Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 03/13

Analysis: Is congressional green light for Syria strikes necessary?
Damascus, Hizballah jack up threats on Israel in absence of Obama-Netanyahu coordination on Syria
Obama assures Netanyahu on Iran’
Syria's Assad: 'The Middle East is a powder keg and the fire is approaching'
Gantz: IDF in high state of readiness
Iran official warns against strike on Syria
Syria: Attack will engulf region, threaten U.S. interests
US lawmakers warn of catastrophe if Syria not hit
Syria has asked UN to 'prevent any aggression': agency
Iran’s Boroujerdi: Strike on Syria could backfire, harm U.S., Israel
Obama, McCain to meet on Syria response
Rival camps’ Syria bets heighten tensions
Kuwait advises citizens to leave Lebanon
Iran, Russia advise Assad to transfer chemical stockpile to Tehran - to avert US attack
Anatomy of a potential Syria military operation: Weapons targets defenses
Insight: As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause
'Disappointed' Syria Opposition Thinks U.S. Congress Will OK Strike, Damascus Says Obama 'Hesitant, Confused'
Arab League Urges U.N., World to Take 'Deterrent' Steps on Syria
Scornful Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates
Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike
Syria opposition says Assad deploying human shields for air strikes
Canada Condemns Latest Violence in Iraq
Syria Opposition Chief Urges Arabs to Back Western Strikes
Conflict in Syria.In Syria, Anger and Mockery as Obama Delays
Morsi to Stand Trial for 'Inciting Murder'
Copt Killed by Suspected Islamists in Egypt's Sinai
Bahia Hariri 'Returns' to the 'People' More than LL525 Million
Sleiman to meet Hollande over refugee fund
Hezbollah mobilises ahead of potential US Syria strike
Hezbollah warns March 14 not to wager on strike against Syria
Jumblatt reorganizing his business affairs
Syrians arrest Lebanese for fighting with Nusra
Warrants issued for suspects in Tripoli blasts
Abu Faour’s Riyadh visit yields no results
Despite risks, security measures still poor
Document reveals CIA job applicants linked to Hamas, al-Qaida, Hezbollah 

Analysis: Is congressional green light for Syria strikes necessary?
By YONAH JEREMY BOB 09/03/2013/J.Post
US President Barack Obama’s choice to go to Congress for approval of his decision to take military action against Syria is just another chapter in a never-ending battle between American presidents and Congress. The fray is over the question: can a president use military force solely on his own authority?
Though the controversy could be traced back to the founding of the US, the modern fight dates back to the 1973 War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the shadow of the Vietnam War to give a concrete way to hold presidents back from getting too deep into an unpopular war without transparency and checks from Congress.
NATO secretary-general warns of 'danger' if world does not react to Syria firmlyObama courts Senate opponents of Syria strikeThe resolution allows a president to take unilateral military action without Congress formally declaring war. But more importantly, it requires the president to report on the action within 48 hours and to withdraw forces between 60-90 days after the action has started, if by 60 days the president has not obtained Congressional approval.
Every American president has stated their belief that the resolution is an unconstitutional restriction on their inherent powers as Commander- in-Chief.
The US Constitution does not specifically list a presidential power to order military action short of total war without Congressional authorization.
Still, every president has said that because the president is Commander-in-Chief entrusted with defending and securing the country, by definition, the executive must possess the power to order such actions on his own in the face of threats that move faster than Congress can operate.
Congress has claimed the resolution is constitutional on the basis of its authority to declare war, to legislate all issues necessary and proper to the running of the country, its power over funding the military and its role in maintaining the armed forces (the Constitution does not mention an air force, but everyone agrees that its intent would have included an air force in the modern context).
Former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton fought over application of the resolution and both of them flouted its restraints where they believed necessary.
Reagan clandestinely aided the Contras militarily in Nicaragua in 1985-1986, while Clinton ignored Congress in bombing Kosovo in 1999.
Both had fights over the issue, and members of Congress have sued presidents, most notably in the 2000 Campbell case, where a US court said that the issue is beyond the authority of the courts to decide, since courts are not equipped to define “war” versus “hostilities,” who started a war and other critical questions.
So the courts will not decide the issue.
Obama himself fought in 2011 over his military action in Libya when it continued for more than 60 days without consulting Congress.
Congress “rebuked” Obama 268-145 for the lack of consultation, but Obama said that at that point he had handed running of the armed conflict over to NATO, so that the 60 days no longer applied.
Presidents have sought Congressional authorization for military action as George H.W. Bush sought for the 1991 Iraq War and George W. Bush sought for the 2003 Iraq War, but both undertook other actions for which they did not seek authorization or were accused of being misleading in seeking authorization.
In general, like many conflicts between different branches of government, the politics of the moment cannot be separated from the legal disputes.
While some have said that Obama may have a stronger affinity to constitutional limitations on presidential powers as a former law professor, the hard facts are that where military action is popular and considered critical to self-defense, presidents feel less pressure to consult and Congressional anger at being ignored is not likely to register with the public.
Where action is unpopular, as in Syria, and the basis for action is more amorphous than self-defense, such as to send a message about chemical weapons use or for humanitarian reasons, presidents, whether Obama or others, are more likely to feel the political and legal pressures to consult Congress, even as they say that the consultation is voluntary and unnecessary.

Damascus, Hizballah jack up threats on Israel in absence of Obama-Netanyahu coordination on Syria
DEBKAfile Special Report September 2, 2013/
Notwithstanding unconfirmed claims by officials in Jerusalem, US President Barack Obama did not forewarn Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about his decision Saturday, Aug. 31, to abort the imminent military strike on Syria and turn the decision over to Congress. This is reported by debkafile’s intelligence and Washington sources. Neither did the US president offer Netanyahu any assurances that Syria was not Iran and the US president stood by his commitments on Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.
Monday, Sept. 9, in the wake of the soft soap pouring out of Jerusalem, senior IDF circles were concerned by the unrealistic mood of the country on the eve of the New Year festival as though Israel and the US were fully coordinated on Syria and Hizballah and the danger of Syria repeating its chemical attack – this time on Israel – could be discounted. The officers explained that the former close cooperation between US and Israel military chiefs was no longer a factor.
“It should be understood,” said a high-ranking source, “that the brakes applied suddenly Saturday night on a ready-to-go US strike against Syria was a watershed event in US-Israeli military relations and a game-changer for the Middle East at large”
President Obama’s shock action, at the very moment that four regional armies of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, were all at peak tension for the attack to begin, will leave a lasting scar on the region for years to come. The finger was about to pull the trigger when it was yanked off.”Informed Israeli sources found confirmation for their concern in an article published in the Atlantic Council of Sept. 1 by Fred Hof, a close observer of the Bashar Assad persona and a veteran shaper of US policy on Syria. He wrote: “The events of the past ten days suggest that there was no administration forethought to the possibility of a major chemical incident in Syria; there was no plan in place to respond to a major chemical attack by the regime.” This view was echoed by the two Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham after they met the president Monday. They saw no coherent, “sustainable” plan of action against Assad other than a few missile strikes.
Those Israel sources found those impressions especially disquieting, coming as they did after nearly two years in which the US, Israel and Jordan had worked closely to prepare for the contingency of a large-scale chemical attack by the Assad regime.
During that time, Israel was persuaded by Washington to ignore 14 limited poison gas attacks in the outgoing year and suppress the information. But after the massive attack of Aug. 21 on the eastern outskirts of Damascus and the deaths of more than 1,400 Syrians, Israel is no longer willing to look away from the threat to its own national security just 100 kilometers away – especially since the Obama administration turned his back on the contingency plans prepared jointly for this event.
Monday, Sept. 2, a French government official cited an intelligence report showing there had been "massive use of chemical agents" in the attack coming on Aug. 21 from government-controlled areas "at a level of sophistication that can only belong to the regime."
debkafile’s Israeli sources add that since Obama stalled the US attack on Syria Saturday, the threats from Syria and Hizballah to attack Israel have gained momentum. They focus on the weeks taken up by congressional deliberations on US action. Those threats were at the front of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s mind Monday, when he phrased his New Year greeting to the country: “If anyone is contemplating harming us during the festival, he should know what awaits him,” he said.
IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz emphasized in his holiday message that Israel’s armed forces can be counted on to guard the nation against any danger.
This struck a quite different note from the anodyne assurances of close cooperation with Washington against the Syrian peril coming from his office earlier. It sounded more as though the prime minister had reason to believe that Israel and the IDF would very soon be called upon to ward off a fast-approaching peril.
Israel is not the only object of Syrian threats. In an interview published Monday by the French Le Figaro, Bashar Assad warned France it will be “an enemy of Syria” if it takes part in military intervention. Foreign military action could ignite a wider regional conflict, said the Syrian ruler. "Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread.”

