Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/August 30/13

The Pros and Cons of Attacking Syria
A Symposium/by David P. Goldman/PJ Media
August 28, 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3599/attacking-syria
Kudos to Michael Ledeen for explaining that the road to Damascus starts in Tehran. As Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu explained on Aug. 25, "Assad's regime isn't acting alone. Iran, and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, are there on the ground playing an active role assisting Syria. In fact, Assad's regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran's testing ground. … Iran is watching and it wants to see what will be the reaction to the use of chemical weapons." We are at war with Iran, and I have little to add to Michael's excellent summary. As he reiterates, we have been at war with Iran for decades. The only distinction is that Iran knows this and the Obama administration pretends it's not happening. Because the American public is disgusted with the miserable return on our investment of 5,000 lives, 50,000 casualties, and $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are too timid to push for decisive military action to stop Iran's nuclear program — although air strikes rather than ground troops would be required.
I made a similar case on March 29:
It's pointless to take potshots at Obama for failing to act on Syria. What we should say is this: "Iran is the main source of instability in the Middle East. Iran's intervention in Syria has turned the country into a slaughterhouse. By showing weakness to Iran, the Obama administration encourages its murderous activities elsewhere in the region."
I also recommend Ed "Give War a Chance" Luttwak's Aug. 25 op-ed in the New York Times, "In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins." Victory for Assad would be victory for Iran. "And if the rebels win, " Luttwak wrote, "moderate Sunnis would be politically marginalized under fundamentalist rulers." The whole region is paralyzed and ripe for destabilization. Saudi subsidies are keeping Egypt from starving, literally. "Turkey has large and restless minority populations that don't trust their own government, which itself does not trust its own army. The result has been paralysis instead of power, leaving Mr. Erdogan an impotent spectator of the civil war on his doorstep." I would add that Turkey also is at economic free-fall with its stock market down by 40% in dollar terms since April.
Luttwak argues that the U.S. should favor "an indefinite draw." Here I disagree: the chemical attack shows how easily Iran can manipulate events in Syria to suit its strategic objectives. The best solution is Yugoslav-style partition: an Alawite redoubt in the Northwest including Latakia (where Russia has its naval station), and a Sunni protectorate in the rest of the country, except for an autonomous zone for Syria's Kurds. Everyone wins except the Turks, who understandably abhor the idea of an independent Kurdish entity. Someone has to lose, though. What has Turkey done for us lately?
Obama probably will choose the worst of all possible alternatives. Daniel Pipes warns that this course of action "will also entail real dangers. Bashar al-Assad's notorious incompetence means his response cannot be anticipated. Western strikes could, among other possibilities, inadvertently lead to increased regime attacks on civilians, violence against Israel, an activation of sleeper cells in Western countries, or heightened dependence on Tehran. Surviving the strikes also permits Assad to boast that he defeated the United States. In other words, the imminent attack entails few potential benefits but many potential drawbacks. As such, it neatly encapsulates the Obama administration's failed foreign policy."
If the problems of the Middle East look intractable now, consider what they will look like if Iran can promote mass murder from under a nuclear umbrella. The hour is late. If we Republicans can't summon the courage to advance fundamental American national security issues in the midst of crisis, we will deserve the voters' contempt.
**Mr. Goldman, president of Macrostrategy LLC, is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the London Center for Policy Research.

Iranian Regime Intensifies Crackdown on Christians

http://www.persecution.org/2013/08/29/iranian-regime-intensifies-crackdown-on-christians/
8/28/2013 Washington D.C. (International Christian Concern) - International Christian Concern (ICC) is alarmed by the latest series of events that continue a pattern of egregious violations of fundamental rights and freedoms in Iran. Three Christians, Ebrahim Firouzi, Sevada Aghasar, and Masoud Mirzaei were arrested on Wednesday, August 21, and detained without charges. On Sunday, August 25, an appeals court in Tehran rejected an appeal in the case of American Saeed Abedini who has been sentenced to eight years in prison because of his religious beliefs.
The arrest of Ebrahim Firouzi, Sevada Aghasar and Masoud Mirzaei came on August 21, when plainclothes police officers raided Masoud's office in Karaj, about 50 KM west of Tehran. According to Mohabat News, Ebrahim and Sevada had gone to visit Masoud to say goodbye a few days before Ebrahim was to begin serving a one-year prison sentence.
Ebrahim was sentenced on July 15th to one year in prison and two years in exile. According to court documents his conviction was for exercising basic rights of religious freedom. The document reads: "according to the court's decision, evangelism activities of the accused, Ebrahim Firouzi, are considered to be in opposition to the regime of the Republic Islamic of Iran." There has not been any indication of charges for the latest arrests. After raiding the office, officers also went to Masoud's home, searched it, and confiscated personal belongings, including a computer. Sevada and Masoud were able to briefly contact their families before being moved to an undisclosed location.
In the case of American pastor Saeed Abedini, a two-judge panel of the Tehran appeals court issued a rejection of an appeal for a reduction of his eight-year prison sentence. Saeed was convicted as a result of his Christian faith and imprisoned September 26, 2012. Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) which represents Saeed's family, said they had hoped Iran "would use its own appeal process to finally show respect for Pastor Saeed's basic human rights, again Iran has demonstrated an utter disregard for the fundamentals of human rights." However, as Sekulow continued, "this legal decision also signals a new level of concern for Pastor Saeed's safety. By keeping the 8-year prison sentence in place, Pastor Saeed now potentially faces additional beatings and abuse inside Evin Prison - treatment that has significantly weakened him during his first year in prison."
The news of the rejection of the appeal was a devastating blow to Saeed's family. His wife, Naghmeh, told ICC it has been an emotional few days, but she will continue to speak on Saeed's behalf. Naghmeh asked for continued pressure on Iran, and expressed disappointment specifically with President Obama, who has chosen to remain silent on this case.
Most recently, Rep. Trent Franks (R, AZ) spoke out in support of Saeed. In a statement he said, "Iran has once again demonstrated an utter disregard for fundamental human rights by continuing to insist that Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen, be unjustly imprisoned in Iran." He also criticized the lack of response saying, "I hope that the American people will hold the Obama Administration and State Department accountable for its absolutely criminal silence in the face of such a heartless injustice forced upon this beloved American pastor, his innocent family, and so many others.
There has not been any improvement in the months since the election of President Hassan Rouhani, rather, as Mohabat News observes, "the arbitrary and unreasonable arrest of the three young Christians in Karaj and the increasing imprisonment of Christian converts during the past few weeks are all signs of a worsening situation for the Iranian Christian community."
**Todd Daniels, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, "Iran continues to engage in a pattern of systematic abuse of the basic and fundamental rights of both its own citizens, and in the case of Saeed Abedini, an American citizen. We urge leaders across the globe to speak out on behalf of those who are suffering under this regime. We call for the release of all those who are held in prison solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. The Iranian people deserve a government that respects their rights, will uphold their constitution, and honor its international commitments for the good of all Iranians."

