistan as well.

President Karzai was in Doha over the weekend to jumpstart the political talks with the Taliban. The spokesperson for the Afghan Foreign Ministry Jana Mosazai commented last week that “President Karzai will discuss the peace process and the opening of a [Taliban] office for the purposes of conducting negotiations with Afghanistan”.

As it related to events of Syria, recent reports in the Arab media had indicated the Kingdom was allowing unwanted elements to participate in the Syrian jihad, travelling through Turkey. However, the spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry Major General Mansour Turki clarified that anyone with such intentions would now be investigated according to Saudi laws and would be prohibited from doing so. The potential risks these militants would pose upon their return from Syria are perhaps too great to ignore. The lessons of Afghan jihad are still playing out and the war on terror is far from over. Nonetheless, reports have shown that the Saudi government is now supplying heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition forces.

On the other hand, Iran and Russia are also speeding up their weapons supply to Syria and US has moved into high gear preventing Iranian flights from flying over Iraq. In this regards, Secretary of State John Kerry has obtained Iraq’s acquiescence to check Iranian planes bound for Syria for arms. Moreover, according to comments by the State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, the US is considering a no fly zone in Syria.

Gen Kayani’s visit to Jordan came about in the midst of these events. He reportedly arrived there on Sunday and had a meeting with John Kerry on the same day. Surprisingly, concluding his trip to the Middle East, President Obama had left Jordan only a day earlier, on Saturday. Jordan on the one hand has a budding Arab Spring to worry about, and on the other, the extremists are equally looking inauspicious. According to Israeli media, the strategic zone between Jordan, Israel and Syria that is located east of Golan, was recently taken over by the Musanna Brigade of the Syrian Al-Qaeda linked group, Jabhat al-Nusra. There have been widespread reports about the presence of US Special Forces in Jordan, conducting cross training and join maneuvers to monitor Syrian chemical and biological weapon sites. In these circumstances, it is hard to imagine that the talks between US, Jordanians and Gen Kayani were all about the Afghan reconciliation.

Pakistan has long standing military relations with both Saudi Arabia and Jordan. One of the scenarios PoliTact has been exploring for a while involves looking at Pakistan’s response if and when the Saudi monarchs are threatened directly. Despite Pakistan’s traditionally close ties with the Saudis, surprisingly, the nation is also furthering its economic and trade ties with Iran quite rapidly. This has been a cause of dismay for the Arabs and the US that fear growing Iranian influence. Managing this quandary has become one of Pakistan’s key foreign policy challenges, with direct bearing on the Afghan political settlement.

The trajectory of events convey that at some point the dynamics of Afghan conflict will intersect with the situation in Middle East, and will subsequently be superseded by it. The continued delay in the Afghan reconciliation process and worsening situation of Middle East reflects that this eventuality is arriving rather quickly. Obviously, another tangent of this scenario is a Pakistan-India relation.

What happens to the Afghan conflict when it is superseded in priority by other events in the Middle East and perhaps the Pacific? While writing previously on the subject, PoliTact hypothesised that trouble in the core Muslim regions will reverse the present direction of the dynamics. If chaos in Syria does spill over, the core Muslim countries will end up seeking help from the Muslim nations of the peripheries. This will especially be the case if NATO fails to protect its long time allies, Gulf monarchs for example, in the region. Even if NATO provides limited assistance, the role of Pakistan, Iran and Turkey will emerge as pivotal.

The writer is chief analyst at PoliTact, a Washington based futurist advisory firm (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at aansar@politact.com

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/columns/

UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is right. Syria is gradually being destroyed.

The Chinese call what is happening to Syria “the death of a thousand cuts”: an ancient form of torture reserved for the worst criminals.

While some analysts predict that Syria could become a “second Iraq”, they are wrong. Syria will be worse than Iraq following the US invasion and occupation.