U.S. lawmakers warn of catastrophe if Syria not hit

September 03, 2013/Agencies
WASHINGTON/BEIRUT: Two U.S. Republicans foreign policy hawks warned Monday that a vote by Congress against President Barack Obama’s proposal for military force in Syria would be catastrophic, as President Bashar Assad warned any potential strikes risk triggering a regional war. “If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic,” Sen. John McCain said after a meeting with the president at the White House. McCain, a Republican, said he was encouraged by the meeting but that there was “a long way to go” to get the resolution passed.
McCain said that he and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham – who was also in the meeting with Obama – favored changes in the resolution that would broaden it to make it more than just a response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s government.
“We do want an articulation of a goal that over time will degrade Bashar Assad’s capabilities, increase and upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and the free Syrian government so they can increase the momentum on the battlefield,” McCain said.
Both have argued that Obama must oust Assad from power and seek to change the course of a civil war that has killed more than 110,000. And both have threatened to vote against Obama’s authorization if the military plan doesn’t seek to shift the momentum of the civil war toward the rebels. Despite this, the White House said Monday it was prepared to rework language to address concerns from some lawmakers who fear a strike could open the door to possible use of ground troops or eventual attacks on other countries. The U.S. said it has proof that the Assad regime is behind attacks that Washington claims killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children, in a chemical attack in Damascus.
Assad told French newspaper Le Figaro that Syria has challenged the U.S. and France to provide proof to support their allegations that Damascus has used chemical weapons, but that the leaders of both countries “have been incapable of doing that, including before their own peoples.”If the U.S. and France decide to strike, Assad said “everyone will lose control of the situation.”
“Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists,” Assad added. Asked whether France, which has been a staunch supporter of the opposition, has become an enemy of Syria, Assad said that whoever contributes “financially and militarily to terrorists is an enemy of the Syrian people.”
“The French people are not our enemy, but the policy of their government is hostile to the Syrian people. Insofar as French government policy is hostile to the Syrian people, this state will be its enemy,” he said.
As the U.S. has been presenting its case to a wary public, the French government Monday published a nine-page intelligence synopsis that concluded that the Syrian regime launched an attack on Aug. 21 that involved a “massive use of chemical agents.” The report also said that Assad government could carry out similar strikes in the future.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said there would be no vote during Wednesday’s parliamentary debate on the crisis. Russia brushed aside Western evidence of an alleged Syrian regime role. “What our American, British and French partners showed us in the past and have showed just recently is absolutely unconvincing,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday at the country’s top diplomatic school. “And when you ask for more detailed proof they say all of this is classified so we cannot show this to you.”
Lavrov said “there was nothing specific there, no geographic coordinates, no names, no proof that the tests were carried out by the professionals.” He did not describe the tests further. Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed Monday to send a delegation of Russian lawmakers to the U.S. to discuss the situation in Syria with members of Congress. Two top Russian legislators suggested that to Putin, saying polls have shown little support among Americans for armed intervention in Syria to punish its regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack.On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. received new physical evidence in the form of blood and hair samples that show sarin gas was used in the Aug. 21 attack. It was not immediately clear whether that evidence had been shared with Russia.
U.N. chemical inspectors toured the stricken areas last week, collecting biological and soil samples, but it is not clear when they will present their findings. There was a brief lull in the intensity of shelling during the inspectors Damascus visit, but fierce fighting has now restarted in the city. Nearly 90 rebels were killed near the Syrian capital over the past 48 hours, a watchdog said Monday, as fighting raged ahead of possible foreign military action against the regime.
At least 29 of those killed, among them non-Syrians, died in an army ambush Monday in Adra, northeast of Damascus, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
The activist group said security forces were also among those killed and wounded, without giving numbers.
Despite the political wrangling in Paris and Washington over intervention, USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as “prudent planning” in case the ships are needed for military action.
The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT (10:00 GMT), but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.
Simultaneously Russia is sending a reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency reported.
The reconnaissance ship left Russia’s naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol late Sunday on a mission “to gather current information in the area of the escalating conflict,” the Interfax report quoted an unidentified military source as saying.

Hezbollah mobilises ahead of potential US Syria strike

September 02, 2013/Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah group, a close ally of the Syrian regime, is redeploying its forces ahead of possible US strikes on Damascus, according to witnesses in Lebanon. The reports come as the daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to both Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, said on Monday that the group had "called on all its officers and members to man their positions."
Residents speaking to AFP in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre said there appeared to be a general mobilisation of the group's members, even if such a movement was not being publicly discussed.
Many Hezbollah fighters have disappeared from local villages in the last five days, though strict security measures around group headquarters and checkpoints have remained in place, residents said.
The situation is the same in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, a stronghold of the organisation.
Residents said fighters, including gunners, had left their regular posts, and switched off their mobile phones to ensure they could not be traced.
In the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut, also considered a Hezbollah bastion, teenagers have replaced more experienced fighters at checkpoints inspecting cars entering the district. A Hezbollah spokesman declined to comment on the reported redeployment of the group's forces. On Monday, Al-Akhbar also reported that the "Syrian army has mobilised units that have not participated until now in the conflict." "It has established an operations room... with Hezbollah and the units in charge of missiles are at an unprecedented level of alert," the daily added.
"The Islamic resistance (Hezbollah) has called on all its officers and members to man their positions," the newspaper reported. The reported mobilisation comes after US President Barack Obama said he favoured the use of military action against Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
But Obama has said he will seek approval from Congress for any strikes in response to the attack, for which the Syrian regime denies responsibility.
Hezbollah is a close ally of the Syrian regime, and has dispatched fighters to battle alongside Syrian troops and against rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. Wadah Charara, an expert on the group, says it commands around 30,000 fighters, including 10,000 with extensive combat experience.
Between 800 and 1,2000 Hezbollah fighters are thought to have taken part in the Syrian regime's battle to recapture the town of Qusayr in central Homs province earlier this year.

Sleiman to meet Hollande over refugee fund

September 03, 2013 /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman will meet with French President Francois Hollande to discuss the overall situation in the region and the establishment of a refugee fund this month. The details will be discussed when Sleiman heads for France on Sept. 6, leading a Lebanese delegation for the Games of La Francophonie in the southern city of Nice this month, sources close to Sleiman told The Daily Star .
Sleiman’s visit will cover a series of meetings with the other participating countries’ heads of state, most notably Hollande. Both leaders are set to discuss a number of regional concerns, particularly the Syrian conflict in light of France’s stance in favor of a potential strike against the Syrian government.
Hollande has expressed his will to support the United States to punish the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons. The meeting will also cover the implications of the Syrian conflict in Lebanon, especially in terms of the large influx of refugees to the country, as their numbers have now reached more than 40 percent of Lebanon’s population, as well as the accompanying political, security and social complications.
Sleiman’s discussions with Hollande, slated to take place on the eve of the games, will mark an important milestone in managing the refugee crisis as it will be devoted to establishing a fund which France had previously called for.
The meeting will be dedicated to discussing methods of fortifying Lebanon and providing it with much-needed aid to manage the growing refugee population, which is expected to rise not only in Lebanon, but Turkey and Jordan as well. Lebanon is set to benefit from the outcome of the meeting, as the fund will help the country carry the burden of hosting refugees, which has already taken a toll on security and politics. There are currently 700,000-plus registered refugees in Lebanon.

Iranian official warns U.S.-led strike will engulf entire region

September 03, 2013/ By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A senior Iranian official warned Monday that a U.S.-led military strike on Syria would engulf the entire region and threaten American and Israeli interests.
The statement by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliamentary committee for national security and foreign policy, was the latest in a series of stern warnings issued by Iranian and Russian officials against a possible Western military strike on Syria to punish the regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
“We think that self-restraint shown so far by U.S. President Barack Obama, this American approach, serves America’s interests on the one hand, and the interests of the Zionist entity’s security on the other, because any political miscalculation in this regard could negatively backfire on the situation in the region as a whole,” Boroujerdi told reporters following talks with Speaker Nabih Berri at the latter’s residence in Ain al-Tineh.
Boroujerdi spoke in Farsi and his remarks were translated into Arabic by an interpreter. The Iranian official arrived in Beirut Monday from Damascus to brief Lebanese officials on the conflict in Syria and discuss its repercussions on Lebanon. Boroujerdi, who issued a similar warning a day earlier during a trip to Syria where he met with President Bashar Assad, also said that the U.S. Congress should “bow to the will of the American people and take the right decision to put a brake to the American military approach against Syria.”
“We think that the American public is sensitive toward and is opposed to any military aggression against Syria given the failed U.S. military experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
Last week, Obama said he would seek the authorization of Congress for a military strike on Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
Obama has accused the regime of using poisonous gas on Syrian citizens on several occasions this year including the Aug. 21 attack which U.S. intelligence says killed over 1,400 people in a Damascus suburb.
Boroujerdi said his talks with Assad focused on three main issues: defense of the resistance and Syria as a major pillar in the resistance axis, Iran’s strong and absolute opposition to any foreign military action against Syria, and its total condemnation of the use of chemical weapons “because this constituted a great danger to world and regional peace.”He said that during his visit to Damascus he found daily life was normal, while the morale of Syrian officials, including Assad, was high.
The Iranian official also met with Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam and several parliamentarians.
“We presented a detailed report about the results of our official visit to Syria and the important meetings we had with President Assad, the parliament speaker, the prime minister and the foreign minister,” Boroujerdi told reporters after talks with Salam at the latter’s residence in Mseitbeh.
Boroujerdi said he had affirmed Iran’s support for Syria, describing Tehran’s key Arab ally as “the principal foundation and the vital pillar in the resistance axis in the region.” “We informed Salam of Iran’s firm opposition to any form of foreign military aggression against Syria,” he said.
Salam and Boroujerdi also discussed bilateral relations and expressed hope that a Lebanese government would be formed.
“We hope that the obstacles still facing the formation of a new government under Salam are eliminated because this matter serves the interest of the Lebanese,” he said.
The Iranian official also voiced his country’s support for Lebanon’s stability and national unity.
“As you know the Islamic Republic of Iran has always affirmed its principled stance in supporting national unity as well as sovereignty, calm and stability in this brotherly country because we think that this matter greatly serves regional security and stability,” he said.
Boroujerdi will Tuesday meet with President Michel Sleiman, caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour.
Boroujerdi also held a meeting with Lebanon’s foreign affairs parliamentary committee headed by MP Abdel-Latif Zein. The talks, attended by lawmakers Nawaf Musawi, Yassine Jaber, Joseph Maalouf and Khodr Habib, touched on the repercussions of the Syrian conflict on Lebanon, particularly in terms of security.
Last week, the head of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard warned that a U.S. strike would trigger “reactions beyond” Syria and bolster extremism. And Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said an attack on Syria would be a “disaster” for the entire region.