Copts in the West Campaign Against Muslim Brotherhood
Assyrian International News Agency

http://www.aina.org/news/20130829101040.htm
(AINA) -- Expatriate Copts in Western capitals launched campaigns to draw attention to the violence of the Muslim Brotherhood and to expose it as a terrorist organization, and to support the Egyptian army, who they say is "fighting a war on terror" launched by pro-Morsy supporters against the Egyptian people at large.
As with most Egyptians, the Copts are angry with the Obama administration for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and describing their demonstrations as "peaceful." Video evidence supports the contrary.
"We are also angry with the bias of the western media, which still talks of the June 30 demonstrations as a coup. How could this be when over 33,000,000 citizens went out to the streets all over Egypt calling for the ousting of Morsy," said activist Mark Ebeid, "why deny us our revolution, and the right to choose a suitable president?"
On July 25, in an interview on Cairo Tonight, a news discussion program hosted by Amr Adeeb, Major General Sameh Seif El-Yazal, an expert in national security affairs and Chairman of the Al Jamhooriyya Center for Political and Security Studies in Cairo, said the Muslim Brotherhood hired an American public relations firm to portray the June 30 Revolution as a military coup, even though nearly 33 million citizens joined in the demonstrations. Yazal said there is an Arab state which funds this process and is injecting huge sums of money into the U.S. to disseminate negative publicity against the Egyptian army (Al-Ahram story in Arabic).
On August 22 a large rally was staged in front of the White House in Washington, where Copts travelled from all over the U.S. to denounce the Brotherhood's Terror in Egypt, and to expose the bias of the Obama administration and the American media towards the Brotherhood. The rally later marched to the Washington Post and CNN to denounce their bias.
American Copts funded a $100,000 full page advert in the New York Times newspaper on August 24. "It was all from Coptic donations" said Magdi Khalil one of the heads of "Coptic Solidarity", an NGO based in the US which organized the rally and adverts.
The advert came in response to the advert published by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post, which talked about the 'military coup' in Egypt and the massacres and atrocities committed by Gen. -Abdel Fattah Sisi, the defense minister, demanding the right of Egyptians to electoral legitimacy -- meaning the return of Morsy as President.
The Coptic advert blasted the Obama administration for considering the MB demonstrators as "peaceful" and for withholding acknowledgement that the Egyptian people regained control of their country from the MB, demanding justice and equality for all Egyptians. They explained to the readers that the Muslim Brotherhood is supported by Al-Qaida and that Hamas, one of its offshoots, is designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.
Addressing the American public, the advert said "If you are outraged by the Muslim Brotherhood's attack on over 90 churches and public institutions and their killing of innocent and unarmed civilians, join us in asking our government to acknowledge that there is nothing 'peaceful' in their violent and deadly demonstrations."
The Muslim Brotherhood has announced that on August 30 demonstrations will take place all over Egypt, asking for the return of the deposed President Morsy.
Egyptian Copts have paid the heftiest price after the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) President Morsy, and the breaking up of the two MB sit-ins in Cairo by security forces. According to church sources over 90 churches, monasteries, Coptic orphanages, schools and properties looted and torched from August 14-22 (AINA 8-24-2013). Human Rights Watch visited various churches that were attacked and reported on it (video).
Bishop Makarious of Minya, the Upper Egyptian governorate with the most church and property casualties, said that attacks on churches and Copts were planned before the breakup of the sit-ins, and fears that more attacks will continue.
Copts have been accused by pro-Morsy supporters of being behind the demonstrations that ended his presidency. Al-Qaida leader el-Zawahry accused the Church and the secularist minority of having conspired with Western powers against the Muslim Nation in Egypt (video).
By Mary Abdelmassih
Copyright (C) 2013, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Syrians await fate as debate over military action continues
London and Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—Members of the British parliament are set to debate military action in Syria on Thursday, following a recall of parliament by Prime Minister David Cameron.
The opposition British Labour Party insisted any approval in the British parliament for military action needed “compelling evidence” that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. A non-binding vote will now be held on Thursday, with another to follow after UN weapons inspectors have reported on their findings from Syria to the UN Security Council. On Wednesday, Britain tabled a draft UN resolution to seek approval for military action in Syria, which was opposed by Russia and China.
Elsewhere, the US and France continued to emphasize the need for a response to what they said was the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.
US president Barack Obama told the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) that he was not interested in an “open-ended conflict” in Syria. He said the use of chemical weapons, however, should have “international consequences.” On Thursday, French president François Hollande said that a political solution was needed in Syria, but that this could only happen if the international community could stop chemical attacks occurring, and with better support for the opposition. Meanwhile, UN special envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said on Wednesday that any US military action in Syria would need to be approved by the United Nations Security Council. Moscow warned of “catastrophic consequences” for any such intervention. In other developments, a senior Lebanese security official speaking on condition of anonymity told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the number of refugees arriving in Lebanon has almost reached its highest levels since the start of the conflict.”
UNHCR spokeswoman Dana Suleiman told Asharq Al-Awsat that the commission “has put in place an emergency plan to respond to the arrival of large numbers of refugees if that happens.” She added that “the biggest challenge the commission faces is finding the funds needed for the requirements of the plan.” Amid fears of the arrival of large numbers of Syrian refugees in Lebanon as a result of an expected attack on Syria, Lebanese president Michel Suleiman chaired a meeting of ministers, also attended by caretaker prime minister Najib Niqati. At the meeting, the ministers discussed the measures needed to be taken to deal with the possible flood of refugees into Lebanon. Suleiman called on the political parties in Lebanon to remain impartial and put Lebanese interests first, and reminded them of “Lebanon’s position, which calls for finding political solutions for the Syrian crisis, away from outside intervention.”  In another development, the Iranian Fars news agency said Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad held a meeting with Syrian military commanders following the speculation about a possible US military strike. The agency quoted Assad as saying that “this is a historic confrontation from which we will come out victorious.”

