Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 14/13

Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam Hasn't Given up Hope on Cabinet Formation
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam said Saturday that he hasn't yet reached the stage of giving up the formation of the new government, adding there was still a possibility to put together a cabinet.
In remarks to As Safir daily, Salam said: “The Lebanese want the formation of the government and do not care about conditions and counter-conditions.” He said he hasn't yet lost hope and was not on the verge of giving up his task. Salam told As Safir that he should give the cabinet formation all the chance that it's got. The Premier-designate held onto a government that enjoys minimum harmony among its members. He rejected infighting and taking political disputes into the cabinet. Salam reiterated that Speaker Nabih Berri hasn't yet taken a move forward since announcing that Hizbullah and Amal movement would negotiate with him on the shares of the March 8 alliance separate from Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun. Salam is waiting for Berri to provide him with the five names of Hizbullah's and Amal's candidates. But the FPM reportedly also wants five ministers in the new cabinet, which would raise the number of March 8 representatives to 10. Such demands and conditions would lead to a “vicious cycle” because Salam wants to form a 24-member cabinet in which March 8, March 14 and the centrists would each get 8 ministers. “The pace of political and security developments in the country and the region require the formation of a government that confronts the challenges of the upcoming stage along with its dangers,” Salam said. “The region's volcano is on fire,” he warned, saying the procrastination in the new line-up would have severe security, economic and financial repercussions on Lebanon. His remarks echoed a call made on Friday by President Michel Suleiman for rival parties to make “sacrifices” to facilitate the cabinet formation process.

Alleged Rapprochement between Aoun and Hariri after Asiri's Visit
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun and al-Mustaqbal movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri have recently had “indirect contacts,” FPM sources confirmed on Saturday. The sources also confirmed reports about ties between Rabieh and al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc chief MP Fouad Saniora. The development in the relations between the foes came in the aftermath of a visit that Saudi Ambassador Ali Awadh Asiri made to Aoun earlier in the month, they said. The reported rapprochement included talks about a possible visit by Aoun to Paris for a meeting with Hariri, the sources told al-Akhbar daily. But sources close to the former premier denied such a move. Despite the denial, Aoun's sources stressed that any contact between the two parties would not come at the expense of the FPM chief's ties with Hizbullah. Aoun has informed the Hizbullah leadership about the alleged rapprochement with al-Mustaqbal and Saudi Arabia, the sources said.

Aoun Sticks to Understanding with Resistance and to Hizbullah Choice in Cabinet Participation
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun said Saturday that the “strategic understanding” with the resistance hasn't changed despite disagreements on local issues, adding the FPM and Hizbullah would have similar stances on their participation in the new government. “The strategic understanding with the resistance will not change but there are some local issues that there should be leniency in dealing with,” Aoun told Hizbullah's al-Nour radio in an interview. He accused Premier-designate Tammam Salam of putting conditions that were “impossible” to implement. Salam wants a 24-member cabinet, in which the March 8 and 14 alliances, and the centrists would get 8 ministers each. But March 8 wants veto power, which Salam opposes. The FPM wouldn't participate in the cabinet if Hizbullah refused to do so as well, Aoun said.
His remark appeared to corroborate a report in al-Akhbar daily on Friday that Hizbullah officials have contacted Aoun to confirm that the party was committed to having a united stance with Speaker Nabih Berri's Amal movement and the FPM in the decision on whether to participate or not in the government. The report came after Berri said that the March 8 alliance of Hizbullah, Amal and the FPM was finished on issues linked to their shares in the new cabinet. Differences between the FPM on one hand and Hizbullah and Amal began emerging late May over the extension of parliament’s term, which Aoun opposed, and more recently over the extension of Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji's mandate. Aoun did not make a final stance on whether lawmakers from his Change and Reform bloc would attend a session set by Berri for Tuesday or boycott it. Their attendance is linked to the session’s agenda, he said. Aoun told his interviewer that sometimes he agreed with Berri and at other times he disagreed with him. The FPM chief said his ties with him were limited to the meetings held between the speaker and the Change and Reform MPs. Asked about a report in al-Akhbar daily on Saturday about a rapprochement between him and al-Mustaqbal movement leader Saad Hariri, Aoun welcomed any such move among the Lebanese parties. “Rapprochement and stability are for all the Lebanese,” he said without confirming the report. “The Saudis are seeking for rapprochement among the Lebanese for the sake of stability,” the MP added.