The opposition Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that more than 6,000 Syrians died during last month, making it the deadliest so far. While, according to the Observatory, the number of identified rebel fighters and government soldiers hovered around 1,500 for each side, the majority of the dead seem to be hapless civilians caught in the crossfire. Meanwhile, the flow of refugees into Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey surged, creating a humanitarian catastrophe.

Government forces are gradually losing ground to rebel groups, which have received an injection of funds and arms since the beginning of the year, while the opposition Syrian National Coalition has secured recognition from the Arab League and the West.

However, the armed rebels are fragmented and fighting each other, while the National Council is faction ridden and has no agreed action plan.

Last Sunday, rebels seized a number of oil wells in the eastern Deir El Zour province, but instead of profiting from the smuggling and sale of crude, the groups set the wells alight because they could not agree on how to split the proceeds. According to the government, the rebels burned nine wells in recent months.

At the end of last month, two key rebel factions, fundamentalist Jabhat Al Nusra, dubbed a “terrorist group” by the US, and Kata’ib Al Farouq, favoured by Turkey, battled for control of Raqqa province near the Turkish border. The Jabhat appears to have attained the upper hand.

According to a “Shami Witness”, blogging on pietervanostaeyen, the Farouk Brigades — said to be valiant secularists fighting foreign fundamentalists — are thieves, smugglers and extortionists who charge high tariffs on weapons being transferred through Farouk checkpoints to fellow rebels.

Last month, Farouk Brigade commander Muhammad Al Daher, who has assumed the nom de guerre of Abu Azzam, was wounded in a bomb and shooting attack on his vehicle by Jabhat fighters.

While the Farouk Brigades carried out its depredations, the Jabhat systematically co-opted small local rebel militias and gathered them under its umbrella. Jabhat, which on video decapitated an army officer, has warned all Arab rulers and officials that they will receive the same fate once Nusra is victorious.

National Coalition head Mouaz Al Khatib responded to this threat by reiterating his rejection of “terrorism” and the takfiris, and argues that Syria has an “open and tolerant society”. His words, formally set the coalition against the Jabhat and similar jihadi groups but, on the ground, the non-takfiris are no match for them.

The coalition, dominated by the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and composed of expatriates, is also divided. Khatib tendered his resignation after Ghassan Hitto, a Brotherhood-blessed Kurdish exile from Texas, was appointed provisional prime minister and was asked to form a government to administer areas under rebel control.

His appointment was also opposed by the Free Syrian Army, the designation for rebel groups seeking an identity but rejecting command and control. Other rebel groups, including the jihadists, also opposed Hitto’s appointment.
He is seen as the Ahmad Chalabi of the scenario, an expatriate who has not set foot in his country for 43 years parachuted into office by the Brotherhood and Qatar.

To complicate matters, the founder of the Free Syrian Army, Col. Riad Al Assad was seriously wounded in an attack on his convoy in the Deir El Zour area, now under rebel control, and taken to Turkey for treatment. Assad has been sidelined for many months now, but until he was injured, he continued to assert his and the free army relevance.

Confusing? Indeed, and becoming more confusing as different groups and factions compete for territory and power. This competition is certain to grow sharper, more bloody and destructive.

What is this all about? Syria was dubbed the “beating heart of Arabism” by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser decades ago. The powers involved in the Syrian conflict want to kill off “Arabism” altogether.

“Arabism” — Arab independence, solidarity and dignity, and resistance to Israel — has always been deeply unpopular in the West.

In spite of its faithful observance of the terms of the disengagement agreements with Israel, forged after the 1973 Arab-Israel war, Syria has always touted its “Arabism” and was as the last refuge of the notion of resistance by Israel’s friends and allies.

What worried Israel and its friends was that “Arabism”, manifest in the Beirut Arab summit in March 2002, put forward a reasonable solution for the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This was the Saudi initiative, which called for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace and normalisation with the Arab world. Israel responded promptly by reinvading Palestinian cities and towns evacuated by its forces under the 1993 Oslo Accord, while the Bush administration replied a year later by invading and occupying Iraq, which had signed onto the plan.