The countdown has begun, but what about the objectives?
By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat
“We will defend ourselves using all means available,” Syrian foreign minister Walid Mouallem said on Tuesday during a press conference in Damascus. The minister’s statement marks an improvement on the ‘we reserve the right to retaliate’ reply that we have grown accustomed to hearing from Damascus. I carefully watched Mouallem’s press conference and was not surprised by most of what he said.
At the end of the day, Mouallem works at the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, even if he is a cabinet minister. By this—I mean that with all due respect to the man—Mouallem only follows orders handed down to him, and which he is unable to gainsay, let alone disobey. Those who are familiar with his diplomatic record, as well as sources close to him during critical stages during his long career, confirm that Mouallem does not have the ability to object to or oppose the regime, let alone defect. On Tuesday, Mouallem—who served as the Syrian ambassador to the US and thus is well aware of Washington’s military capabilities and international influence—spoke in simplistic terms, making sense only to the submissive and brainwashed Syrian media that reiterates slogans it neither comprehends nor means.
Mouallem was speaking to the helpless Syrian people whom the Assad security regime has been treating as hostages for more than four decades. As for those outside Syria, Mouallem knew beforehand that they were always skeptical and will not believe him, whatever he says. At the same time, Mouallem had to do his best to appear normal, confident and assured regarding the rhetoric he was espousing.
It was funny, though, how Mouallem made reference to the large number of local reporters—compared to the foreign ones—attending the press conference, a fact that surely came as no surprise to him!
The policy the Assad regime has adopted since it chose bloody oppression as a means to confront the peaceful popular uprising was based on banning the media. The regime seems to follow the proverb that says, “Those who lie must keep eyewitnesses at a distance.” In fact, for more than two and a half years, the Assad regime has not only banned journalists but also sometimes killed them, in addition to imposing restrictions on independent media outlets. In contrast, it has mobilized pro-Assad propagandists to mislead the public and fabricate lies on every occasion.
I do not know why, but Mouallem’s tone reminded me of that of contemporaries such as former Iraqi information minister Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf, former Libyan deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim, and former Libyan pro-Gaddafi spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.
On the other hand, it was remarkable how the reporters appeared disappointed and worried by Russia’s new stance as expressed by Sergey Lavrov when he said that “we [Russia] have no plans to go to war” even if military intervention takes place in Syria.
In fact, reporters have every reason to worry about the regime’s long-standing obstinacy as well as the endless muscle-flexing practiced by pro-Assad propagandists in Syria and Lebanon.
Moreover, the international community’s decision to take action was surprising to many of those watching the Syrian tragedy. They have almost lost hope of the world suffering any pangs of conscience regarding the necessity of deterring the Assad gang, which is rejoicing in murder, and gambling on US passiveness and repulsive opportunism on the parts of China and Russia. As everybody knows, this has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians. The domestic situation in Syria has, in fact, become even more complicated with the emergence of radical groups that the Syrian people are thoroughly fed up with and consequently resisting. This is evidenced by what is happening in Al-Raqqa province and some areas in Deir Ezzor and Al-Haskah.
Today, there is a consensus that there will be a US strike on Syria, while the Syrian opposition’s ambassador to France, Dr. Monzer Makhous, announced that the countdown to the US strike on Syria has begun.
The moves and statements in Western and non-Western capitals indicate that a new stage has begun in dealing with the Assad regime, which lives in its own world, believing that it can endlessly capitalize on contradictions. This is a stage of actions, not words.
Obviously, something has been prepared, and the Assad regime’s habits of outwitting others and of self-deceit—represented by the “No war without Egypt, no peace without Syria” slogan it is promoting—are no longer valid.
This means that we have to expect a military strike, but of what size and for what purpose? There is talk that any military action will not include boots on the ground, according to the pledge made by US president Barack Obama. The strike may also bypass the obstacle of UN Security Council approval, as hinted by British foreign secretary William Hague.
This means that the US strike will most likely be a disciplinary action to warn Assad that his continuing crimes are no longer acceptable. On the other hand, the strike could also aim to reduce the regime’s capacity to use its weapon stockpile. Furthermore, some of those monitoring the situation believe that such a strike, in light of Russia’s change of attitude, will push the Assad regime to the negotiating table at Geneva II. This course of events is compatible with what the West has reiterated throughout the past months: that a “political settlement” in Syria is inevitable.
On the other hand, however, if we are to argue that Russia will turn a blind eye to the military strike and that Mouallem’s statements echo the obstinacy of the Assad regime, we must also speculate about Iran’s reaction.
How will Tehran respond? Who will be responsible for this decision: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, or Quds Force Commander Qassem Suleimani?
How will Lebanon’s Hezbollah deal with any strike? Will it continue its involvement in the Syrian crisis after it takes on more serious and major dimensions? Could the Shi’ite militia seek to provoke Israel in a bid to expand and draw attention away from the crisis? Following the explosions that shook Beirut’s southern suburbs and Tripoli, does the Hezbollah leadership now believe that the fate of Lebanon is at stake? Despite this, the group—as things look—is committed to dividing the region into factional camps. We are now on the threshold of new realities. What is important is that military efforts be commensurate with the main political objective; namely, to rescue the Syrian people from a criminal regime and allow them, along with their neighbors, to live in free countries that guarantee equal rights for all citizens, and respect their creeds and identities.