Aoun and Hariri have recently had “indirect contacts,” FPM sources told al-Akhbar. The development in the relations between the foes came in the aftermath of a visit that Saudi Ambassador Ali Awadh Asiri made to Aoun earlier in the month, they said.

MP Talal Arslan: No Cabinet without 'army, people, resistance'
The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Any future government will have to adopt the formula of the “Army, people, and resistance” in its ministerial statement, head of the Lebanese Democratic Party MP Talal Arslan said Saturday.
“No government without the tripartite formula of the Army, people, and resistance: everything else is meant to serve a blow to the possibility of forming any government in Lebanon and this is the truth,” Arslan said during a dinner ceremony commemorating the establishment of the LDP. Arslan is referring to the March 14 coalition’s demands that Hezbollah be excluded from the next government under Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam until the resistance group withdraws its fighters from Syria. He also spoke about clashes in the Syrian town of Al-Qusayr, where Syrian troops backed by Hezbollah fighters managed to wrest control of the Homs town from rebel groups. “The battle of Al-Qusayr reduces the chances of things occurring in Lebanon that could blow up in our faces at any moment and what we saw in Abra [south Lebanon] and growing sectarian rhetoric is evidence of how much Lebanon has become caught up [in the Syrian crisis],” he said. In a separate statement Saturday, Arslan said the July-August 2006 war should serve as a lesson for Lebanon and the Arab region that “there is no alternative but the popular resistance in the face of the persistent Zionist arrogance that eats up our religious, political, geographic, cultural and historic rights in a land filled with our blood.” He added that failure in 2006 would have completely changed the region. “I would like to say to [Hezbollah chief] Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah ... that together we will remain in the face of whoever threatens our countries and the safety of citizens, whether via [domestic] strife or foreign attack,” he added.

LF voices support for Hariri's efforts in Sidon
The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces MP Joseph Maalouf voiced support Saturday to MP Bahia Hariri’s efforts toward restoring coexistence in the southern city of Sidon and said a probe into recent clashes there would strengthen trust in the military institution. "Our visit was aimed at affirming our solidarity with the path that Bahia is building toward restoring coexistence in Sidon and to borrow something she has said: ‘wisdom in action eliminates extremism'” Maalouf, heading an LF delegation, told reporters after meeting Hariri at her residence in Majdalyoun. “Because, whether we like it or not, what happened was the result of extremism,” he added. Last month, armed supporters of Salafist Sheikh Ahmad Assir attacked an Army checkpoint in the Sidon suburb of Abra that led to the death of several soldiers. Ensuing clashes between the military and the Islamist fighters led to the killing of at least 18 soldiers and some 28 of Assir gunmen. Hariri along with the March 14 coalition have accused Hezbollah of participating in the clashes and called for a thorough probe into the incident.
In the aftermath of the clashes, the Army said in a statement it had fought alone. “We came here to affirm our solidarity with the wisdom, awareness and alertness that the people of Sidon have demonstrated during this crisis,” Maalouf said, joining his voice to that of Hariri and the Future Movement in their efforts to demilitarize Sidon. “Sidon's dignity lies in renouncing violence in order to live in coexistence,” he added. Maalouf also said his party was against any attack on the Army, hoping “the steps the military tribunal, including its launching of a probe and warrants issued [against soldiers] would boost trust in the Army.” “It is our duty as the Future Movement, the moderate movement, and as March 14 and today as Lebanese Forces to use words as our only weapons and for this line of thinking to progress much more than the language of arms, which are the core of our problems in the country,” he added.