Abu Faour visit to Riyadh yields no Cabinet results

September 03, 2013/By Hasan Lakkis The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A meeting between caretaker Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour and senior Saudi officials bore no fruit, political sources said Monday, further prolonging the current impasse over the formation of a new government. Political sources told The Daily Star that the talks “did not yield any results regarding the formation of a new Cabinet.”
Abu Faour returned to Beirut from Riyadh Monday after holding talks with Saudi officials about recent regional developments, including Syria and its repercussions in Lebanon. Upon arrival, he immediately debriefed Progressive Socialist Party head MP Walid Jumblatt of what had transpired.
Abu Faour’s regularly visits Saudi Arabia as an envoy of the PSP.
The sources added that the caretaker minister, who is scheduled to attend a conference in Geneva Wednesday, might also visit France to meet former Prime Minister Saad Hariri in Nice to discuss matters related to the Cabinet formation with him.
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati also held talks with Saudi officials, as he met with Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Asiri at the Grand Serail, where they discussed issues of mutual interest.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to break the impasse, Patriarch Beshara Rai revealed that the Maronite Church was also making contacts with various Lebanese political groups to resolve the political crisis.
Rai’s comments came a few days after Speaker Nabih Berri announced an initiative to solve the Cabinet deadlock through National Dialogue.
Rai voiced hope that politicians respond to the calls for dialogue and reconciliation, during a Mass in the Jbeil village of Dfoun.
Rai stressed the need “to safeguard Lebanon, the National Pact and the coexistence guaranteed by it.”
“Efforts are underway with all politicians to come to an understanding, because we can’t tolerate this conflict among the Lebanese anymore,” he added.
He described the prospects of coming to such an understanding among politicians as “good.”
Berri has proposed a five-day conclave for dialogue to be attended by March 8 and March 14 leaders, as well as premier-designate Tammam Salam, to address divisive national issues.
The speaker said the proposed dialogue would focus on both the composition and ministerial statement of the new Cabinet, a national defense strategy, the means to put an end to Lebanese intervention in the Syrian conflict, revival of talks on a new electoral law and a road map to resolve the national socio-economic crisis.
Political figures across the political divide expressed disparaging views of Berri’s initiative, especially those affiliated with the Future Movement.
Future MP Ahmad Fatfat described Berri’s initiative as an attempt to alter the political system. “[The call to dialogue] is an attempt to change the political system, for he is putting the role of the president and the prime minister-designate on the discussion table.”
He said the call to dialogue would not yield results because “all the initiatives that [Berri] has put forth in the past have been failures.”
Hariri’s Foreign Affairs adviser Mohammad Chatah said that “the Baabda Declaration is a fundamental component for Cabinet formation efforts.”
“If there aren’t meaningful attempts to neutralize the country [in the face of regional conflicts] then talks of forming a Cabinet are meaningless,” he added.
Jumblatt, however, hailed Berri’s call for dialogue because it intended to end the political deadlock.
“The Progressive Socialist Party backs every call for dialogue because it will help prevent Lebanon from plunging into the abyss,” Jumblatt said in his weekly op-ed in the PSP publication Al-Anbaa.
He said that resuming the National Dialogue would lead to breakthroughs over divisive matters, such as Hezbollah’s military intervention in Syria.
“Resuming National Dialogue will help to reinforce the policy of disassociation [from the Syria crisis] and renew the call for all sides to withdraw from Syria, starting with the resistance, which has turned its weapons away from Israel,” he said.
“The resistance’s role should be limited to the border [with Israel] as Berri has said and this requires discussions over a comprehensive national defense strategy to resume,” Jumblatt added.
Change and Reform bloc MP Simon Abi Ramya said “these historical times require all parties to participate in an all-embracing Cabinet,” in an interview with OTV.
The Kataeb Party expressed its support for any initiative which encourages dialogue.
Kataeb Party MP Fadi Habr said any such initiative was welcome “provided it is genuine and leads to drawing a real road map to restore both power and decision-making to the hands of the state’s institutions.”
“The tripartite equation ‘The Army, the people and the resistance’ harms the country and constitutes treason,” he added.Separately, caretaker Energy Minister Gebran Bassil is expected to announce an especially fiery stance against Mikati over outstanding oil decrees requiring the resigned Cabinet to convene for approval.
Bassil threatened that he would take a “serious stance if a government session was not called to pass the oil regulating decree.”
However, sources said Bassil should expect to be disappointed as Mikati is likely to reject his request to convene the caretaker Cabinet. Bassil and Mikati are set to hold talks over the controversialissue Tuesday morning.

Kuwait advises citizens to leave Lebanon
Hezbollah checkpoints that stopped diplomats' vehicles in Beirut prompt Kuwait to advise citizens to leave Lebanon
The Lebanese flag waves from The Lady of Lebanon sanctuary in the Christian Lebanese village of Harissa overlooking the Bay of Jounieh on September 12, 2012. (AFP PHOTO/PATRICK BAZ)
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—Kuwait has condemned the search of a car belonging to one its embassy staff at a Hezbollah checkpoint in a southern suburb of Beirut last week.
Lebanese officials have responded by saying that the search was an isolated incident caused by an individual error.
Kuwait’s ambassador to Lebanon, Abdulaal Al-Qenae, said on Sunday that the search of the diplomat’s car was “unacceptable, violated his diplomatic immunity . . . and the brotherly relations between the two countries.”
Qenae said: “In light of recent developments in Lebanon, with explosions in a number of areas, some Lebanese parties have taken unofficial unilateral security measures without state permission and without concern for laws and international agreements. This has caused annoyance to citizens and passers-by, including diplomats.”
Meanwhile, Lebanese foreign minister Adnan Mansour said: “The issue was incidental and has been dealt with. We have been informed about a certain event, we have dealt with it appropriately and, due to the security situation in the country, some things happen which are dealt with through diplomatic channels. We respect diplomatic immunity and international agreements that govern diplomatic norms.” He added that “we do not want to give the issue greater importance than it deserves.”
Lebanese interior minister Marwan Charbel, however, said the event was “condemnable and totally rejected by the Lebanese state, and cannot be accepted. If we had been informed, we would have done our duty.”
Charbel told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hezbollah admitted it was in the wrong wrong and that the error would not be repeated. He said: “This issue is condemned and rejected. We are in contact and are coordinating with various Lebanese parties, especially Hezbollah, to resolve this issue.”
He said that “although we encourage citizens to be vigilant, we do not agree with standing at checkpoints and stopping cars, regardless of who owns them, whether ordinary people or diplomats.”
Last week, the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti embassies lodged complaints after vehicles belonging to their diplomats were stopped and searched. The occurrence of another incident involving a Kuwaiti diplomat has prompted Kuwait to advise its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately.Ahmed Issa contributed reporting.