Obama says no decision yet on strike on Syria.
DEBKA: He stalls for deal with Putin on softened strikeDEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 29, 2013/In the face of statements by senior US officials that the Obama administration had crossed the Rubicon on military intervention in Syria, President Barack Obama declared early Thursday, Aug. 29, that he had not yet made a decision on whether to order a military strike against Syria. Although Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that US armed forces were “ready to go,” Obama said he was still examining options with his security team. The US president added that he had no doubt that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regime, not the rebels, saying that for violating international norms and human decency, Assad “should be held accountable.” At the same time, the White House suddenly appeared Wednesday night to be engaging in maneuvers for buying time and holding up military action against Syria, after the armies of the Middle East and half of Europe were already standing ready after completing massive war preparations.
One such maneuver was a leak from White House sources about a delay in releasing to America and the world the promised evidence of Assad’s culpability in the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. It was postponed because “the report was not yet ready.” Another were grumbles from the president’s circle that President Obama had found himself jammed in an awkward timeline generated by his foreign travel schedule – he is due to take off next Wednesday, Sept. 4, for Sweden on his way to the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg of Sep. 5-6. This left the optimal dates for his decision to go through with the attack as Friday night, early Saturday, Aug. 31 or after Labor Day, which falls on Sept. 2. Although Obama appeared still to be standing by that decision, debkafile’s Washington and Moscow sources disclose he has applied the brakes on the momentum for its implemention to buy time for US Secretary of State John Kerry to wind up secret negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and strike a deal: The US would soften its military action against the Assad regime and his army and reduce it to a token blow, after which the American and Russian presidents would announce the convening of Geneva-2 to hammer out a solution of the Syrian crisis and end the civil war.
The Kerry-Lavrov back channel has not yet achieved results and so, Thursday, the fate of the US strike on Syria was still highly fluid and its timeline changeable.

Syria evacuates most army buildings in Damascus - residents
AMMAN (Reuters) - President Bashar al-Assad's forces appear to have evacuated most personnel from army and security command headquarters in central Damascus in preparation for a Western military strike, residents and opposition sources said on Wednesday. U.S.-led air or missile strikes on Syria look all but certain after the United States and European and Middle Eastern allies blamed a suspected poison gas attack that killed hundreds in the city on Aug 21 on President Bashar al-Assad's forces. Army units stationed near the capital have confiscated several trailer trucks, apparently to transport heavy weaponry to alternative locations, though no significant movement of military hardware has been reported, possibly due to heavy fighting near major highways, one of the sources added.
Armoured vehicles and trucks carrying troops were seen leaving the Damascus International Airport area, which includes three army bases, and heading toward the nearby town of Harran al-Awamid, opposition activist Ma'moun al-Ghoutani said by phone from the area, adding that lights had been turned off at the airport. Among the buildings that have been partially evacuated are the General Staff Command Building on Umayyad Square, the nearby airforce command and the security compounds in the Western Kfar Souseh districts, residents of the area and a Free Syrian Army rebel source said.
NAVAL VESSELS SAID DOCKED ALONGSIDE MERCHANTMEN
Opposition activists in the Mediterranean port city of Latakia said several Syrian navy vessels had docked alongside commercial ships at piers reserved for civilian traffic, apparently to lessen the likelihood of being identified and hit. Syrian military authorities do not discuss troop movements publicly, and no government spokesman was available for comment.
The General Staff building, one of the top military headquarters in the country, has been operating with reduced staffing since it was attacked by rebel bombs in September 2012.
But almost no one reported for work at that or the other buildings on Wednesday.
They said trucks have been seen in the last 48 hours at the cordoned off entrance of several buildings, apparently transporting documents and light weapons.
"You can drop a needle in Kfar Souseh and hear it," said a resident who lives near the Palestine branch of Military Intelligence in Kfar Souseh.
Brigadier General Mustafa al-Sheikh, a senior military defector, said from an undisclosed location in Syria that based on Free Syrian Army intelligence gatherings, the general staff command had been moved to an alternative compound in the foothills of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains north of Damascus.
"Various commands are being moved to schools and underground bunkers. But I am not sure it is going to do much good for the regime," Sheikh said.
Another resident who lives at the foothills of Qasioun, the mountain in the middle of the city in which elite praetorian guard units are based, said the boom of artillery, usually heard daily form the 105th battalion of the Republican Guards, had fallen silent on Wednesday. "They have been lots of army trucks descending from Qasioun. It seems they have evacuated the 105 battalion headquarters," the resident said.
Activists in east Damascus said barracks and housing compounds for the Republican Guards and Fourth Division near the suburbs of Somariya and Mouadamiya had been evacuated and troops and their families had gone into the city. Abu Ayham, a commander in the Ansar al-Islam rebel brigade in Damascus said the army's general staff and Airforce Intelligence had been evacuated, as well as several mixed-use barracks/housing buildings for the Republican Guards and Fourth Division on the eastern outskirts of the city. "To all intents and purposes, the army's command and control compounds have been evacuated. Before the threat (of strikes) they have been taking precautions by working more from lower floors. In the last 48 hours they have been vacated," he said. (Reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis; Editing by William Maclean, Will Waterman and David Brunnstrom)