Imported horrors
The Daily Star /The killing Thursday night of a top rebel commander by Islamist extremists is the latest in a recent spate of worrying developments which signal that not only is the Syrian opposition fraying at the edges, but that an alien form of jihadism has firmly arrived in the country. While accounting for a minority of opposition forces, due to their military prowess and access to arms, groups like the Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have made headlines for their gains on the ground. But more recently their rogue actions have gained them notoriety, worrying the international Friends of Syria, and strengthening President Bashar Assad’s cause.
Thursday’s murder of a Free Syrian Army commander, who had gone to meet with the ISIS in Latakia, represents a depressing loss of cohesion between opposition groups seeking to depose Assad. Several weeks ago, fighting was also reported between ISIS and rebels in Idlib, and was said to have killed dozens of the more mainstream opposition troops.
But not only FSA members are suffering. Civilians too have witnessed dangerous glimpses of what life under extremist Islamic rule might look like. In June a 14-year-old boy was shot dead in front of his family by members of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State. And all because he had uttered a colloquial phrase said to be blasphemous. In rebel-held Raqqa stories of seemingly arbitrary detention for allegedly un-Islamic acts have also been reported. Most car bombs in and around the capital have been claimed by these groups also, acts which understandably concern the local population, and likely strengthen any support for Assad’s government which can stand back and claim that the entire country will look this way were the opposition to win, like Iraq in 2006 and 2007 at the height of its civil strife.
Such acts have ramifications far and wide. Foreign powers which support the opposition have explicitly stated that one of the reasons they have stuttered and stalled over arming the rebels is concerns that advanced weaponry will end up in the hands of extremists. Even last month, French President Francois Hollande urged “regular” rebels to retake areas which had fallen to Islamic extremists.
But perhaps the worst potential threat is that to Syria itself, which has for centuries represented a sanctuary for many myriad religions and sects and beliefs. Foreign journalists and analysts have long been stressing the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict, but these latest events represent a disturbing new trend. These interpretations, or rather misinterpretations, of religion have no place in Syria. They have been imported from across its borders, from those trained in Iraq or further afield, and now found home where they are not wanted and they have no place. The more mainstream forces within the opposition must find a way to minimize these acts, for at the moment they represent a situation Assad can only dream of.

Egypt: Army preparing major operation to 'purify' Sinai of terrorists
Egyptian security forces arrest number of suspected Palestinians terrorists while preparing to embark on major operation intended to rid Sinai of jihadists; operation to include F-16s, helicopters, elite forces. Meanwhile, Abbas speaks with Mansour, Islamists call for protests
Roi Kais Published: 07.13.13, 14:40 /Ynetnews
Arab media outlets have reported that Egyptian security forces arrested three Palestinians who attempted to attack sensitive facilities in the Sinai Peninsula. They also arrested a Palestinian youth who was involved in the attack on the Jordan bound pipeline last week. The arrests are part of a large operation in the peninsula intended to fight terrorist currently active in Sinai, specifically focusing jihadist strongholds. Sky news has reported F-16s and helicopters are involved in the operation. In addition to the Palestinians arrested, Egyptian security forces are currently attempting to apprehend an additional group of Palestinians suspected of terror activities.The state-controlled Al Gomhuria newspaper ran a front page headline: "Sinai's Purification Operation within Days", referring to expectations the army would launch an offensive against militants in the region. There have been almost daily attacks and skirmishes between radical Islamists and police and soldiers in Sinai since Morsi's ouster, some of them deadly. Overnight on Friday, gunmen fired on a security checkpoint near the Suez Canal, but security personnel repelled the attack.A number of days ago Ynet learned that dozens of members of terrorist groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood have left the Gaza Strip headed to the Sinai Peninsula to fight the Egyptian army.Meanwhile Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke with Egypt's interim President Adly Mansour to wish him a happy Ramadan. Abbas also said that the Palestinian leadership will continue to respect the will of the Egyptian people and will work to prevent external involvement in Egypt internal affairs. Mansour, for his part, reiterated what he called the historic connection between the Egyptian and Palestinian people, the Maan news agency reported.