In Syria, Western strikes will herald Assad’s fall

By: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
Regarding punishing the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and actually seeking regime change, there is a major difference associated with the language used in the media and with the legal measures required for each distinct goal.
The steps to be taken by the international community against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad will be no more than a limited operation. The aim is to make the regime reconsider its stance and refrain from using gases and chemicals that are internationally prohibited.
It is true that the attack will be a limited form of punishment—limited to the point that Syrian President Assad won’t even have to leave his home; however, the repercussions and implications of such an attack are significant.
This is the first international military attack against Assad after 27 months of fighting. The most important of its implications is Moscow’s shifting stance. Assad’s international ally made unprecedented signs of approving the attack, although it did not abandon his diplomatic rhetoric urging restraint. Russia’s current stance resembles its stance before the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Back then, Russia objected to the invasion but it refrained from joining the fight, announcing it would not militarily interfere to protect Saddam Hussein. The same applies to the case of Syria. This is an important field development because Russia has in the past two years continued to threaten that it will not remain idle if its Syrian ally is attacked.
If the analysis of the Russian stance is correct, then we are facing an important shift in the Syrian war in the wake of the recent Saudi approach towards the Russians. As a result, we notice that the Russians are calmly withdrawing from Syria. First they began by decreasing the number of their military experts. Secondly, the Russians are heading towards abandoning Syria as a naval base for their battleships in the Middle East. Such a move would entail Assad losing one of his most important international allies. Iran and Hezbollah would remain steadfast supporters, but what can these two really do?
An often repeated statement of theirs is a threat to burn the region, Iraq’s Saddam and Libya’s Qaddafi previously made these threats, which vanished with their departure from power. Iran is smarter than both, as it doesn’t seek to involve itself. It forcefully fought against Iraq in the 1980s; after that, it did not fight in any big military operation at all for three decades. It fought neither in the Gulf, which is important to world oil supply, nor in Israel. It always left the task to its smaller allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran knows that the price of confrontation is very high. A one-month war may destroy the military facilities it built over a period of 30 years.
Hezbollah too will not launch its missiles on northern Israel unless it is forced to do so. First of all, Hezbollah realizes that such a move will not prevent the Western attack against Assad. Second of all, Hezbollah’s arms, which pain the Lebanese, represent nothing more than cat-like scratches on the arm of Israel—that is, they are not too harmful. Hezbollah is also capable of carrying out terrorist operations against Arab and foreign interests. These too will not stop the collapse of the regime in Damascus. They will instead increase the world’s belief in the importance of besieging Hezbollah and punishing it later.
We will not witness a repeat of the American toppling of Saddam, which took a matter of days. What is expected is that any foreign intervention in Syria will be geared towards specified targets. These attacks won’t topple Assad’s regime but will contribute to its weakening, laying the groundwork for its collapse at a later date. Assad, despite the unprecedented support he received from Iran, Russia, Iraq and Hezbollah, failed to win the war.
We will see a sick, exhausted man confronted with a superior Western attack. If the opposition and its army had been united, then perhaps there would have been no need for international military sanctions. Assad is exhausted and the Iranian and Russian support did not help him regain any of the power or the lands he has lost.
In addition to the regime’s weakness, it has become further exposed as a result of the withdrawal of Russian support and Iran’s announcement that it will abstain from militarily defending Syria. Let’s remember that this is the first Western military move against Assad. We see the threat’s repercussions embodied in the Syrian regime’s apparent fear and the Free Syrian Army’s preparation to expand its operations towards the capital. All these signs indicate that Assad’s fall will occur in the upcoming months. Fear and desperation may speed up the collapse of his regime well before that.

A Wake-Up Call
By: Mshari Al-Zaydi /Asharq Alawsat
Obama continues to downplay the plans the US is making for strikes against Bashar Al-Assad’s troops, saying that they will be limited, and that it will neither be a full-scale war nor will it be intended to overthrow the regime. All that’s left for Obama to tell Bashar is the coordinates of the targeted sites so that they can be evacuated, and for Bashar and his brother Maher to go away on summer vacation until after the strike is over.
Obama is following a path he hates to travel. The worst news he ever heard from his men was that Assad’s troops have, in fact, used the forbidden chemical weapons, which means that he has crossed Obama’s red line. So now Obama has no option but to reinforce the credibility of his warning.
It is not true that all wars are waged for one reason only. Wars are waged for any number of reasons, such as geographic expansion, resources, religion, patriotism, and even for personal motives—leaving aside the wars sparked by moral embarrassment.
Obama is being pulled into a war the entire world can see he does not want to fight. We all know how Obama shunned American involvement in Syria for two years—despite the bloody nature of the Syrian state of affairs—and how he declined to take a real action on the ground.
In fact, this is a war to restore American credibility. It is also a war to prove the moral responsibility of the West, as much as it is about a shared norm in modern warfare: the abstention from using internationally forbidden weapons.
We have no idea about how serious will this war be. Perhaps all we will see is a handful of missiles, fired to no avail.
It is a source of sorrow that the Arabs have become addicted to repeating the anarchic conduct of denial. In Yemen, pro-Bashar demonstrations took place to express solidarity with the chemical killer, and a Yemeni delegation was even sent to Syria to support him. In Egypt, newspapers—even the sedate ones—are full of various reports critical of the idea of a military strike, and full of talk about conspiracy theories in a manner reminiscent of the Arab media following Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.
There are also people in the Gulf who were influenced by such a discourse and are playing the same tune by demanding an “Arab solution,” as if Kuwait was liberated from Saddam with an Arab solution.
What is required, then? Should we let Bashar kill as many people as he wishes in the hope that his conscience will be aroused someday? Should we wait until the disintegration of the Syrian social fabric stops on its own, or should we leave the Syrian wound open for more Al-Qaeda and Shi’ite militias?
A senior Arab journalist, discussing why he thinks military strikes against Bashar Al-Assad’s troops are a bad idea—having reviewed calls for war in the US, of which he found only a few against Bashar—concluded in utter bewilderment, saying: “If I’m to have a third opinion, I’d say that I wish that the Syrian people would emerge as winners, but I do not know why.”
Amer Ebaid, a twenty-seven-year-old Syrian refugee who fled his country over the Lebanese border with his family to escape the hell of Bashar’s chemicals, his bombs and the anticipated US strike, answers by saying: “The Americans will make their strike, God willing. I want them to make it, but the Americans were never once truthful. I hope they will launch their strike so that the Arabs can finally be awakened.”


Iran, Russia advise Assad to transfer chemical stockpile to Tehran - to avert US attack

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 2, 2013/The Iranian parliamentary delegation visiting Damascus Sunday, Sept. 1, advised Bashar Assad to move his chemical stockpile out of Syria and deposit it in Tehran under Iranian and Russian military supervision, to save himself from an American military strike, debkafile’s exclusive military and Iranian sources reveal.
Chairman of the Majlis Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ala-Eddin Borujerdi, who headed the delegation, explained that Presidents Hassan Rouhani and Vladimir Putin had discussed the stockpile’s removal ad hoc, as the basis of a Iranian-Russian plan for presenting to US President Barack Obama at the G-20 summit meeting in St. Petersburg later this week.
After the Americans accept the plan and the crisis blows over, the stockpile could be quietly returned to Syria, the Iranian lawmaker explained.
Another option was for Iranian and Russian teams to destroy the stockpile in return for US-Arab League guarantees that the Syrian rebels would not use this process for strategic war gains. The chemical agents would be destroyed in stages in accordance with rebel compliance with such guarantees.
debkafile’s military sources explain Tehran’s quest for a deal on two grounds: One - Iran supplied Syria with most of the formulae and substances for the manufacture of the poison agents and fears exposure if they fall into American hands.
Another is anxiety lest an American military strike on Syria’s chemical stores – if it is allowed to go through – would serve as a precedent or prequel for a similar attack on Iran’s nuclear assets.
Tehran is therefore willing to put on an amenable face and meet the United States half way on the disposal of Syria’s chemical arsenal. The offer would be presented as good for President Obama and let him give the American people the glad tidings that he had managed to defuse the Syrian chemical crisis by procuring a joint Iranian-Russian guarantee to eliminate Syria’s chemical arsenal. He could then call off an attack Syria with honor, or postpone it indefinitely to avoid disrupting the process of Syria’s chemical disarmament.
Both the Russians and the Iranians saw an opening for their plan in a phrase President Obama used in his surprise announcement Saturday night, Aug. 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize a military attack on Syria before going ahead. It was this: “…the Chairman [of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff] has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or a month from now.”
The Russian-Iranian plan would turn those words back on the US president by offering him guarantees that if he was not satisfied that Syria’s chemical stocks were gone - either by transfer to Iran or destroyed - he had left himself with time to play with for reverting to his military option.
The Iranian lawmakers told Assad that Tehran is not fully in the picture of the secret Russian-US dialogue on Syria, but Tehran had reason to believe that the Russians had put out feelers to the Americans on the proposition and were not initially turned down.
Russian and Iranian intelligence experts on US politics expect Obama’s limited offensive plan for Syria to run into major obstacles in Congress. They hope the opposition will find added support for its counter-arguments in the Iranian-Russian proposition. And even if it is eventually turned down, the deliberations on its pros and cons would buy time for the Syrian ruler's war effort.
The Iranian parliamentary delegation also included Javad Karimi Qodusi and Fath-o-Allah Hosseini, two other prominent members of the Majlis foreign affairs panel.