France: Political solution the ultimate goal for Syria
PARIS (Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande said on Thursday a political solution must remain the focus for Syria but that could only happen if the international community can halt the killings and better support the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad. "Everything must be done for a political solution but it will only happen if the coalition is able to appear as an alternative with the necessary force, notably from its army," Hollande told reporters after meeting the head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, Ahmed Jarba. "We will only manage this if the international community can put a temporary stop to this escalation in violence, of which the chemical attack is just one example," Hollande said. (Reporting by John Irish; Writing by Catherine Bremer; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Direct military role for Canada in troubled Syria unlikely: NATO source
OTTAWA - Canada's support of U.S.-led military action against Syria is likely to be only symbolic, in a strike that could last as little as a day, a NATO source told The Canadian Press.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said continuing discussions among like-minded nations are focused on an air campaign, using mostly Tomahawk missiles, that lasts up to 24 hours.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird hinted at such a brief and surgical intervention by the United States during an interview with Quebec's TVA network on Wednesday when discussing the volatile situation in the Middle East.
"That's the reason why if it was a small military intervention, it should be precise — in and out," said Baird, who met in the afternoon with George Sabra, the head of the opposition Syrian National Council.
When host Mario Dumont hypothesized about a strike lasting four days, Baird interjected that it could be as short as two hours. With Canadian military planes parked at home, and the frigate HMCS Toronto on the other side of the Arabian peninsula lacking long-range missiles, direct involvement by Canada would therefore be improbable, said the NATO source and other military experts.
"Right now in the late, waning days of August, the lead time involved in Canada having any air response is negligible," said Chris Corrigan, a retired colonel and now a defence-security analyst with the Royal Canadian Military Institute. "A U.S. carrier battle group has as many F-18s on it right now in the Mediterranean ... (as) we have serviceable in the entire Canadian air force."
Baird underscored Canada's limitations when speaking publicly in Montreal, repeating his view that discussing military intervention is premature.
"I think some have speculated in the media and elsewhere that it could involve cruise missiles or armed drones, neither of which Canada has," he said.
"We'll let decisions be made before we know whether we have even the capacity to contribute militarily."
The NATO source said the extent of Canadian military assistance could be dispatching HMCS Toronto closer to the area to help protect American ships, as part of an international naval task force that operates in the Arabian Sea. Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College, said the frigate could be sent through the Suez Canal to anchor in the vicinity.
"The other possibility is the Americans send their ships off to someplace, and we have to take over some of the original responsibilities of that ship, so we cover for them," said Dorn.
Both Dorn and Corrigan suggested a select number of Canadian Forces personnel could theoretically wind up working inside the American chain of command, as has happened in the past.
"Showing the (Canadian) flag will be very important because the U.S. wants to show this has international legitimacy," said Dorn.
Earlier Wednesday, Justin Trudeau said Parliament should be recalled to discuss what role Canada should play as the international community prepares to respond to atrocities in Syria. The Liberal leader called the use of chemical weapons "unacceptable" and said it requires a "significant response." Trudeau, who was briefed Tuesday by Baird on his conversations with allies in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, said he fully expects Canada will have a role to play in helping civilians. He said Canadians — and MPs — are united in wanting to provide humanitarian aid and help settle refugees.
But he said anything more than that should be discussed, in a non-partisan fashion, by parliamentarians. Trudeau has previously expressed reservations about military intervention.
United Nations chemical weapons inspectors continued their investigations in a Damascus suburb Wednesday, while Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed to the international community to give them more time to complete their work. But the British government moved ahead with a draft proposal at the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force against Syria, almost certain not to pass because of the opposition of China and Russia.
Russia and Iran have been warning the west that any military intervention could snowball into a greater, regional conflict.

Syria envoy alleges rebel gas attack, demands U.N. investigation
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Syria's U.N. envoy on Wednesday requested that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon order a U.N. team of chemical experts currently in Damascus to investigate three rebel attacks in which he said Syrian soldiers inhaled poisonous gas. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told reporters he asked Ban "to mandate immediately the investigation team present now in Damascus to investigate three heinous incidents that took place in the countryside of Damascus on the 22nd, 24th and 25th where members of the Syrian army inhaled poisonous gas."Ja'afari spoke just after the five permanent Security Council members finished meeting behind closed doors on a British proposal for a draft resolution demanding a swift response to an alleged chemical weapon attack on Syrian civilians last week. The envoys did not comment afterwards.
(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols; editing by Jackie Frank)