Brotherhood: 'Bigger crowds' In the meantime, a senior leader of ousted Islamist President Mohamed Morsi's party called for mass rallies across Egypt on Monday, hours after tens of thousands of Morsi's supporters demanded his return in a peaceful protest in Cairo. Interim Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi is expected to swear in a new cabinet next week to enforce an army-backed "road map" to restore civilian rule, while Morsi's party has continually rejected all political process. "Next Monday a bigger crowd, God willing, in all the squares of Egypt - against the military coup," Essam El-Erian, Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, said on his Facebook page on Saturday. "Egypt decides through the ballot box, through protests, and mass rallies and peaceful sit-ins. No one person, one elite group and military organization will impose its decision on the people," he said.
His post came hours after tens of thousands of Egyptians marched on Cairo's streets in the early hours of Saturday to demand ousted Islamist President Mohamed Morsi be reinstated, but there were none of the deadly clashes that swept Egypt a week ago. The Muslim Brotherhood called on Friday for "a day of marching on", and 10 days after the military overthrew Egypt's first freely elected president, large crowds descended on the capital waving flags and chanting slogans. A week earlier similar scenes of protest turned violent when pro- and anti-Mursi demonstrators clashed in cities and towns across the country, killing 35 people and widening the rift between Egyptians on different sides of the political divide.
Reuters contributed to this report

US sources: Israel behind Latakia attack
Anonymous sources tell CNN Israeli warplanes responsible for explosions in Syrian base
Ynet Published: 07.13.13/Ynetnews
US sources informed CNN Saturday that Israel was behind the strike in Latakia last week. According to the sources, the attack was perpetrated by IAF planes, targeting Yakhont missiles. No comment was made by Israeli sources thus far. The sources added that Israel launched the July 5 strike in order to hit the Russian-made missiles, which Israel believed pose a threat to its forces. The officials spoke anonymously. Qassem Saadeddine, spokesman for the Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council, told Reuters last week, "it was not the FSA that targeted this; It is not an attack that was carried out by rebels. "This attack was either by air raid or long-range missiles fired from boats in the Mediterranean," he said. Rebels described huge blasts – the ferocity of which, they said, was beyond the firepower available to them but consistent with that of a modern military like Israel's.
Israeli officials have made clear that if advanced weaponry is transferred from President Bashar Assad's army to Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, it would include the long-range Yakhonts, which could help Hezbollah repel Israel's navy and endanger its offshore gas rigs. In May, Israel and its US ally complained about Moscow sending the missiles to Syria. Israel said they would likely end up with Hezbollah. The Lebanese group has said it does not need them. Asked about the Latakia blasts, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon told reporters: "We have set red lines in regards to our own interests, and we keep them. There is an attack here, an explosion there, various versions - in any event, in the Middle East it is usually we who are blamed for most."

Syria: FSA says they are at war with Al-Qaeda
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—The opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) has announced that the killing of senior commander Kamal Hamami by the Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a declaration of war. Infighting among Syrian rebel forces appears to be on the rise following ISIL’s targeting of Hamami, a member of the FSA’s Supreme Military Council, earlier this week. FSA spokesman Qassim Saad Eddin confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that “Takfirist elements affiliated with ISIL killed a member of the FSA military council, Kamal Hamami,” adding, “such violations will bring us into unwanted confrontations.” FSA will be able to emerge from this confrontation victorious given that ISIL has far less numbers than the umbrella opposition military force, Saad Eddin added. Saad Eddin stressed that “we are pursuing a common objective, toppling the regime,” accusing “some elements that have infiltrated ISIL and some FSA battalions” of sowing discord among the rebels. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, sources close to Hamami claimed that that ISIL commander Abu Ayman Al-Baghdadi had directly ordered the FSA commander’s death. The incident took place in Nabe’ Al-Mur, a village in the coastal province of Lattakia. FSA commander Kamal Hamami was reportedly heading to a meeting with members of the rival to discuss battle plans when he was accused of apostasy and shot in the belly. Before his death, Hamami commanded the FSA-affiliated Al-Ez bin Abdul Salam battalion and was considered to be among the top 30 opposition military commanders on the ground in Syria. It was reported yesterday that several senior FSA commanders considered this act as a “declaration of war.” An anonymous Syrian activist told Asharq Al-Awsat that “Al-Nusra Front and the ISIL impose a heavy burden on the Syrian revolution.”ISIL along with Al-Nusra Front are thought to be among the most active Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist groups in Syria, raising fears over the growing influence of Al-Qaeda on the Syrian conflict.