“Arabism” is rejected not only by Israel and its friends, but also by the Brotherhood and the jihadists. Fundamentalists have another agenda, a pan-Islamic empire with a khalifa at its head.

The West and Israel, however, understand very well that this is nothing but a pipe dream because fundamentalist factions and groups have no common vision.

Syria is now embroiled in not one but multiple civil wars that are destroying the country.

The US, as Israel’s chief ally and friend, does not need to get intimately involved because there are other actors playing the roles of wreckers.

No one knows what will emerge from the wreckage, but everyone understands that the conflicts in Syria will destabilise the region. Consequently, Syria is certain to become an even deeper black hole at the heart of the eastern Arab world than Iraq, a tragedy of great proportions. (Courtesy: The Jordan Times)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

By Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East editor

Two years ago, the town of Deraa in southern Syria was convulsed by a series of angry, but peaceful demonstrations. The regime of President Bashar al-Assad answered them with force.

Far from being crushed, the movement spread, and as more protesters died it became an armed insurgency.

Now it is a civil war, and it is destroying Syria.

Casualty figures are rising, fast. The UK's Department for International Development points out that since the start of this year more people have been killed than in the entire first year of the conflict.

The exodus of Syrians is also speeding up. More than one million are refugees. The strain of absorbing them, and periodic border clashes, risk destabilising Syria's neighbours. Worst case scenarios include a regional war.

Britain, France and the United States are getting closer to supporting the rebels with weapons and military training. But it's a risky strategy which could make matters worse, not better.

Assad's view

The view from the president's palace in Damascus is not as bad as foreigners might imagine, and many rebels would like.

Britain estimates that his main allies Iran and Russia have increased their levels of military and financial support to the regime since late last year.

The belief that President Assad's men are getting a sharper military edge over the armed opposition is one of the reasons why Britain and France are pressing their European Union partners to lift their arms embargo to Syria.

At the beginning of the uprising two years ago the Assad regime blamed a conspiracy by foreign elements, including al-Qaeda.

Since the protests turned into a civil war, foreign jihadists in small but significant numbers have entered Syria to join the fight against it.

They are effective fighters, but paradoxically the president might take some comfort from their presence.

Mr Assad could be sensing he is scoring points in the West - as he has in Russia - with his argument that, if he goes, Syria's future could be dominated by Sunni Muslim extremists.

Rebel view

The men who have picked up arms to fight the regime share a desire to get rid of President Assad and to destroy his regime.

But they are still weakened by a lack of unity and, along with the expatriate political opposition, they have not managed to come up with an agreed and convincing vision for the future of the country.

The West's hopes lie with the Supreme Military Council, which is headed by General Salim Idriss.

The prospect of aid, both military and "non-lethal", gives the West some leverage. Diplomatic sources say they want to change the military culture in rebel groups, to produce fighters who respect the laws of war and human rights.

Inside Syria, jihadists have been at the centre of much of the recent fighting. The best known is Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front), which the US has designated as a terror group affiliated to al-Qaeda.

Other less well known groups contain foreign jihadists, and are generally regarded as more extreme.

Foreign jihadists have relocated to Syria from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Foreign view

So far diplomacy has failed, which is another reason why Britain and France want an end to the EU arms embargo.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are already supplying weapons. The US, Britain and France seem to be preparing the ground to do the same.

Britain and France say they want to even up the military balance of power to open a space for a political solution that does not involve the Assads, but avoids a collapse of the state in the way that spread chaos in Libya and Iraq.

That doesn't square with the rebels I have met in Syria, who always say they want to kill Bashar al-Assad and destroy the system built by his father.

Some of the money provided by Qatar and Saudi Arabia is said by the regime - and others - to be going to jihadist fighters.

The two Gulf states see ousting President Assad as a sectarian as well as a strategic matter.

For the Saudis it would also be a way of dealing a blow to the regime's Iranian allies.

President Assad would not have survived the last two years without the financial, military and diplomatic support he has had from Iran and Russia.

Inside Syria both President Assad and the armed rebels seem to believe that they can win a military victory.