Analysis: Syria, aided by Iran, could strike back at U.S. in cyberspace
By Joseph Menn/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - If the United States attacks Syria, it will be the first time it strikes a country that is capable of waging retaliatory cyberspace attacks on American targets. The risk is heightened by Syria's alliance with Iran, which has built up its cyber capability in the past three years, and already gives the country technical and other support. If Iran stood with Syria in any fray with the United States that would significantly increase the cyber threat, security experts said. Organized cyber attacks have already been carried out by the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), a hacking group loyal to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. It has disrupted the websites of U.S. media and Internet companies and is now threatening to step up such hacking if Washington bombs Damascus.
"It's likely that the Syrian Electronic Army does something in response, perhaps with some assistance from Iranian-related groups," said former White House cybersecurity and counter terror advisor Richard Clarke.
Little is known about the hackers behind the Syrian Electronic Army, and there is no evidence that the group is capable of destructive attacks on critical infrastructure.
However, former U.S. National Security Agency director Michael Hayden told Reuters that the SEA "sounds like an Iranian proxy," and it could have much greater ability than it has displayed.
Thus far, the SEA's most disruptive act was in April when it broke into the Twitter account of the Associated Press and sent fictional tweets about explosions at the White House. The false messages sent the stock market into a downward spiral that, for a short time, erased more than $100 billion in value. In an email to Reuters on Wednesday, the SEA said if the U.S. military moves against Syria "our targets will be different."
"Everything will be possible if the U.S. begins hostile military actions against Syria," the group said in the note.
President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday that the Syrian government would face "international consequences" for last week's deadly chemical attack in Syria, but he made clear that any military action would be limited.
Asked about the threat of cyber retaliation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Peter Boogaard said the government "is closely following the situation and actively collaborates and shares information with public and private sector partners every day."
A U.S. Department of Defense spokesman said he could not discuss specific threats, while another source at the Pentagon said no unusual activity had been detected by late on Wednesday.
IRAN SHARPENS ITS GAME
Cyber experts have said that Iran increased its cyber capabilities after the United States used the Stuxnet virus to attack Tehran's nuclear program.
U.S. intelligence officials have blamed hackers sponsored by Iran for a series of so-called distributed-denial-of-service attacks against many U.S. banking sites. In DDoS attacks, thousands of computers try to contact a target website at the same time, overwhelming it and rendering it inaccessible.
In three waves of attacks since last September, consumers have reported inability to conduct online transactions at more than a dozen banks, including Wells Fargo & Co, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of America Corp. Banks have spent millions of dollars to fend off the hackers and restore service.
Researchers have said that Iran has also infiltrated Western oil companies, and it could try to destroy data, though that would increase the risk of retaliation by the United States.
Things in cyberspace would get more complicated if Russia, an ally of Iran and Syria, were to step in. Former Obama administration officials have said that Russia, which has supplied arms to Syria, has cyber capabilities nearly as powerful as the United States.
Even if the Russian government did not act directly, the country's private hackers rank with those in China in their ability and willingness to conduct "patriotic" attacks. Cyber experts have said that Russian hackers have struck at government and other sites in Estonia and Georgia.
The Syrian Electronic Army's servers are based in Russia, and that alliance could strengthen if matters in Syria became more dramatic, said Paul Ferguson of the Internet security company IID.
"We already have a bad geopolitical situation," Ferguson said. "This could play into the entire narrative I don't want to see happen."
It is unclear how much cyber damage Syria could or would want to inflict, said Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer of security firm CrowdStrike.
"We haven't seen significant intrusion capabilities from them or destructive capabilities," he said.
Earlier this week, as the Obama administration pushed for more support for strikes on Syria, the New York Times, Twitter and the Huffington Post lost control of some of their websites. The SEA claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Security experts said electronic records showed that NYTimes.com, the only site with an hours-long outage, redirected visitors to a server controlled by the Syrian group.
The SEA had planned to post anti-war messages on the Times site but was overwhelmed by the traffic it received and its server crashed, the SEA said by email. Late on Wednesday, some users still could not access NYTimes.com. The SEA managed to gain control of the New York Times web address by penetrating MelbourneIT, an Australian Internet service provider that sells and manages domain names. It could have done much worse with such access, experts said, underscoring the vulnerability of major companies that use outside providers.
"Chief information officers need to realize that critical pieces of their online entities are controlled by vendors and that security policies should apply to them as well," said Amichai Shulman, chief technology officer at security firm Imperva. (Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Tiffany Wu, Toni Reinhold)

Between a Warning and a Game Changer in Syria
By: Manuel Almeida/Asharq Alawsat
We seem to be at most only a few days away from seeing Syrian army positions and infrastructure targeted by Western firepower in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack that reportedly killed hundreds of men, women and children in a Damascus suburb on August 21. American, British, French and German political leaders, as well as the Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elarabi, all vehemently condemned the act as a barbaric violation of international norms and vowed it should not go unpunished. Save warning messages from Iran, Russia and China against the consequences of an intervention against Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, powerful momentum for a military strike is building in Western capitals. The ghosts of Iraq will not prevent a robust response this time around.
However, it all gets more complicated when it comes to the details. One can only imagine the private doubts of the Obama Administration, or of US and British military strategists, over the exact course of action.
It is widely held that the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the Syrian army’s means of delivering them will be the primary targets of the naval or aerial attacks. Nevertheless, there is the danger of temptation to also target the Syrian army’s command centers or pro-government militia training camps. The question—moral, legal, political and strategic—then becomes where to draw the line. A key principle of the century-old “just war” theory is proportionality. From this perspective, it is vital not to forget the other atrocities committed during the Syrian civil war by both government and opposition forces. An exaggerated response to a particular incident, even one as serious as that of August 21, would send a message of obvious partiality and incoherence. The Americans in particular seem to understand this. They have been vocal that the looming intervention will not be about regime change. Yet the deployment of military force can still become an unwarranted game changer. At this point, the prospect of a swift takeover of some of Syria’s main cities by various Salafist groups, which are becoming everyone’s enemy, is even worse than the continued survival of a bloody dictator struggling to survive as most of the country he once controlled plummets further into chaos. This is what the intervention could trigger if it goes a step too far in damaging the Syrian army’s core infrastructure and morale, beyond its capacity to deploy chemical weapons. Without the necessary international support, the moderate Syrian opposition is not prepared to capitalize on such a radical transformation on the ground.  The Syrian crisis, and any possible retaliation from the Syrian regime or its proxies and allies, has the potential to seriously affect the security of neighbouring states—including Western allies such as Israel or Turkey. Thus there is also a risk of the US and other Western states being dragged into yet another conflict, this time even more against their will.
On the reverse side, however, a surgical strike that aims only at sending a signal regarding the use of chemical weapons might came across as too little, too late. It is as though one came across a group of kids fighting among themselves with knives and intervene to compel them to use only clubs instead. This is why, despite all the divergences over Syria between the West on one hand and Assad’s international backers on the other, neglecting negotiations aimed at reaching a political solution to the conflict would be a big mistake. There are mixed signals on this front. The US delayed another meeting with Russia, while other reports indicate that both sides are still very much committed to the Geneva II peace conference. Many parallels are being drawn between past military interventions and the looming one in Syria. Among these, NATO’s bombing of Serbian troops in 1999 after the failure of peace talks over Kosovo stands out. This parallel has two dimensions. First, NATO troops suffered zero casualties, a record that Western leaders are certainly eager to repeat. Second, although its legality was disputed, given the absence of a specific UN Security Council resolution to back the intervention, it is still widely seen as legitimate. By the time this article goes to print, the members of the UN Security Council will not have agreed on the draft of a UN Security Council resolution put forward by Britain. In my view, more important than having UN Security Council backing would be to wait for the release of the results of the UN investigation into the incident on August 21. But the drums of war are already beating.