US to media: Israel struck Latakia arsenal last week. Will Putin and Assad make good on threats of reprisal
DEBKAfile Special Report July 13, 2013/http://www.debka.com/article/23116/US-to-media-Israel-struck-Latakia-arsenal-last-week-Will-Putin-and-Assad-make-good-on-threats-of-reprisal-
US officials early Saturday, July 13 named Israel as responsible for the July 5 air strikes against the big arms depot at a Syrian naval base in the Alawite port city of Latakia. Dispelling conflicting reports, three US officials asserted that Israel had conducted the air strikes for demolishing the advanced Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles stored there.
debkafile’s military sources report that three strategic arsenals were targeted: One consisted of weapons mostly delivered by Russian air freights in the last two months for the Syrian-Hizballah offensive to recapture Aleppo. A second contained the supersonic Yakhont anti-ship missiles (NATO codenamed SS-N-26) plus their radar systems; and the third, the Syrian army’s strategic reserve of missiles and ammunition, stored there for an emergency, such a possible forced Syrian army retreat to the Alawite region - or even Lebanon. It is important to note that, although Moscow was perfectly aware that the advanced Russian weapons supplied to Syria were put in the hands of the Lebanese Hizballah, the consignments were not only not suspended but expanded. Moscow is therefore directly arming HIzballah with advanced weapons. During the attack, neither Syrian radar nor that of the Russian warships cruising off the Syria coast registered any aircraft or missiles heading for the Latakia depot. They were therefore unable to positively identify the source of the explosions.
Israel and the IDF held their silence – hoping that matters would stay that way, unlike their air strike of May 5 which destroyed Iranian arms shipments for Hizballah stored in the Damascus area, when American sources made haste to finger Israel. This time, too, after a few days’ pause, Washington again broke the story.
This step coincided with US President Barack Obama’s early Saturday phone call to Saudi King Abdullah to discuss the Syrian crisis. They may have discussed a potential Russian or Syrian reprisal for the Israeli air strike.
In their rough, acerbic encounter at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on May 14, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned President Vladimir Putin that if Russia sends advanced weaponry to Syria, such as S-300 anti-aircraft missiles or sophisticated radar for upgrading the Yakhont missiles, Israel would destroy them. Putin retorted that if Israel did this, Moscow would hit back. After Israel’s air strikes over Damascus of May 5, Syrian President Bashar Assad said repeatedly, as did Hizballah and Iranian officials, that another Israeli attack on Syria would elicit an immediate Syrian reprisal. The theme running through the Syrian and Hizballah warnings was a threat to open a new warfront against Israel from the Golan. And so, two days after the IDF detected Hizballah movements on the Golan opposite the Israeli border, the army spokesman Monday, July 8, announced the deployment of extra Israeli forces in the divided enclave.Tuesday, July 9, a car bomb blew up at Hizballah’s office building in the Bir al-Abd quarter of South Beirut. A next-door Shiite mosque and a technical school were also hit. At least 53 people were injured. Hizballah did not admit that the targeted office building housed the intelligence and communications centers for its combat operations in Syria. When no organization took responsibility for the attack, Beirut and Tehran pointed the finger at Israeli intelligence as the culprit.