Insight: As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause
By Jeffrey Heller and Angus McDowall
JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.
Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.
Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.
Neither U.S. ally is picking a fight with Obama in public. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the nation was "serene and self-confident"; Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal simply renewed a call to the "international community" to halt Assad's violence in Syria.
But the Saudi monarchy, though lacking Israel's readiness to attack Iran, can share the Jewish state's concern that neither may now look with confidence to Washington to curb what Riyadh sees as a drive by its Persian rival to dominate the Arab world.
Last year, Obama assured Israelis that he would "always have Israel's back". Now Netanyahu is reassuring them they can manage without uncertain U.S. protection against Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction but denies developing nuclear weapons.
"Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario," the hawkish prime minister said. "And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might."
That may not reassure a U.S. administration which has tried to steer Netanyahu away from unilateral action against Iran that could stir yet more chaos in the already explosive Middle East.
Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."
Israelis contrast the "red line" Netanyahu has set for how close Iran may come to nuclear weapons capability before Israel strikes with Obama's "red line" on Assad's use of chemical weapons - seemingly passed without U.S. military action so far.
"HEAD OF THE SNAKE"
Saudi Arabia, like Israel heavily dependent on the United States for arms supplies, is engaged in a historic confrontation with Iran for regional influence - a contest shaped by their leading roles in the rival Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam.
Riyadh is a prime backer of Sunni rebels fighting Assad, whose Alawite minority is a Shi'ite offshoot. It sees toppling Assad as checking Iran's ambition not just in Syria but in other Arab states including the Gulf, where it mistrusts Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia itself and in neighboring Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq.
Saudi King Abdullah's wish for U.S. action against Iran was memorably contained in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, including one in which a Saudi envoy said the monarch wanted Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" to end Tehran's nuclear threat.
Disappointment with Obama's hesitation against Assad came through on Sunday in the Saudi foreign minister's remarks to the Arab League in Cairo, where he said words were no longer enough.
Riyadh and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) risk ending up empty-handed in their latest push for U.S. backing in their campaign to rein in Iran, said Sami al-Faraj, a Kuwaiti analyst who advises the GCC on security matters:
"The idea of a punishment for a crime has lost its flavor. We are on the edge of the possibility that military action may not be conducted," he said. "Congress, for sure, ... will attach conditions to what is already going to be a limited strike. At the end, we as Gulf allies, may end up with nothing."
Israel does not share the Saudi enthusiasm for the Syrian rebel cause, despite its concern about Assad's role as a link between Iran and Lebanese and Palestinian enemies. The presence in rebel ranks of Sunni Islamist militants, some linked to al Qaeda, worries the Jewish state - though Riyadh, too, is keen to curb al Qaeda, which calls the royal family American stooges.
EGYPTIAN LESSONS
Saudi and Israeli support for U.S. air strikes in response to Assad's alleged use of poison gas scarcely stands out less amid a global clamor of reproach for Damascus. But the recent Egyptian crisis saw them more distinctly making common cause in lobbying Washington - since their preference for Egypt's army over elected Islamists was at odds with much of world opinion.
That, too, reflects shared anxieties about the strength of Islamic populism and about Iran, which found a more sympathetic ear in Cairo after the election of President Mohamed Mursi.
Israeli political commentators used terms such as "betrayal" and "bullet in the back from Uncle Sam" when Obama abandoned loyal ally Hosni Mubarak during the popular uprising of 2011.
While some Western leaders voiced unease at the army's overthrow of Mursi in July and bloody crackdown on his Muslim Brotherhood, in Israel even Obama's mild rebuke to the generals - delaying delivery of four warplanes to Egypt - caused "raised eyebrows" of disapproval, an official there said.
A "gag order" from Netanyahu kept that quiet, however, as Israel's military kept open the communications with Egypt's armed forces, not least over militant attacks near their desert border, in a manner that has been the bedrock of the U.S.-brokered peace treaty binding Israel and Egypt since 1979.
Unusually, it was Saudi Arabia which was the more vocally critical of Washington's allies over its Egypt policy.
As U.S. lawmakers toyed with holding back aid to the new military-backed government, Riyadh and its Gulf allies poured in many more billions in aid and loans to Cairo.
And Saudi Arabia told Washington defiantly that it would make up any shortfall if the United States dared to turn off the taps: "To those who have declared they are stopping aid to Egypt or are waving such a threat, the Arab and Muslim nations ... will not shy away from offering a helping hand to Egypt," foreign minister Prince Saud said last month.
DISCREET DIPLOMACY
More quietly, Israel has been engaged in direct discussions with the White House, urging Obama not to waver in support of Egypt's military and saying it is time to act on Syria.
An official briefed on U.S.-Israeli discussions said Israeli intercepts of Syrian communications were used by Obama administration officials in making their public case that Assad was behind the August 21 gas attacks and must be penalized.
Netanyahu, whose frosty rapport with Obama blossomed into a display of harmony on the president's visit to Israel in March, has ordered his ministers not to criticize Obama publicly after the president's decision to take the Syrian issue to Congress.
A government source said the prime minister told his cabinet on Sunday: "We are in the middle of an ongoing event. It is not over and there are sensitive and delicate issues at play.
"There is no room here for individual comments," he said. "I'm asking you not to behave irresponsibly when it comes to our ally, just so you can grab a fleeting headline."
That did stop Tzachi Hanegbi, a Netanyahu confidant who sits on parliament's defense committee, complaining on Army Radio that Obama had delivered further proof to Iran - and North Korea - that "there is no enthusiasm in the world to deal with their ongoing defiance regarding nuclear weaponry".
"To us it says one thing: ... in the words of our sages: 'If I am not for myself, then who is?'"
Israel clearly hopes still that Congress will give Obama the green light for strikes against Assad but is also likely to be wary of deploying its own lobbying power among lawmakers.
That risks being counter-productive and, in any case, the president has made clear that threats to Israel from Syrian chemical weapons are among his own arguments for war.
Concern in Washington over a go-it-alone Israeli strike on Iran are still strong; Israel is unlikely to use the nuclear warheads it is assumed to possess but any strike on its distant and populous enemy would have unpredictable consequences.
As a result, U.S. leaders have beaten a path to Jerusalem - Obama himself in March but also Secretary of State John Kerry several times, relaunching talks with the Palestinians in the process, and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who made his third visit to Israel last month.
Gadi Shamni, an Israeli military attache in the United States until last year, said that on the Iranian issue, "there were times when we were in the same book, then the same chapter.
"Right now we are on the same page. There is a lot of flow of intelligence and views and understanding."
MILITANT THREAT
For all the unease that Israel has about Syria's rebels, who have at times fired into the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, it is pushing hard against Assad now after learning to live with the Syrian leader and his father over the past 40 years. One Israeli official said the message from Netanyahu was clear:
"There is a man in nominal control of Syria who is using chemical weapons against civilians. That has to be stopped."
That sentiment is echoed in Riyadh. Abdullah al-Askar, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Shoura Council, said that U.S. strikes should aim to end Assad's rule.
Askar, who said he was speaking in a personal capacity, told Reuters: "If the attack is just a punishment to show that the international community will not stand for chemical attacks, Assad will just remain in his place and do his bloody work.
"The second scenario is to finish the business."
Mustafa Alani, a Gulf analyst with good connections to Saudi officials, said the kingdom was also warning Washington that a failure to attack Assad would benefit their common enemy al Qaeda: "No action will boost the extremist position," he said, explaining that rebel despair at U.S. inaction on Syria would push more fighters to switch allegiance to Islamist militants.
Paraphrasing what he said was a Saudi argument, Alani said: "Without a punishment of the regime, extremists will enjoy wider support and attract more moderate fighters."
Riyadh already shares rebel frustrations with the shortage of U.S. military aid reaching Syria, despite Obama's commitment in June to step up assistance after poison gas was first used.
A senior U.S. official spoke of a "stable relationship" with Riyadh "on core national security areas". But the official also conceded: "While we do not agree on every issue, when we have different perspectives we have honest and open discussions."
As with Israel over Iran, those are likely to continue.
Robert Jordan, U.S. ambassador to Riyadh in 2001-03, said intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and ambassador to Washington Adel Jubeir had been "very outspoken" in their belief the rebels that can be trusted and should get military backing.
Obama denies seeking the "regime change" Riyadh wants. But Jordan added: "It doesn't mean they won't keep pushing for it."
(Additional reporting by William Maclean in Beirut and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)


Arab League Urges U.N., World to Take 'Deterrent' Steps on Syria
Naharnet/Arab League foreign ministers on Sunday urged the United Nations and the international community to take "deterrent" action against the Syrian regime over alleged chemical attacks near Damascus.
But they fell short of calling for military strikes as proposed by the United States, amid divisions in Arab ranks with several countries opposed to foreign intervention in Syria. "The United Nations and the international community are called upon to assume their responsibilities in line with the U.N. Charter and international law by taking the necessary deterrent measures" following the August 21 suspected chemical attacks, they said in a statement. The ministers, meeting in Cairo, said the Syrian regime was "responsible" for the attacks which the United States says killed hundreds of people with the use of sarin gas. U.S. President Barack Obama said he will seek congressional approval to launch a punitive strike on the regime in Damascus over last month's attacks in suburbs of the Syrian capital. U.N. chemical weapons inspectors have carried out a probe in the suspected sites and collected samples which will be sent to European laboratories from Monday. The U.N. has refused to announce its timeline for finishing the analysis. "We have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from first responders in East Damascus, (that) hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. The Arab foreign ministers said those responsible for unleashing the poison gas in Syria must be tried before an international court "like other war criminals." They also called for "all forms of support needed by the Syrian people" but without explicitly calling for military strikes as proposed by the United States and France. Source/Agence France Presse