Going into the third year of the conflict it is not the regime versus all the Syrian people. If it was, President Assad would most likely be dead or retired by now.

Both sides have their core supporters. In between the rebels and the regime, though, is a big middle ground of frightened Syrians who don't like the regime, but worry what the rebels, especially the jihadists, have in store for them.

They look at the way in which the war is destroying the country, appalled that no-one seems able to stop the destruction of their country, their futures, and sometimes their lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/syria

I spent a year and a half enforcing “no-fly” zones over Iraq and the Balkans. My experiences convinced me that the United States should declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. We would do well to remember the era of no-fly zones and what they did and didn’t do.

Those who oppose a no-fly zone cite the risks: Syria has a formidable air-defense network. Policymakers fear the prospect of U.S. pilots being shot down or dragged through the streets of Damascus. Moreover, many contend that a no-fly zone will not solve the conflict. Only by arming the rebels will the tide be turned, they say, and many of those rebels are jihadists with whom we do not want to partner.

Critics of a no-fly zone also fear a slippery slope of escalated military involvement that will lead to a quagmire.

These detractors miss the point, which is that a no-fly zone is only part of the solution. Its purpose is not to resolve the conflict but to prevent escalation, protect innocents and provide leverage to negotiations. In essence, a no-fly zone takes away a single tool of violence — the use of aviation — possessed by the oppressor.

Absent the no-fly zones in Bosnia, the Serbs and Croats would have wrought even more destruction than they did. Absent the no-fly zones in Iraq, one can imagine what Saddam Hussein’s air force would have done to the minority Kurds and Shiites. The situation in Syria is no different. Bashar Assad turned his military on his own citizens, and the tactical advantages his air force possesses are decisive.

The goal of the U.S. and its allies would be to lessen the continued descent into a bloodbath that, over the past two-plus years, has claimed more than 70,000 lives, displaced 3.6 million people inside Syria and forced about 1.3 million to seek refuge outside of Syria.

Americans are understandably chastened by the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. We witness the chaos of Libya after the use of air power without a subsequent commitment of ground forces, and we are even more reluctant to engage. Many advocate a pragmatic, “lead from behind” style, arguing that we must now reason with cold-blooded calculus. Such a view misunderstands our options and our ability to influence the situation in Syria.

The logic of the 1990s was that aggressive enforcement of no-fly zones would aid civilians victimized by these conflicts, prevent escalation and, with the threat of air strikes, end the conflicts more quickly. Those are limited objectives, but they are not insignificant.

Admittedly, air power is no panacea. We witnessed its limits during the Kosovo air campaign of 1999. Slobodan Milosevic called NATO’s bluff and didn’t back down after the first days of airstrikes. It is important to acknowledge the distinction between the power to deny or destroy and the power to seize or hold forcibly.

A no-fly zone is feasible. Yes, Syria possesses capable air defenses, but they are no match for U.S. air power. I flew missions over Sarajevo; over Pristina, Kosovo; over Nasiriyah and Mosul, Iraq. Not once during any of those air missions did I feel as threatened as I did than when I patrolled the highways of Iraq in a Humvee. We must not lose confidence out of fear by overestimating our opponent’s capabilities.

A no-fly zone will not immediately end the conflict, but neutralizing the Syrian air force will erase one of the regime’s decisive advantages and lead to a major turning point in the conflict. Doing so is not only morally right but also in our strategic interest. The spillover of violence into Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq is already happening. Moreover, in a post-Assad Syria, the opposition will not forget which nations came to its aid. That was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo, and it has been the case throughout the Muslim world during the recent government upheavals. It was also the case in Iraq, until the occupation spiraled downward into a chaotic insurgency that we initially failed to grasp. A no-fly zone will provide more options in working with the commander of the Free Syrian Army, Gen. Salim Idriss. With established “safe zones,” Syrian rebels could be trained inside Syria. It will open the door for building governance in liberated areas.

A no-fly zone does not address the questions of a major covert-action program and those consequent risks. But it can lessen the slaughter, and it positions the United States on the right side of the conflict, morally and strategically. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel eloquently said, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” We must take sides and not just pay lip service to a peaceful resolution.

Japan Times

Frustrated by the news of the Syrian humanitarian crisis, Liza Hoover, a pediatric nurse from Seabrook Island, South Carolina, wanted to use her medical training to make a difference. After making a few phone calls she stumbled upon the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and spent most of January volunteering at a field hospital in Northwest Syria. The experience was so fulfilling that she is going back next week.

In 2012, SAMS launched the Save Syrian Lives Campaign to provide direct medical relief to Syrians affected by the conflict regardless of political, ethnic or religious affiliation. With a network of dedicated volunteer medical personnel, SAMS has already established 11 field hospitals and supports 25 other medical centres in conflict-affected areas of Syria.

“There is a huge need in Syria for qualified medical professionals after more than 50 per cent of doctors had to leave Syria due to the conflict,” said Dr Mohammed Zaher Sahloul, president of SAMS. “We have been sending mostly Syrian American doctors, but have received many requests from other physicians who want to volunteer.”

To date, SAMS has sent more than 120 volunteer physicians to Syria, Turkey and Jordan to treat patients.

One of these physicians is Dr Joseph Byrnes, an anesthesiologist and General Medical Officer from Shreveport, Louisiana. Byrnes wanted to spend his vacation time somewhere he could use his skills to help others in need. Within three weeks he was on his way to Syria.

Though Hoover’s and Byrnes’ respective families were concerned about them working in a war zone, it was clear this was something they really wanted to do. “The Syrians will take good care of me,” Byrne’s, on his fifth overseas deployment, reassured his family.

Hoover’s aging parents and young daughters were also worried, but she feels it will be easier the second time around.

“I was not naïve,” Hoover said. “We could hear bombs on a daily basis - sometimes in the distance and sometimes closer to where we were. But, generally I felt safe and cherished by the second family I found there.”

Hoover refers to her host family in Syria as her second family because she felt so welcomed and appreciated. Because she didn’t speak Arabic they communicated through charades, which was often comedic. “When you are appreciated, invited for coffee or meals and included in someone’s life - that’s family to me.” Hoover said.

The hospital where the two served treats anyone who walks through its door, day or night. Byrnes and Hoover attended to children and adults, many of whom had been in motor vehicle accidents or were victims of shrapnel from nearby bombings.

Though some medication and equipment was different from what they were used to in the United States, Hoover and Byrnes were impressed with how much could be done with the resources they had - especially limited power. Every ounce of petrol was used frugally in the generators.

However, Hoover worries that as temperatures rise and trash builds up, infections may spread faster. Also, without adequate power and refrigeration, vaccines and medication may go bad.

“We are working with local health authorities to address some of the public health issues and waterborne diseases,” Sahloul said. “SAMS is also providing diesel fuel to six hospitals in Aleppo in order to ensure that their power stays on.”

“Yes, I lost some weight and lived with very limited supplies,” said Hoover. “But I believe I can never repay the love and respect I received. The Syrians deserve so much more.”

“As a human being and as an American citizen, I wish the international community was doing more to help Syria. But at the same time I am humbled to watch Syrians carry on with their lives and commitment to faith while raising their children. It helps me be the best nurse I can.”

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

The situation of Syria has reached a critical stage. Many fears associated with the state of affairs there appear to have materialised one by one to include the worsening humanitarian crisis, fear of chemical weapons getting in the wrong hands, the growing influence of extremists, and the potential spillover of the conflict in the wider region.

Each one of the above interconnected anxieties carries serious implications. As has happened in the past, dictators in the Middle East inadvertently try to widen the conflict. This was the worry in the case of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. While these dictators were removed without any such immediate repercussions, nonetheless, the resulting vacuum is causing the spread of chaos across the wider region of Middle East and North Africa.