Khamenei contra fanaticism
By: Mshari Al-Zaydi/Asharq Alawsat
“Anything that is conceived by mind must happen in reality,” say the Germans. For numerous Muslims and Arabs, however, anything unexpected can happen.
According to the Iranian Mehr news agency, a few days ago the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, spoke of the region’s sufferings during a meeting with Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Among the points highlighted by the Iranian leader was that the chief cause of tension in the region was that “religious, ideological and sectarian issues have intruded into political disputes between countries.” The words are wonderful and the advice is kind. We wish this were coupled with action.
Without a doubt, in this region we are suffering from heightened tensions in which religion and other tools are used as a weapon with the aim of prolonging such tension. Faith remains the most prominent of all of these weapons.
Religious propaganda, which is used for attacking political dissidents, is considered to be the most dangerous of all weapons, for it ends cordiality and ruins social structures. In the Sunni part of society, being the majority of the Muslim nation, we have dozens of examples of the abuse of religious propaganda against political dissidents. Every now and then, a new propaganda campaign emerges, the most recent of which are Al-Qaeda and the propaganda campaigns launched by the Muslim Brotherhood organization.
There was much rhetoric about this in the past—and this will continue to happen in the future—but what about the impact of religious propaganda of the Shi’ite “Khomeinist” variety? Isn’t Iran, in its radial political discourse that is aimed at mobilizing the masses, considered a huge fountain of religious tension? Who brought to us Hassan Nasrallah, together with his political, sectarian, radical and armed party? Isn’t commitment to the velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist) a prerequisite for political promotion in Iran? Didn’t Khamenei himself translate Sayyid Qutb’s books into Persian? As we all know, Sayyid Qutb was the originator of radical violence, the discourse that produced Zawahiri and others, as expressed by Zawahiri himself?
Didn’t Ahmadinejad say during a speech he gave in the UN in the autumn of 2005, that he was surrounded by an aura of light and that he was speaking with the Mahdi? Didn’t Hassan Nasrallah, who is much obliged to velayat-e faqih and who considers Khamenei his spiritual leader, say it loudly in his Quds Day speech: “We are the Shi’ites of Ali bin Abi Taleb in the world”? It was odd that his speech was intended to attack sectarianism.
In fact, the guide, and whoever follows in his footsteps, are complaining bitterly about Takfirist groups and are disparaging sectarian fanaticism these days. They did so only when overt clashes erupted between Iran and these groups, mainly in Syria and Lebanon. Actually, the evil represented by such Takfirist groups did not emerge all of a sudden.
We all are aware that Iran ten years ago—and perhaps it continues to be so—is a place for residence, transit or coordination of many Al-Qaeda members such as Saif Al-Adl, Sa’ad bin Laden, Saleh Al-Qara’wi and several others.
The guide’s complaint is not about sectarian fanaticism in principle. The complaint depends on the degree of harm such fanaticism may inflict on Iranian interests. This is Tehran’s true complaint.

Lebanon refugee policies putting Syrians at risk: NGO
The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanon’s new refugee policies are putting Syrians at risk, stopping them from escaping violence in their country, a refugee organization said Wednesday.
Lebanon has introduced stricter measures for Syrians trying to enter the country after officials said they can no longer handle the massive numbers of refugees needing aid.
The country now charges a $200 year fee to be in the country and there are numbers of reports of refugees being turned away at the border for improper paperwork or damaged documents.
“The ultimate effect of these policies is that fewer Syrians can escape the terrible violence engulfing their country,” Daryl Grisgraber from the independent humanitarian organization Refugees International said after visiting Lebanon. Those policies are forcing Syrians to come into Lebanon illegally without official aid or stay in their war-torn nation, Grisgraber said in a press release.
The United Nations is helping over 700,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon while the overall number of people who have fled to the country is said to be well over one million.
Lebanon’s infrastructure has been severely taxed by the large number of people in need of aid, and only a portion of the needed international funds have made their way to relief organizations.
“As the Syrian conflict worsens, it is absolutely vital that Syria’s neighbors keep their borders open to refugees and do not pressure them to return,” Grisgraber said.