Scornful Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates
By Yara Bayoumy and Thomas Ferraro
BEIRUT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Syria hailed a "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military response to last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus to consult Congress. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said tests had shown sarin nerve gas was fired on rebel-held areas on August 21, and expressed confidence that U.S. lawmakers would do "what is right" in response. Washington says more than 1,400 people, many of them children, were killed in the attack.
It was the deadliest incident of the Syrian civil war and the world's worst use of chemical arms since Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988. But opinion polls have shown strong opposition to a punitive strike among Americans weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's announcement on Saturday that he would seek congressional authorization for punitive military action against Syria is likely to delay any strike for at least nine days.
But the United Nations said his announcement could be seen as part of an effort to forge a global consensus on responding to the use of chemical arms anywhere.
"The use of chemical weapons will not be accepted under any circumstances," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said. "There should be no impunity and any perpetrators of such a horrific crime against humanity must be held accountable."Arab states called on the international community to take action against the Syrian government.
The final resolution of a meeting of Arab League meeting foreign ministers meeting in Cairo urged the United Nations and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for".
The ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have.
Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told Arab League counterparts on Sunday that opposing international intervention would only encourage Damascus to use weapons of mass destruction.
The Syrian government says the attack was staged by the rebels. With Obama drawing back from the brink, President Bashar al-Assad reacted defiantly to the threat of Western retaliation, saying Syria was capable of confronting any external strike.
He left his most withering comments to his official media and a junior minister.
"Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," Syria's official al-Thawra newspaper said in a front-page editorial.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused Obama of indecision. "It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion as well," he told reporters in Damascus.
Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Warships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence on the use of chemical weapons.
Kerry invoked the crimes of Adolf Hitler, Saddam and the potential threat to Israel from Syria and Iran in urging skeptical U.S. lawmakers to back a strike on Assad's forces.
"This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," he told CNN, saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because they understand the stakes."
WEARY AMERICANS
It became apparent on Sunday that convincing Congress of atrocities committed by Assad's forces was only one of the challenges confronting Obama.
Lawmakers raised a broad array of concerns, including the potential effectiveness of limited strikes, the possible unintended consequence of sparking a wider Middle East conflict, the wisdom of acting without broader international backing to share the burden and the war weariness of the American public.
Many Democrats and Republicans are uneasy about intervening in a distant civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed over the past 2 1/2 years, and lawmakers have not cut short their summer recess, which ends September 9.
Mike Rogers, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, told CNN there were "real challenges," but added: I think that at the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion. This is a national security issue."
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky took a more skeptical view. "It's at least 50-50 whether the House will vote down the involvement in the Syrian war," he told NBC.
"I think the Senate will rubber stamp what he wants," he said. "The House will be a much closer vote." The Senate is controlled by Obama's Democratic Party, while the House is in the hands of the Republican Party.
Members of Congress were briefed by Obama's national security team on the case for military action and Kerry said he had more evidence backing accusations against Damascus.
"I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin," he told CNN.
U.N. weapons inspectors collected their own samples and diplomats say Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has told the five permanent Security Council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - that it would take up to two weeks before the final report is ready.
In Damascus, ordinary Syrians reacted with a mixture of relief, disappointment and scorn to Obama's decision. "I have to admit this morning was the first time I felt I could sleep in," said Nawal, who works as a housekeeper in the Syrian capital.
Bread had returned to the bakeries and members of the state security forces appeared relaxed, drinking tea and chatting at their posts outside government buildings.
"We always knew there wouldn't be a strike," one of them said. "It's not going to happen. Anyway, we were never nervous about it. We were just worried for the civilians. But we're confident it's not going to happen."
FRANCE CANNOT GO IT ALONE
The United States had originally been expected to lead a strike relatively quickly, backed up by its NATO allies Britain and France. But British lawmakers voted on Thursday against any involvement and France said on Sunday it would await the U.S. Congress' decision.
"France cannot go it alone," Interior Minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."
French President Francois Hollande, whose country ruled Syria for more than two decades until the 1940s, has come under increasing pressure to put the intervention to parliament.
A BVA poll on Saturday showed most French people did not approve of military action and most did not trust Hollande to conduct such an operation.
Jean-Marc Ayrault, his prime minister, was to meet the heads of both houses of parliament and the conservative opposition on Monday before lawmakers debate Syria on Wednesday.
French first lady Valerie Trierweiler said on Sunday she was still in shock over pictures of Syrian children killed in the attack and told France's M6, "I do not know how one can bear it, how one can accept it."
Syria and its main ally, Russia, say rebels carried out the gas attack to draw in foreign military intervention. Moscow has repeatedly used its U.N. Security Council veto to block action against Syria, saying it would be illegal and only inflame the civil war. Critics say further delay by Obama is simply buying Assad more time. The Istanbul-based Syrian opposition coalition said Assad had moved military equipment and personnel to civilian areas and put prisoners in military sites as human shields against any Western air strikes. It said rockets, Scud missiles and launchers as well as soldiers had been moved to locations including schools, university dormitories and government buildings inside cities. Reuters could not independently verify the reports, and attempts to reach Syrian officials for comment were unsuccessful.
Obama's credibility has already been called into question for not punishing Assad over earlier alleged gas attacks, and he is under pressure to act now that he believes Damascus has crossed what he once described as a "red line". Failure to act, some say, could mean Iran would feel free to press on with a nuclear program the West believes is aimed at developing an atomic bomb and that might encourage Israel to take matters into its own hands.
"If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria, then clearly on the question of attacking Iran - a move that is expected to be far more complicated - Obama will hesitate much more, and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased," Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed government official as saying.
Financial markets have been concerned about possible intervention in Syria and a delay caused by seeking congressional approval would be "a positive," said Michael Yoshikami, CEO of Destination Wealth Management in Walnut Creek, California. "A delay will let investors calm down and assess things. There was a lot of concern that there would be unilateral military action, because that could have had a major impact on oil prices, which in turn would have impacted GDP and consumer spending - not what we want to see with economic growth still so slow, he said. Pope Francis called for a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria and announced he would lead a worldwide day of prayer for peace in the country on Saturday. (Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai, Louis Charbonneau and Edith Honan at the United Nations, Nick Tattersall in Istanbul, Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Philip Pullella in Rome, Ismael Khader in Antakya, Turkey, Michael Georgy in Cairo, Matt Spetalnick and David Brunnstrom in Washington and Ryan Vlastelica in New York; Writing by David Stamp and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike
By Patricia Zengerle and Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and his top aides launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria, but faced a struggle to win over lawmakers from both parties and a war-weary American public. Obama made calls to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, with more scheduled for Monday, underscoring the task confronting the administration before it can go ahead with using force in response to a deadly chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government. Dozens of lawmakers, some in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for a Sunday afternoon intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's national security team. When they emerged nearly three hours later, there was no immediate sign that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds. Many questioned the broad nature of the measure Obama is seeking, suggesting it measure needed to be narrowed.
"I am very concerned about taking America into another war against a country that hasn't attacked us," said Representative Janice Hahn, a California Democrat. On the way out of the briefing, she said the participants appeared "evenly divided" on whether to give Obama approval. Most seemed convinced that Syria had engaged in chemical warfare. "The searing image of babies lined up dead, that's what I can't get out of my mind right now," Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said after the closed-door briefing. But the credibility of the administration's intelligence is turning out to be a less important issue than the nature and usefulness of the response. Earlier in the day, Secretary of State John Kerry invoked the crimes of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein and warned of a potential threat to Israel a day after Obama delayed an imminent attack on Syrian targets until after a congressional vote. Even as Kerry took to the airwaves touting new evidence that deadly sarin gas was used in the August 21 chemical attack near Damascus, the scope of the challenge confronting the administration became apparent. Lawmakers questioned the effectiveness of limited strikes, the possible unintended consequence of dragging the United States into another open-ended Middle East conflict, the wisdom of acting without broader international backing to share the burden, and the war fatigue of the American public. Polls show the public is largely opposed to U.S. military action.
While Kerry predicted Obama would win the endorsement he wants, a growing cacophony of congressional critics - ranging from liberal Democratic doves to Republican Tea Party conservatives - illustrated just how hard that will be. "I'm not convinced that the administration's support will resolve the issues in Syria," Representative Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said as he left the meeting, adding he was leaning toward a "no" vote. "In terms of whether not a lot of questions were really answered today? I'd say no," he said. Kerry, the administration's most impassioned voice for intervention in Syria's 2-1/2-year civil war, was left to publicly defend Obama's stunning reversal, a decision that puts any strike on hold for at least nine days.
"This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN, saying he had confidence lawmakers "will do what is right because they understand the stakes."
In a round of television appearances, Kerry declined to say whether Obama would proceed with military action if Congress rejects his request, as Britain's parliament did last week.
He echoed Obama's comments in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, insisting the president had the right to act on his own if he chooses that course.
Obama is taking a gamble by putting the brakes on the military assault he considers essential to maintain U.S. credibility after Assad crossed the "red line" set against the use of chemical weapons.
U.S. military officials are using the delay to reassess which ships will be used for a strike, and which sites in Syria to target. One change was a decision to send the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its entire strike group toward the Red Sea to help support the Syria strike, if needed.
MORE EVIDENCE
The consensus on Capitol Hill is that Obama has a good chance of winning approval in the Democratic-led Senate, but the vote appears too close to call in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the president's opponents rarely miss an opportunity to block him.
The White House is due to talk with House Democrats by telephone on Monday, and Obama will meet with the heads of several key House and Senate committees in person on Tuesday.
Acknowledging that the administration has its work cut out, Kerry insisted Congress could not "have it both ways" by demanding a voice and then abdicating responsibility to uphold the international bans on chemical weapons use. Kerry used the television appearances to provide further evidence backing accusations against the Syrian government.
"I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union."It was the first time the administration had pinpointed the chemical used in the attack, which U.S. intelligence agencies said killed more than 1,400 people, many of them children.
OBAMA'S DILEMMA
Obama's efforts are sure to be hampered by his dismal relations with congressional Republicans. Another bitter face-off on government spending is looming this autumn.
Lawmakers for the most part welcomed Obama's decision to consult them, but looked in no hurry to reconvene early from their summer recess, which lasts until September 9.
Underscoring a sense of wariness even from Obama's traditional allies, many Democrats joined Republicans in saying the use-of-force resolution offered by the White House is too broad and that new language will be written for consideration. Several said they wanted it to include strict time limits, guarantee that no U.S. troops would be sent into Syria, and tie authorization for any further military action to additional chemical weapons use by Assad.
"The president said this is going to be limited. Yet that's an open-ended authorization to just about do anything he wants," said Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.
"The resolution as it is right now is so open-ended that it gives a blanket authority with no time limits. You can't accept it just on its face," said Republican Representative Dennis Ross. "Now we have to look at what is the exit strategy if we do a strike, and I don't know if we're going to do that."
Republican Representative Peter King of New York said it was unclear if lawmakers would sign off on an attack on Syria, but he warned Obama may have to overcome "the isolationist wing" of the Republican Party to prevail.
Seeking to lay the groundwork for what is expected to be a heated congressional debate, Kerry tipped his hand on one administration tactic - linking the vote to safeguarding U.S. ally Israel from the Syrian chemical weapons threat. "I don't think they will want to vote, ultimately, to put Israel at risk," Kerry said. Lawmakers of both major political parties recognize how important it is to be seen as defenders of Israel, especially at election time, when they compete to show voters who is a better friend of the Jewish state. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Thomas Ferraro, Patricia Zengerle, Patrick Temple-West, David Brunnstrom, Rachelle Younglai and Andrea Shalal-Esa; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Jackie Frank, Fred Barbash and Peter Cooney)
 