Egypt, a typical Arab case
By: Bakr Oweida/Asharq Al-Awsat
A democrat sides with a member of the military to topple an elected president. A liberal lines up with the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood who wants to ikhwanizethe society. Well, what is the problem? In normal circumstances nobody is supposed to object or even show surprise because freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to say whatever they believe. However is it normal for the majority not to tolerate the minority? Or for the democrats and the liberals to clash with the nationalists, while the Islamists oppose them all?  There is another problem in Egypt, but we first must choose to acknowledge it, rather than turn a blind eye. This is the issue of so-called democrats appearing to have no problem whatsoever with the military measures. However there is a wider trend to deny this contradiction between the democratic system and military attempts to forcibly remove those who came to power via the ballot box. Furthermore, such democrats are rushing to defend the military, claiming that it did not stage a coup but rather answered the call of the people to save the revolution.
On the other hand, neither Egypt’s liberals nor nationalists seem to be better off. Even though such groups have expressed surprise, or even rejection, towards what happened, they deny support the politicization of religion or being sympathetic with the ideas of a group that publicly announced that it wants to implement Islamic Sharia law. These liberals and nationalists instead shelter under the umbrella of pan-Arabism and judge others in line with the attitudes they take on this subject. All of this is well and good. It is not wrong to outline contradictions. What is wrong is to refuse to listen to the other side in a careful and respectful manner.
What is wrong is when the majority rejects the opinion of the minority, using uncivil discourse.
However this has been the case in the Arab world for thousands of years. Let us not go too far back in time, and instead focus on what happened in the Arab region following the eruption of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Until now, Arab thinkers and intellectuals continue to exchange accusations regarding this revolution. When the war between Iran and Iraq broke out, differences of opinion emerged amongst the Arabs. Some said: How can national secularist support the Khomeinist camp against our Iraqi brothers? While others asked: How can devout Muslims support a regime that endorses the separation of religion from state?
Hence, ties between Arab countries continued to weaken decade by decade. From the Camp David accord and the Lebanese civil war to wars in Palestine, Libya, Syria and Iraq; nothing has changed, this is all a repetition of events. Even with some pretending the opposite, the majority of decision-makers in the Arab world refuse to give the opposition the right to be right. Arab decision-makers have fallen short of putting personal issues aside in good faith, even if they pretend to do so. As a result, Egypt is gradually entering into a tunnel of chaos, or shall we say, the quagmire of civil war. While others are hotly debating whether what happened is a military coup or an attempt to rescue the revolution, I again repeat that the problem is not in debating what happened, but looking at its consequences and repercussions. Will this widen the gap between Egyptians, not only between politicians and intellectuals? Or will it bridge the gap between them for the sake of Egypt’s present and future and the interests of the Egyptian people? These are the questions that must be answered.

Turkey’s Alawite Opening
By : Soner Cagaptay/Asharq Al-Awsat
In recent months, Turkey has done the unthinkable, launching peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an organization Ankara designates as a terrorist group. An important motivation for this breakthrough has been Turkey’s Syria policy. Turkey is pursuing regime change in Syria, supporting the rebels to oust the Assad regime. To this end, Ankara needs all the friends it can get, even if it means reaching out to its former foes. The PKK has a strong presence inside Syria, and by making peace with the group, Turkey hopes to bring this organization to its side against the Assad regime.
Now, the Syrian crisis is making it imperative that Turkey do the next unthinkable thing: reach out to the Alawites, both in Syria and at home. This would help Ankara stave-off instability emanating from Syria. “With Syria becoming a weak and divided state, and with no end to the conflict in sight,” as a recent International Crisis Group (ICG) report bluntly puts it, Turkey needs to make friends with all Syrian groups to ensure that it can manage the chaos there. Also, reaching out to the Syrian Alawites would be an important gesture for the Turkish Alawite community, which is mostly concentrated in the country’s southernmost Hatay province, next to Syria.