To deal with these Syrian worries, the US has decided to deploy 200 military personnel to Jordan that will prepare the ground for military operations, if needed. These troops are in addition to the US Special Forces that have already been carrying out joint military exercises with their Jordanian counterparts.

The most serious apprehension obviously is in regards to the Syrian chemical weapons and there are accusations that the country may have already used them. However, Assad regime claims it did so after its introduction by the opposition forces. While US has been examining the proof, in a letter to the UN, France and UK have now asserted that Syria has indeed used chemicals on a number of occasions since December. On the other hand, in a recent interview to BBC, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed it was ready to take action to prevent these weapons from getting in the hands of extremists, an outcome that would produce unprecedented consequences for Israel.

The second concern is in regards to the growing influence of Al-Qaeda (AQ) linked extremists in Syria. According to recent media reports, the strategic zone between Jordan, Israel and Syria that is located east of Golan, was taken over by the Syrian AQ linked group, Jabhat al-Nusra. Subsequently, AQ in Iraq claimed that Jabhat al-Nusra had merged with it, and together they would be called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. While the association was long suspected, there is a danger that secular and nationalist opposition forces to Assad may be taken over by the extremists, posing negative repercussions for the Gulf, Israeli and Western interests.

This prospect is validating a scenario that PoliTact had pointed out to. A new Afghanistan like situation is brewing right in the heart of the Middle East, and with active support of Turkey, the West, including the Gulf heavy weights of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. If indeed the extremists begin to take the upper hand, as seems to be happening, military interference of one sorts or the other will be required.

US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey himself raised this possibility recently. He commented that US could send troops to Syria if the regime there appears to be falling to rebels, and its chemical weapons are in danger. In March Senator McCain had stated: “The President must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will Assad be allowed to finish what he has started, that there is no future in which Assad and his lieutenants will remain in control of Syria, and that the United States is prepared to use the full weight of our airpower to make it so.”

Early signs indicate the Gulf region is also now preparing for the inevitable overflow of the conflict in Syria and tensions with Iran. UAE and Saudi Arabia are both cracking down on illegal immigrants and have clamped down on Al-Qaeda and Iran linked cells. In March, Saudi Arabia claimed to have arrested 18 spies, some of them linked with Iran.

While the intervention in Syria appears imminent, opposition from Russian and China has continued. In this context the Boston marathon incident may play an important role in soothing the ties between Russia and US. President Obama thanked Putin on Friday for unspecified support provided by Russia for the resolution of the matter. Will this lead to smoothening of US-Russia anti-terror cooperation, which could also speed up the regime change in Syria, is yet to be seen. However, it is interesting to see such linkages are already appearing in several prominent media outlets.

There are many Chechens that are fighting in Syria in cohorts with AQ, just as they have in the AfPak region. Russian assistance in stopping the flow of jihadist could prove to be instrumental.

Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to meet his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Brussels next week. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week: Right now, he (Bashar al-Assad) is sitting there (in Syria) with support from Iran, with support from Hezbollah, with support from Russia, with artillery and an army, and believing that he can continue to fight it out using his air power, his Scuds, his artillery and his tanks. So that equation somehow has to change, and we all understand that.”

At the weekend meeting of the foreign ministers of Friends of Syria group held in Ankara, US decided to double its non-lethal assistance and humanitarian aid. According to reports, the equipment to be provided will now include armoured vehicles, night vision goggles and sophisticated communications equipment. On the other hand, the Free Syrian Army has continued to complain they have not been provided enough support to decisively settle the matter, which only increases their dependence on the Islamist groups.

The Friends of Syria group is concerned that arms being supplied to the opposition forces may ultimately end up with the extremist groups, and that would only complicate the post-Assad scenario. For their part, the opposition forces have assured the military equipment will not fall into the wrong hands. However, if the extremist groups continue to outperform the opposition forces supported by Friends of Syria, in toppling the Assad regime, military intervention is all but likely.

The writer is chief analyst at PoliTact, a Washington based futurist advisory firm (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at aansar@politact.com

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....yODEbHYP.dpuf