Canada Condemns Latest Violence in Iraq
September 1, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander today issued the following statement:
“Canada condemns the attack that has taken the lives of scores of residents in a camp housing Iranian exiles northeast of Baghdad.
“Our thoughts go out to the families and friends of the victims of this senseless violence. We also wish a full recovery to those injured.
“We call on the Government of Iraq to protect these individuals and continue to work within the United Nations framework.
“Although reports remain unconfirmed as to who was responsible for this act of violence, Canada will be raising our concerns directly with Iraqi officials. Canada urges that those responsible are brought to justice.”

The Last Israelis
by Noah Beck/FrontPageMagazine.com
http://www.meforum.org/3600/the-last-israelis
After constant exposure to critically important news, it begins to lose all meaning and sense of urgency. Hearing the same warnings over and over again—especially when the status quo seems static—can cause a certain desensitization, a resigned apathy that ignores the warnings in the wishful hope that they won't materialize. This hope becomes more optimistic (and passive) with each passing day that the warnings do not materialize.
One of the most evident examples of this phenomenon is the threat of a nuclear Iran. For years, the international community has been hearing about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons; for years, the world has been hearing Iran make bold, genocidal threats—most notoriously, that it will wipe the state of Israel off the map. But so far, Iran reportedly still has no nukes, and no large attack has been launched on Israel. Thus, many have become desensitized to the situation—including those charged with ensuring that a nuclear Iran never becomes a reality.
But that reality has never been closer, as we are warned in Noah Beck's recent novel, The Last Israelis. It is our current proximity to apocalyptic war that makes Beck's doomsday warning about a nuclear Iran so compelling. If the worst comes to pass, this chilling attempt to rouse the West from its torpor could turn out to be that final, horribly prophetic alert that went unheeded.
Much of the public is conditioned by the mainstream media and government to focus on the short-term—U.S. presidents tend to concentrate only on matters pressing during their tenure—and rarely ever on longer-term issues or threats. Thus, a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East seems unrealistic. Add to this the fact that virtually all nations with nukes have never used them, and one can see why a certain apathy prevails when it comes to the idea of a nuclear Iran.
But Iran is different. Its Shiites leaders believe that at the end of times, a 9th-century prophet, the 12th Imam, will reappear to kill all the infidels and raise the flag of Islam in all four corners of the world. Reza Kahlili, a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards, reported last year on the apocalyptic statements from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who dictates Iran's nuclear policy. Khamenei's statements, which were carried by Iranian state media, proclaimed that "The issue of Imam Mahdi is of utmost importance, and his reappearance has been clearly stated in our holy religion of Islam. We must study and remind ourselves of the end of times and Imam Mahdi's era… We must prepare the environment for the coming so that the great leader will come." Kahlili also translated Iranian news reports from last June suggesting that Iran's newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani (the so-called "moderate"), shares Khamenei's views. The reports quote Rouhani thanking the Islamic messiah for his June 15th electoral victory.
Indeed, the Islamic theocracy ruling Iran believes that apocalyptic scenarios are necessary before Islam's savior, the Mahdi, or "Hidden Imam," returns (including a prophecy that Muslims must slay all Jews before he returns); believes that death in the jihad results in instant paradise for the "martyr"; believes the oft recited Islamist sentiment that "Muslims love death as Westerners love life"—a sentiment that has manifested itself in reality all too often by young Muslim men and women sacrificing their lives to become suicide bombs that kill Americans, Israelis, and many others.
In short, Iran has a worldview that is markedly different than the one that guides Western decision-making. Unlike nuclear-armed Western secular democracies, a nuclear Islamic supremacist regime in Iran is much more prone to use the devastating weapons. Thus, the situation is serious, is urgent, and, as the United Nations refuses to act decisively, could trigger a holocaust that sees millions of innocent people—Israelis and Iranians alike—wiped out overnight.
What would such a nightmare scenario be like?
As a powerful, well-researched novel, The Last Israelis provides a gripping answer, and helps to neutralize the desensitization and/or apathy to a nuclear Iran by depicting an all too real scenario of what a nuclear Iran could ultimately mean for the region and the world.
The narrative follows the lives of an Israeli submarine crew. After news that Iran has achieved nuclear status vis-à-vis an impotent or indifferent West, they are yanked from loved ones during an interrupted and all too brief shore leave, and sent on a mission possibly to retaliate with submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles, if a nuclear strike is launched against Israel. Halfway through their mission, the submariners lose contact with base command and the ambiguity surrounding those circumstances—and what they could imply—creates palpable tension and conflict among the crewmembers.
What follows among the crew is a very philosophical—though all too human—debate over what they should do, as it is now up to them to decide the fate of millions:
If the final communication from headquarters states that Israel was "attacked on all fronts," and that naval command was hit and "in crisis management mode," what did that mean for the rest of the country that had been "attacked on all fronts?" What did it mean for [the submariners'] loved ones?…And what did it mean to decide to do something that would kill millions of human beings in just a few hours? Each submariner struggled with these weighty questions, trying to decide for himself what was the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances.
The nuanced debates are particularly interesting because Beck's crew is as heterogeneous and complex as the Israeli society that they defend, including a Vietnamese-Israeli, an Arab-Israeli Druze, an Ethiopian-Israeli, and a Christian Israeli. Based on their individual backgrounds, upbringings, and most importantly, experiences, this motley crew offers dramatically different perspectives—from the hawkish to the dovish—that reflect the diverse views that one finds in a debate-driven democracy like Israel.
Besides issuing an urgent warning, The Last Israelis is so grounded in history and current events—including real people, places, and events—that it provides an entertaining way to become educated about the Middle East in general, and the conflict between Israel and Iran in particular.
And in one crucial respect, this book is no fiction: a nuclear armed Iran is very bad news, not just for Israel, as many think, but for the whole region and stability of the world. Therefore, the world is obligated to act now to ensure that the horrific scenario recounted in The Last Israelis never comes to pass.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War in Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, April 2013). He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Conflict in Syria.In Syria, Anger and Mockery as Obama Delays
By Reem Makhoul and Will Storey/New York Times
BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike in response to reports of a chemical weapons attack in Syria drew a range of reactions from Syrians on Sunday, with rebel leaders expressing disappointment and goverment leaders questioning Mr. Obama’s leadership.
President Obama has said that any attack would not involve American troops on the ground in Syria.
Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.”
Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus that “it is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”
Many Syrian opposition leaders expressed disappointment about the move, and called on Congress to approve a military strike. The leaders said any intervention should be accompanied by more arms for the rebels.
“Dictatorships like Iran and North Korea are watching closely to see how the free world responds to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” the opposition coalition said in a statement issued in Istanbul. Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.” “We were expecting things to be quicker,” Mr. Nachar told reporters, “that a strike would be imminent.”
In the wider Arab world, still deeply divided over President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the uprising against him, the concern over his government’s indiscriminate use of force coincided with antipathy about American intervention. The Al-Azhar University in Cairo, considered Sunni Islam’s highest authority, said on Sunday that it opposed an American strike on Syria, calling such intervention “an aggression against the Arab and Islamic nation” that would endanger peace and security in the region.
But the institution said it supported “the right of the Syrian people to decide their destiny and their government for themselves in all freedom and transparency,” and condemned “recourse to chemical weapons, whoever it was that used them.” The Arab League was scheduled to meet and Washington was hoping to win stronger statements against Mr. Assad. The group expelled Syria earlier in the uprising but has stopped short of backing American action or blaming Mr. Assad for any chemical weapons use.
For others, Mr. Obama’s decision raised questions about whether the United States had diminished its leadership role in foreign affairs, with commentators in Israel fearing a weakening of American resolve in confronting hostile powers. The Israel newspaper Haaretz carried an analysis on Sunday by Amos Harel, a military analyst, saying that Mr. Obama’s postponement of a military strike against Syria suggested that he would be less likely to confront Iran on its nuclear program going forward, and that in the Arab world, he would now be “seen as weak, hesitant and vacillating.”
“The Obama administration’s conduct gives us insight into the strategic challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program,” the analysis said. “From an Israeli point of view, the conclusion is far from encouraging. The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely.
“It’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent,” it said.