Tensions are brimming to the surface between the government and the Turkish Alawites. After Ankara began providing safe haven to Syrian opposition groups and armed rebels in fall 2011, Turkey’s Alawites grew suspicious of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s policies. The Alawites have played a disproportionately large role in anti-AKP rallies, including a March 9 demonstration that drew two thousand people and a late-2012 protest attended by some eight thousand. Turkey’s Alawites are angry at Ankara’s Syria policy which they see as thinly-veiled support for the Syrian Sunnis to the detriment of their kin, the Syrian Alawites.
In pursuing an Alawite opening, the AKP government in Ankara has an unlikely, yet invaluable, partner: Turkey opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP). The CHP is popular among Turkish Alawites and has already reached out to the Ba’athist regime in Damascus, gaining recognition with the Syrian Alawites who support this regime.
These CHP delegations have been rather sympathetic to the Assad regime in Syria. In October 2011, the party sent a delegation over the border on invitation from the Syrian Women’s Union. After visiting Damascus, Hama, and Latakia, the delegation stated its opposition to “foreign intervention in Syria’s domestic affairs.” More recently, four CHP deputies visited Assad in Damascus in early March. In a public relations stunt, they undermined the AKP’s Syria policy, asserting that the Turkish people “reject intervention in Syria.”Today, whereas many Alawite supporters of the Assad regime deeply distrust the Ankara government, it would not be far-fetched to say that these Alawites have warmer feelings towards the CHP. The Turkish Alawites, a community of about a half-million people, also favor the CHP. A recent poll by CHP parliamentarian Sabahat Akkiraz indicated that 83 percent of Turkish Alawites supported her party in the 2011 elections. Reaching out to the Syrian Alawites would bring tremendous benefit to both Turkey, and the peoples of Syria. Ankara fears that the Alawite-Sunni conflict in Syria could eventually spillover into its territory, stoking tensions between Sunnis and Alawites in the Hatay province. This is why an “Alawite opening”—led by the CHP, and encouraged by the AKP—makes sense. The AKP may not want to share Syria policy with the CHP; but it is clearly in the AKP’s interests to do engage the opposition party, filling in the gaps of its Syria policy. The CHP may be tempted to work with the AKP if the governing party includes it in the decision making process regarding Syria in Ankara, providing the CHP with cache. Turkey has already taken some positive steps towards the Syrian Alawites, for instance establishing separate quarters in Hatay for Alawites who want to abandon the Assad regime. An AKP-CHP joint committee to discuss Syria would send the right message to the Syrian and Turkish Alawites, alike. Syria is disintegrating into a weak and divided state, and whether Assad stays or goes, Turkey will face growing instability at its doorstep in the coming years. Unfortunately, Sunni-Alawite conflict will be a major axis of this instability. Ankara, which already has strong ties with the Syrian Sunnis, can minimize its exposure to these risks by building bridges with the Syrian Alawites. And the CHP could be the perfect partner for the job.
**Soner Cagaptay, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of the forthcoming "The Rise of Turkey: the 21st Century's First Muslim Power." Follow him on Twitter @sonercagaptay

What Have U.S. Troops Been Doing in Jordan?
David Schenker/The Washington Institute.
CNN Global Public Square/If Washington wants to shore up King Abdullah and secure Jordan, it should do everything possible to hasten the departure of Syria's Assad regime. Weeks ago, fearing a reprise of the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Washington reportedly stationed hundreds of Marines to Sicily in the event they were required to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. But these soldiers aren't the only U.S. assets in the region guarding against contingencies. In late June, thousands of U.S. service members wrapped up a 14-day annual multilateral military training exercise in Jordan known as "Eager Lion." At King Abdullah's request, 900 of these American soldiers, a squadron of F-16s, and a Patriot Missile Battery have -- according to President Obama -- remained behind to support "the security of Jordan," a state increasingly threatened by spillover from the war in neighboring Syria. And should reinforcements be required, the Marine amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge is steaming off the coast of Aqaba. While King Abdullah is no doubt pleased with the demonstration of U.S. commitment to Jordan's stability, not everyone is applauding the deployment. Not surprisingly, Moscow -- which supports Syria's Assad regime -- has said U.S. soldiers in the Kingdom "doesn't help." Of more concern, however, is that many Jordanians themselves apparently oppose the presence of U.S. troops on Jordanian soil. Indeed, on April 22, 87 Jordanians of tribal origin -- a cohort traditionally considered the monarch's leading supporters -- penned an open letter to the King condemning his decision and labeling U.S. troops on the ground as "a legitimate target for all honorable Jordanians." Today, Jordan is home to nearly 600,000 Syrian refugees -- nearly 10 percent of the Kingdom's population -- and faces a severe economic crisis that has prompted cuts to a broad range of food and energy subsidies. Over the past two years, the Kingdom has experienced sustained protests focused on the stagnant economy and the widespread perception of officially-sanctioned corruption.