Hezbollah mulling response to Syria strike
By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah signaled Wednesday it might not stand idle if Syria is attacked by the United States and its Western allies over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
The remarks by Hezbollah’s caretaker Agriculture Minister Hussein Hajj Hasan were the closest so far by a senior party official about the group’s readiness to retaliate for a possible massive U.S.-led military strike on Syria.
“We should deal seriously with the U.S. decision to attack Syria. Hezbollah is following up and watching the situation and will do what is appropriate at the appropriate time,” Hajj Hasan told Al-Mayadeen TV station.
He did not elaborate on how Hezbollah, which has sent fighters to help forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad in the war against armed rebels seeking to topple the regime, would react in the event of a large-scale assault on Syria.
“Any [Western] aggression on Syria is doomed to failure,” Hajj Hasan said.
He added that the planned attack on Syria was aimed at “weakening the Syrian Army,” which has been making military achievements recently against opposition groups backed by Western and Arab Gulf countries.
Hajj Hasan’s remarks come as the United States and its Western allies laid the groundwork for a possible punitive military strike against Syria amid warnings by Russia and Iran, Damascus’ key allies, of the dire consequences of such an attack.
A week after the purported chemical attack on rebel-held areas outside Damascus, momentum has been building among Western powers for a possible strike against the Assad regime.
The Syrian government has denied using chemical weapons against civilians. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem challenged Washington Tuesday to present proof backing its accusations that the Assad regime was responsible for the alleged chemical attack last week that killed hundreds of civilians in eastern Ghouta outside Damascus.
Political analysts and a senior source close to Hezbollah expected the group to respond only in the event of a massive strike on Syria aimed at changing the balance of power in the strife-torn country by firing rockets into Israel.
Fears of fallout from any Western attack on Syria on Lebanon’s security and stability, already shaken by the war in Syria, and the specter of a new wave of car bombings, have sparked calls from leaders of both sides of the political divide for national unity and a new Cabinet to confront security challenges.
President Michel Sleiman renewed his call to distance Lebanon from regional conflicts in light of rising tensions in the country following a spate of security incidents, including deadly car bombings in Beirut’s southern suburbs and the northern city of Tripoli.
Sleiman urged all political parties to respect the disassociation policy based on the “Baabda Declaration” and put national interests above all others in order to preserve security, stability and protect civil peace, according to a statement read by caretaker Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour after meeting the president at Baabda Palace.
The “Baabda Declaration,” reached between rival March 8 and March 14 leaders in 2012, calls for “keeping Lebanon away from the policy of regional and international conflicts and sparing it the negative repercussions of regional tensions and crises.”
Sleiman and March 14 leaders have accused Hezbollah of violating the “Baabda Declaration” with its military intervention in Syria.
In incidents related to the Syrian conflict, two car bombs exploded in Tripoli last Friday outside two mosques, killing at least 47 people and wounding more than 500.The attack came eight days after a similar car bombing ripped through the Hezbollah-controlled Beirut suburb of Ruwaiss, killing 30 people and wounding at least 300. On July 9, a car bomb exploded in nearby Bir al-Abed, wounding over 50 people.
Speaker Nabih Berri reiterated his demand for the formation a national unity government to meet security challenges, while voicing bitterness over Arab stances on a possible Western strike on Syria.
“An all-embracing national unity Cabinet should be formed now more than ever because it has become a necessity in these exceptional circumstances,” MPs quoted Berri as saying during his weekly meeting with lawmakers at his residence in Ain al-Tineh.
“I am bitter over the Arab stance toward developments in Syria and if a possible strike against Syria is confirmed,” he said.
The Arab League Tuesday slammed Assad for the gas attack, in what diplomatic sources interpreted as political cover for any possible military strike by Western states. Saudi Arabia also called on the international community to take a “decisive and serious” stance against Damascus.
Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, head of the Future Movement’s parliamentary bloc, called for national unity and for distancing Lebanon from the repercussions of regional conflicts.
“The country and the region, particularly Syria, are in these hours going through a dangerous stage as storms and hurricanes are gathering on the horizon,” Siniora said, addressing the Lebanese people, referring to a potential Western attack on Syria.
“This is a time for unity and not for separation. This is a time for solidarity and not for disunity ... This is a time for wisdom and not for insanity and recklessness,” he said. “The Lebanese should work together to keep Lebanon away from conflicts in the region and spare it the repercussions from the coming dangers and evils.”
The car bomb attacks have sparked calls from Sleiman as well as religious leaders for the formation of a new government comprising all the political parties to face security challenges and prevent the country’s drift toward sectarian strife.
Sleiman appealed to political leaders to safeguard Lebanon by forming an all-embracing government, return to National Dialogue and disassociate the country from regional conflicts.
But the Future bloc and its March 14 allies are still studying Sleiman’s proposal for a Cabinet that would include all major political parties, including Hezbollah.
“We have welcomed the president’s initiative, but the all-embracing government proposal is still being examined with our allies,” Future MP Ammar Houri told The Daily Star. The March 14 coalition has supported the formation of a neutral, nonpartisan government, rejecting Hezbollah’s participation in the Cabinet before it withdraws its fighters from Syria.

Moscow muddle
The Daily Star
According to Vladimir Putin, the world faces a “terrible precedent” and a development that could “shake the entire foundations of the international system,” should it come to pass.
Putin was not speaking about an impending military strike against the Syrian regime, but rather the possibility – back in 2000 – that countries would dare to support the independence of the Kosovo region. Needless to say, the international order did not collapse.
In the post-Soviet era, Moscow has sought to protect allies that it inherited from the USSR, such as Yugoslavia (in the form of Serbia), Iraq and Libya. Now it’s Syria’s turn, and Russian officials are busy sending out confusing signals in a policy that appears to be a case of hoping for the best.
Russia has signaled that it will veto any resolution at the United Nations Security Council authorizing punishment of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. However, Russian officials have also made it clear that their country doesn’t intend to act militarily if the West launches a military strike at Syrian regime targets.
Meanwhile, the Russians have taken the regime’s side on the issue of last week’s chemical weapons strikes. Moscow insisted that the attacks were the work of anti-government rebels, who apparently only have the technical ability to launch such projectiles into areas under their control, but not in the direction of military airports under the control of the regime.
Russia’s stance of nearly unconditional support for Assad isn’t surprising, but the lack of forward thinking and leadership continue to puzzle some people.
Is Russia hugely confident that Assad’s forces will defeat the rebels and oversee a stable Syria in the wake of this victory? Moscow has begun evacuating Russian nationals, which doesn’t help its standing with Syrians who support the regime, after it alienated those Syrians who support the opposition.
In the end, Russian officials are fond of showing how keen they are to protect their national interests, but their track record has been one of stubbornly hanging on, in the face of inevitable change.
For more than two years, Russia never managed to convince its Syrian ally that it should engage in meaningful change. Instead, it followed the regime mindset of reducing everything to a foreign-led conspiracy.
Throughout all of the horrific carnage in Syria, Russia has declined to push forcefully in the direction of a political settlement, and is now faced with the prospect of international military action against its ally.
And now, as Syrian officials make fiery statements of defiance, Russia is again following instead of leading, telling the world that it favors a diplomatic solution after doing nothing to see such a scenario come to pass.