Syria opposition says Assad deploying human shields for air strikes
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has moved military equipment and personnel to civilian areas and put prisoners in military sites as human shields against any Western air strikes, the opposition said on Sunday. The Istanbul-based opposition coalition said rockets, Scud missiles and launchers as well as soldiers had been moved to locations including schools, university dormitories and government buildings inside cities.
"Reports from inside Syria confirm that Assad has (also)ordered detainees to be moved to military targets and to be used as human shields against possible Western air strikes," the opposition coalition said in a statement.
Reuters could not independently verify the reports, and attempts to reach Syrian officials for comment were unsuccessful.
Ex-soldiers told Reuters last week that military sites in Syria were being packed with soldiers who had been effectively imprisoned by their superiors over doubts about their loyalty, making them possible casualties in any U.S.-led air strikes. Thousands of loyal security forces and militia, meanwhile, have moved into schools and residential buildings in Damascus, mixing with the civilian population in the hope of escaping a Western strike, residents say.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday he would seek congressional consent before taking action against Damascus for its apparent use of chemical weapons, a move likely to delay an attack for at least 10 days.
Critics say the delay is simply buying Assad more time.
The opposition coalition earlier called on the U.S. Congress to back a military intervention and said international inaction during the conflict, now in its third year, had emboldened Assad and allowed the violence to escalate.
(Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Jon Boyle)

Linking Targets to Political Objectives in Syria
Chandler P. Atwood and Michael Knights/Washington Institute
August 30, 2013
If the United States strikes, it needs to choose targets and weapon systems based on a strategic plan that is well explained to the world.
As Washington moves toward punitive action in Syria, the resultant military operation will presumably take one of two forms: either token strikes aimed at restoring the credibility of U.S. "redline" statements, or a serious attempt to shape the Assad regime's intentions and military capabilities. If the latter unfolds, the target selection process needs to be informed by a rigorous discussion of strategic objectives and intended effects. At minimum, the most likely intended outcome of U.S. and allied action will be to deter future use of chemical weapons (CW). Yet a whole range of broader effects might also be sought while the U.S. military is engaged, such as reducing regime attacks on civilians generally, interdicting support from Iranian-backed Shiite proxies (e.g., Hezbollah), or even halting government offensives and fostering a ceasefire.
STRIKING CW TARGETS ONLY?
There are advantages to maintaining a clean focus on CW-related targets in any strike operation, including the clear linkage between punishment and crime in the eyes of the regime, the international community, and the U.S. public. Yet the ideal option -- taking away the regime's ability to conduct CW attacks by eliminating chemical stockpiles or delivery systems -- is probably not practical outside general war conditions.
For one thing, the regime is likely still carrying out defensive measures such field dispersal and frequent movement of stockpiles, making it extremely difficult to find and target them without a full U.S. air campaign to gain complete freedom of movement for persistent intelligence collection in Syrian airspace. Definitive proof of CW eradication would also require U.S. boots on the ground or unrestricted international inspections. In addition, efforts to destroy most or all of the regime's CW delivery systems would probably be stymied by the vast numbers of artillery pieces, rocket launchers, missiles, and aircraft in Syria, which together constitute a very complex, geographically dispersed target set.
STRIKING MILITARY UNITS
If the United States cannot take away the Assad regime's CW capability, all of the alternative options exist in the murky domain of coercive targeting intended to deter future CW use. For example, Washington could seek to shape the regime's calculus by directly retaliating against the Damascus-based 4th Armored Division, the force responsible for the August 21 CW attack. Specific targets could include the division's headquarters, vehicle parks, and CW delivery systems (missiles, artillery, and rockets).
An attack on such a dispersed target set would be difficult, but still well within U.S. capabilities, and at low-to-medium risk. Syria's air defense network seems robust on paper and would appear to offer a significant degree of protection, but this is not necessarily the case in reality. Over the past few months, Israel launched four airstrikes within Syria that surprised the regime and were effectively unimpeded, including attacks on 4th Armored facilities near Damascus. Although the United States has already lost strategic surprise, its fourth-generation fighter aircraft and other assets are capable of achieving local air superiority, destroying enemy air defenses, and interdicting fielded forces and CW systems in defined areas. These aircraft carry very high-resolution targeting pods and numerous small-diameter satellite-aided bombs that are ideal for "plinking" individual enemy missiles, rocket launchers, vehicles, and bunkers at extended ranges, outside of surface-to-air missile engagement zones. Of course, the possibility of collateral damage and civilian casualties cannot be dismissed given that some 4th Armored elements are stationed in urban settings on the outskirts of Damascus.
Washington could also touch a nerve in the regime by decisively striking one of Assad's most prized units, the 155th Brigade led by his brother Maher, located in the center of Damascus. U.S. resolve would be underlined by a substantial strike on Damascus using manned strike assets rather than just cruise missiles. Such an approach would show the leadership that U.S. forces are willing to "go downtown" into the regime's most heavily defended centers from day one. It could also encourage regime elites to flee the capital, bolster rebel morale, and open new avenues for rebel advances around Damascus.
BROADER TARGETING
If the U.S. government were willing to broaden its target list, it could signal U.S. areas of concern while facilitating follow-on strikes if necessary. Although leadership targeting would likely inflict the greatest shock, it is extremely difficult to do with precision. For example, it could result in accidental (but intentional-looking) decapitation of the leadership or a notable failure that creates a "rally around the flag" effect, making the leadership appear heroic and U.S. strikes seem weak. Elements such as regime propaganda outlets may also be too difficult to suppress, as was the case during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo.
Yet some symbolic targets linked to regime attacks on civilians may be worth addressing, notably Air Force Intelligence headquarters, military airbases at Dumair, Saiqal, Tiyas, and Hama, and the new Iran-financed, Hezbollah-trained "People's Army" units. Various air defense systems and secure-communication facilities may also be worth striking in order to make follow-on attacks less risky for U.S. forces.
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
If a strike is to be more than a token move, U.S. leaders need to approve targeting that sends the most menacing message possible to the Assad regime. Success is more likely if Washington surprises the regime by accepting greater risks than anticipated, or by causing unexpectedly heavy damage that shifts the local balance of power against Assad on a crucial battlefield. A strike would also stand a better chance of influencing the regime's behavior if it opens the way for follow-on operations.
Post-attack information operations will be as important as the strikes. Clearly explaining the rationale for hitting certain targets is crucial if Washington hopes to influence the regime. For instance, by signaling that they want to give Syrian civilians greater protection in general, U.S. officials may convince the regime to regard certain tactics (e.g., chemical attacks) as out of bounds. Evidence of coalition-building for larger follow-on strikes would also be valuable, since a full air campaign -- a key threat to develop -- would require extensive airbase availability from a multitude of allies.
In sum, the Assad regime needs to understand that U.S. attacks may not unfold in a linear or predictable fashion. Put another way, Washington should prevent Assad from concluding that he can selectively trade occasional CW attacks for limited U.S. strikes -- a ratio the regime may be willing to bear. Instead, Assad must be convinced that any U.S. strike is the opening move of a broader campaign that only the regime has the power to arrest by changing its behavior.
Maj. Chandler Atwood, USAF, is a Visiting Military Fellow at The Washington Institute. Michael Knights is a Boston-based Lafer Fellow with the Institute. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors; they do not reflect the official position of the U.S. government, Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, or Air University.