At present, it's unclear how widespread the anti-U.S. troop sentiment is, but if it deepens and expands, the deployment of American soldiers in Jordan could become yet another problem for an increasingly embattled King Abdullah. In addition to opposing U.S. troops on the ground, the April letter highlighted what appears to be a growing local concern that the Jordanian army may be deployed to Syria. After all, as the note points out, "Our first and last enemy is Israel." Echoing a similar statement issued by the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood that month, the letter also rejected the prospect that Jordanian territory be used by "foreign forces" to attack "Arab and Islamic lands." Opposition to the U.S. presence and to a potential Jordanian military intervention in Syria is not limited to just the Kingdom's Islamists. One of Jordan's most prominent secular political parties, the National Front for Reform, for example, has weighed in against the deployment and called for non-interference in the conflict. But perhaps the most credible group to inveigh against the basing has been the National Committee of Retired Military Officers, an organization comprised of both tribal leaders and former high ranking servicemen.
In June, the Retired Officers sent their own open letter to King Abdullah that touched on a long list of grievances, ranging from Royal corruption to the marginalization of tribes in the Kingdom. The letter also warned against "dependence on foreigners" for Jordan's defense. Instead of basing U.S. soldiers and equipment, the group advised that King Abdullah should follow the "perfect example" of his late father King Hussein during the 1991 war in Iraq, when the Kingdom remained neutral. More recently, Ali Habashneh, the retired general who heads the Officers' organization, described the establishment of the U.S. military base as "a black day" that marked "the return of colonialism" to Jordan. Amman appears to be taking the complaints seriously. On June 20, Chairman of the Jordanian military's Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mashal al Zaben held a press conference to assure Jordanians that the American soldiers and military assets were simply there to "help Jordan defend itself" and that their presence would not compromise the Kingdom's sovereignty. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour is denying reports that the CIA has been training Syrian rebels in Jordan since 2012. Notwithstanding Amman's efforts to limit popular dissent about American boots on the ground, letters of opposition and public protests over the U.S. deployment are likely to continue. That's because even as Jordanians largely support the rebels in Syria and hope for a quick end to the war next door, only a small minority of the Kingdom's residents -- 12 percent according to a 2012 Pew Poll -- view the United States favorably. Alas, based on this enduring unpopularity and the open-ended deployment, U.S. troops will remain a persistent irritant to locals.
Spillover from the deterioration in Syria increasingly threatens the Kingdom. To be sure, the high profile nature of the U.S. troop deployment was intended as a message to the al-Assad regime. And in a worst case scenario, U.S. soldiers in Jordan can help the Kingdom cope with chemical weapons consequence management. Yet the American GIs in Jordan are not cost free for King Abdullah: the deployment will join a long list of ongoing complaints the King has to manage. Given the stakes, dispatching military personnel and assets to the Kingdom was the right call. But several hundred U.S. soldiers will not insulate Jordan from its most significant threats. Jordanian stability is a casualty of the Obama Administration's vacillation on Syria. If Washington wants to shore up King Abdullah and secure the realm, it will do everything possible to hasten the departure of Syria's al-Assad regime.
*David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute.