Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources

Why the West must intervene in Syria/By: Andrew Coyne/Canada.ca/September 08/13

The day after the US attack on Syria/The Daily Star/ September 08/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 08/13

Lebanese Related News

Night Prayers for Syria Peace at Lebanon Churches
Report: U.S. Decision to Distance Lebanon from Repercussions of Syria Strike

Suleiman in Nice for Francophone Games Opening, Meets Hollande Saturday

Suleiman Lauds Lebanon's Youth for Resisting Israel, Defeating Terror
Hezbollah, Iran and Syria prepare for counterattack

U.S. gearing for ‘war’ against Syria: Hezbollah MP

U.S. orders some embassy staff to leave Lebanon

New U.S. envoy says seeking to insulate Lebanon from Syria strike

Italian warship could evacuate Lebanon troops:

Syria strike talk prompts protest at U.S. Embassy
Sleiman: Don’t let Syria strike hurt Lebanon
Extraordinary Security Measures Near Diplomatic Missions over Syria Strike Fears

Mansour Plays Down Evacuations as 'Internal Procedures'

Diplomats: UNIFIL Considers Hush-Hush Evacuation of Families from South

Miscellaneous News

Is prosecuting Assad a better option than Syria strike?
New clashes at Syrian Christian town Maalula: watchdog

Hezbollah, Iran and Syria ready for counterattack

Obama tells nation that Syria is 'not another Iraq or Afghanistan'

Kerry Seeks EU Support on Syria Strike after G20 Split

Obama: Most of G20 agrees Assad used chemical arms, but split over military action
US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses

America's real Middle East priority: Iran

Clashes flare at pro-Morsi marches across Egypt, two dead
Israelis bewildered by Iranian president's Rosh Hashanah greeting
Top Obama aide: No US military action without okay from Congress
US envoy to UN: Assad barely dented stockpile of chemical weapons
Report: US strike on Syria to be 'significantly larger than expected'

Poll: Two-thirds of French Oppose Syria Action

US 'exhausted alternatives' to military action

EU urges 'clear, strong response' to Syria chemical attack

AIPAC to lobby Congress for Syria strike
US officials: Iran plotting retaliation

Egyptian troop column moves into the Sinai

Syria, Egypt turmoil nudges Israel and Palestinians toward peace
Egypt's Morsi faces new accusation of insulting judges  

Night Prayers for Syria Peace at Lebanon Churches
Naharnet/Churches in Lebanon will hold prayers on Saturday night for peace in Syria and against any armed intervention, with Pope Francis scheduled to host a mass vigil on St. Peter's Square. Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi will lead prayers at Our Lady of Lebanon basilica in Harissa at 8:00 pm. The Maronite bishops denounced Wednesday the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, but warned against a U.S.-led military strike in Syria.
Following a meeting under al-Rahi, the bishops called for resolving the Syrian crisis through dialogue and peaceful diplomatic means. Roman Catholic Patriarch Gregarious III Laham has also asked bishops to open the doors of churches on Saturday from 7:00 pm until 12:00 am to pray with the believers. Francis has ratcheted up his call for peace in Syria amid the threatened U.S.-led military strikes following the alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus. But he has also been careful not to lay blame on any one side, exhorting world leaders instead to focus on the plight of Syrian civilians and the need to end the violence. Syria's Sunni Muslim leader, Grand Mufti Ahmed Badreddin Hassoun, has called for Syrians to join in the prayers, and the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, has said he is also backing the initiative. In Lebanon, the vice president of the Higher Shiite Council, Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan, has also backed the pope's call for a day of fasting and prayer. "Islam calls consistently for peace and harmony, and we consistently condemn killings, terrorism and foreign interference," he said. Source/Agence France Presse/Naharnet.

Report: U.S. Decision to Distance Lebanon from Repercussions of Syria Strike
Naharnet /U.S. Ambassador David Hale, who assumed his mission in Beirut on Friday, informed Caretaker Premier Najib Miqati that there is an official decision to steer Lebanon clear of the repercussions of a possible military strike on Syria, An Nahar daily reported on Saturday. The newspaper said that Hale told Miqati during a meeting they held at the Grand Serail that Washington has officially decided to distance Lebanon from the possible strike against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack by the regime, which the U.S. administration said killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus.
He stressed that Lebanese airspace will not be used in the strike to prevent any repercussions on Lebanon, An Nahar added. A statement issued by Miqati's press office Friday, said the diplomat called for isolating Lebanon from any repercussions of the possible military strike He voiced his support for Lebanon's policy of disassociation. But criticized Hizbullah's participation in the fighting alongside the Syrian regime, which he said will only exacerbate problems for Lebanon. The State Department on Friday ordered nonessential American diplomats and the families of staffers at the U.S. Embassy to leave Lebanon immediately due to security concerns as the Obama administration and Congress debate the military strikes on Syria. The step had been under consideration since last week when President Barack Obama said he was contemplating military action against the Syrian government. The administration is concerned that such action may spark reprisal attacks on U.S. interests in the region.

The day after
September 07, 2013/The Daily Star
It’s a critical time, being in the heat of the moment. The fever-pitch chatter about an imminent Western strike on Syrian military facilities from last week has returned, and once again the region plunges into a murky world of rumors and speculation on the when, where and who. There are already four U.S. destroyer ships in the Mediterranean, with a fifth reportedly on its way. Russia’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union is at the Syrian port of Tartous, and the country’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Thursday they had a “pretty strong group” in the Mediterranean.
It is as if we have returned to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the very peak of the Cold War, with the world’s superpowers engaging in a serious faceoff and potentially explosive game of brinkmanship. Russia’s real-time announcement this week that the U.S. and Israel had fired missiles in the Mediterranean – an apparent “test” – was a clear warning shot from President Vladimir Putin: America, we are watching you.
This sort of confrontation back in 1962 brought the world to a standstill as the then-USSR and United States hurtled toward all-out nuclear war over a sensitive issue centered on a third-party. The military escalation as ships took up position, the inflammatory rhetoric, the overriding concern with losing face and upholding one’s credibility, the global proxy war – sound familiar to anyone?
That crisis was ended with an under-the-table agreement, but any chance for such a solution today – this week’s G-20 meeting – appears to have gone unused, with both Putin and Obama sticking to their guns.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, Congress has been debating the very same issue. Iraq has come up in speeches on numerous occasions, but for all the wrong reasons. The Americans are war-weary, we hear. Just imagine how the Iraqis must feel. Many things have been said about the lessons that should be learned from the Iraq debacle, but few have centered on how appalling life is like for those living there now.
“The day after” is not a concept many of those arguing for intervention have considered. More than 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. It’s the same number being touted to advocate intervention in Syria, and yet it should be a red flag. No matter how many times politicians say the words “limited strikes,” they do not become any truer. Even if it were limited in its scope or motives, no strike by a Western country, especially by the U.S., would be limited in its consequences. More than anything, it will give President Bashar Assad and his backers – Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – ample reason to up the ante in their fight against the rebels.
Those behind the decisions to be made over the next few days should think long and hard about the day after and how it looked in Iraq. The inevitable strike, however, should impact the march toward a political solution and yield the conviction by the regime that it’s the only path available to ending the bloodshed.

New U.S. envoy says seeking to insulate Lebanon from Syria strike
September 06, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The United States will work on insulating Lebanon from any military strike against neighboring Syria, the Obama administration’s new envoy to Beirut said Friday. "We are also very focused on insulating Lebanon from any aftermath of any response to Syria's chemical attack and preserving Lebanon's policy of disassociation," U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon David Hale told reporters at the Grand Serail, in his first comments since taking his post. Hale, who spoke following a meeting to caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, added that his talks with officials centered on the challenges facing Lebanon as a result of the crisis in Syria. Earlier Friday, Hale presented his credentials to President Michel Sleiman at Baabda Palace.  U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking congressional authorization to launch a punitive strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad over its alleged use of chemical weapons.Assad's allies Iran and Russia have warned against any attack that is aimed at weakening the Syrian regime's capabilities. Hale said Assad needed to be held accountable for the "outrageous" use of chemical weapons. Damascus denies using chemical arms in the more than two-year-old conflict. mDescribing Beirut’s policy of disassociation as right for Lebanon, Hale said: "We believe the interests of the Lebanese people would be best served if all Lebanese adhere to the policy of disassociation." Hale, who arrived in Lebanon last week to replace former Ambassador Maura Connelly, also said Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian crisis represented further challenges for the country. "Hezbollah continues to blatantly violate the disassociation policy through direct participation in the Syrian conflict, exacerbating the challenges facing Lebanon today," he said. He also affirmed that ties with Lebanon would remain strong, adding that the American Embassy is committed to deepening and broadening the partnership between the two countries.
During the meeting, Mikati said dialogue was the “only means to resolve the crisis in Syria,” calling on distancing Lebanon from regional repercussions.”
According to his office, Mikati said “using force and violence cannot resolve the issues at hand.” He also asked the international community to support Lebanon as it struggles to cope with the growing number of Syrian refugees.
"Lebanon alone cannot bare the repercussion of the Syrian influx,” Mikati said. “What is needed from the international community is that it offer the necessary support as soon as possible,” he added

Hezbollah, Iran and Syria prepare for counterattack

September 07, 2013/By Mirella Hodeib The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have set up a joint military operations room to coordinate closely in the event of a U.S. strike on Syria, with Hezbollah mobilizing “tens of thousands” of fighters, senior political and diplomatic sources told The Daily Star Friday. Even though the U.S. has so far succeeded in keeping the “axis of the resistance” guessing about the targets and scope of the strike, the sources said, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have geared up for the worst-case scenarios. While nearly every aspect of the expected U.S.-led strike remains in flux, the three players have agreed on a specific course of action if American missiles smash into Syrian territory.Hezbollah has even called up “tens of thousands” of fighters and reservists in anticipation of the strike, according to political sources. “Iran, Syria and Hezbollah don’t have a clear picture about what Americans have planned,” said one diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous. “But those countries too are prepared for various scenarios.”The sources said that Iran and Hezbollah would throw their weight and military skills behind President Bashar Assad if the strike presented a serious threat to the regime or would significantly weaken the Syrian army, the regime’s backbone. “Short of that,” one diplomat said, “Hezbollah and Iran are unlikely to be involved.”
The diplomatic sources explained that Iran and Hezbollah considered the targeting of key Syrian army posts, military airfields and strategic weapons depots – including long range missiles – a direct threat to Assad’s rule and a reason to intervene. While Syria and Hezbollah have mobilized forces, the sources said the Iranians have begun to prepare themselves for the likelihood that they will launch “strategic missiles” in response. “The aim of the move was to demonstrate to the United States that Iran was serious,” the diplomat said.
Diplomatic and political sources also revealed Syria too has a bank of targets to hit in response to any U.S. attacks, namely in Israel as well as U.S. military bases in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan.
The alliance among Syria, Iran and Hezbollah took shape in the 1990s and despite several attempts to fracture it has so far proven to be resilient.
The alliance is frowned upon by Israel and many Arab countries, which describe it as sectarian and accuse the two countries and Hezbollah of looking to form a “Shiite crescent,” comprising Middle East countries – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran – where the majority of people are Shiite or where there is a sizeable Shiite minority.
Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have long refuted the accusations, saying their alliance is solely meant to counter Israel and support the rights and interests of the Palestinians.
But coordination among the three key regional players has never been interrupted even before the unrest in Syria started in March 2011.
The highest-profile tripartite meeting so far took place in February 2010 when Assad, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held talks in Damascus.
Another key event came in April 2013, almost two years into the Syria war, when Nasrallah paid a visit to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Nasrallah has vowed unequivocal support for Assad in the face of a rebellion by what he dubbed “takfiri groups,” arguing that the family offered political and logistical support to his group in their struggle to liberate Lebanese territories from Israeli occupation and later on during the 2006 war.
Hezbollah fighters have supported Assad troops at many instances in the past two years, securing a triumphant victory for the Syrian Army against rebel groups in the town of Qusair, just kilometers away from the Lebanese border. Despite domestic and international chiding for its involvement in the Syrian quagmire, Hezbollah seems unwilling to pull out and plans to fight alongside the regime and make use of its full fighting capacity in case Syria comes under attack. Political sources said the party put on alert “tens of thousands” of fighters and reservists – part timers and full-timers – in anticipation of a U.S. strike.
The sources said ever since August 2006, when a 34-day war with Israel concluded, Hezbollah has launched a large-scale operation to take on new recruits and has organized training camps during the summer for thousands of young people in south Lebanon and the Baalbek and Hermel regions in the northern Bekaa Valley. “Everyone in Hezbollah who has been trained to use weapons has been put on high alert,” one political source explained. “The party is ready for all eventualities.”

Suleiman Lauds Lebanon's Youth for Resisting Israel, Defeating Terror
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman met on Saturday with Lebanon's delegation to the Francophone Games in southern France, saying Lebanese youth resisted Israel and defeated terrorism through the army. “Lebanese youth have the will and have been capable of making wider achievements than any other country,” Suleiman told the delegation that is participating in the games in the coastal city of Nice. “They resisted Israel and were able through the Lebanese army to defeat terrorism too,” Suleiman said. “Lebanon is going through unprecedented difficult circumstances,” he said, while lauding the Francophone Games that were held in Beirut in 2009. Suleiman will take part in the opening of the 2013 games and is scheduled to hold separate talks on Saturday with President Francois Hollande and Abdou Diouf, Francophonie secretary-general. Suleiman is accompanied by First Lady Wafaa, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Samir Moqbel, caretaker Culture Minister Gaby Layyoun and a Lebanese delegation.

Extraordinary Security Measures Near Diplomatic Missions over Syria Strike Fears
Naharnet /The Lebanese Armed Forces have taken exceptional security measures around several diplomatic missions over fears of reprisal attacks in response to a possible U.S. military action in Syria, informed sources said. The sources told An Nahar daily published on Saturday that both security agencies and the army took the measures around the missions to thwart a possible attack after several threats were made against the U.S. embassy and other European delegations. The U.S. embassy in Beirut said Friday that its non-essential staff and family members are being evacuated from Lebanon because of "threats to U.S. mission facilities and personnel."
The Department of State urged U.S. citizens to avoid all travel to Lebanon “because of current safety and security concerns,” noting that “U.S. citizens living and working in Lebanon should understand that they accept risks in remaining and should carefully consider those risks.” Shortly after the announcement, about 150 people gathered for a protest near the U.S. embassy compound in Awkar north of Beirut. Police kept the protesters confined to a square on the road leading to the heavily fortified embassy. The protection of diplomatic missions was a topic of discussion among the members of the Higher Defense Council which convened at Baabda palace under President Michel Suleiman on Friday. Council members were briefed by the security and military officials on the measures aimed at protecting civil peace and fighting terrorism to confront plots in addition to safeguarding diplomatic missions, said a statement issued after the meeting.

Rally near U.S. Embassy Protests Possible Military Strike against Syria
Naharnet /A rally was held on Friday near the United States' Embassy in Lebanon to protest a possible military strike against Syria for its regime's alleged chemical attack in August. Prominent Marada Movement member Shadi Dahdah stressed that the military strike will lead to the “collapse” of American interests in the region. “The U.S. is not seeking to achieve democracy and human rights,” he declared before a rally of some 200 near the U.S. Embassy in Awkar. “Where was the role of human rights in the occupation, destruction, and division of Iraq?” he asked. “You are preparing for a war against Syria under the pretext of its use of chemical weapons, which were funded by the Arab Gulf states,” he added. Dahdah warned of any attack against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying: “Tampering with the international balance of power will lead to a third world war.”

Kerry Seeks EU Support on Syria Strike after G20 Split
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was to meet EU ministers Saturday to rally support for military strikes against Syria, after a G20 summit failed to resolve bitter international divisions on the issue. Kerry will press the case for punitive action against Syria after what the United States says was a chemical weapons attack by the regime of President Bashar Assad near Damascus. On Friday, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian leader Vladimir Putin failed to bridge their differences at the summit of top global powers in Saint Petersburg. Just over half of the G20 states signed up to a statement calling for a "strong" response to last month's alleged chemical attack. Kerry is to hold talks with the European Union's 28 foreign ministers in Lithuania, which currently holds the EU's rotating chair, with the bloc itself sharply split. "The costs of inaction here are much greater than the costs of action," he wrote in Friday's Huffington Post. Only France has said it is ready to take part in military action, while Britain -- whose parliament voted against any involvement -- and Denmark have expressed support.
France was one of four European nations -- with Britain, Italy and Spain -- that signed a statement at the G20 meeting Friday calling for a "strong international response" to the chemical attack, widely attributed to the Assad regime. The statement, signed by 11 of the G20 nations -- but not by Germany -- said the response would "send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated.”
It did not specify military action and European diplomats said the language remained vague. But while Obama said the world could not "stand idly by", Putin warned it would be "outside the law" to attack without the UN..'s blessing. Putin also said Russia would "help Syria" if the U.S. were to strike, pointing to existing military, economic and humanitarian cooperation. Washington has prepared the ground for possible strikes, evacuating non-essential embassy staff from Beirut and urging Americans to avoid all travel to Lebanon and southern Turkey. As well as the stubborn international differences, the U.S. administration is still scrambling to win backing from Congress for any action against Syria. Congress reconvenes on Monday and Obama addresses the nation on Tuesday. But he acknowledged that convincing Congress to back military action against the Syrian regime would be a "heavy lift.”"I understand the skepticism," the U.S. president said. Obama made several calls to Republican and Democratic lawmakers during his flight home from Russia, a senior administration official said, declining to elaborate. The world is still waiting for a much-anticipated report by United Nations inspectors on the deadly August 21 attacks that left hundreds dead.
At the G20, French President Francois Hollande,vowed to wait for the U.N. report before joining any military action, a decision welcomed by Germany. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle urged the U.N. to publish its report "as quickly as possible" to help Europe's divided leaders determine a response. Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told reporters it was essential to wait for the U.N. report as "it will be the best picture we can get from any source.” "The Indians, the Brazilians, the Chinese and others don't really think that information from U.S. intelligence is enough, and that's the world we live in," he said.
Russia and China -- both veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- have on three occasions voted down resolutions that would have put pressure on Assad.
On Friday, the Russian foreign ministry warned the United States against targeting Syria's chemical arsenal in any attacks. Later Saturday, Kerry is due to fly to Paris for talks with French officials. He will meet Arab League leaders there on Sunday to update them on Syria and on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He will travel on to London for talks late Sunday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, before flying home Monday. SourceAgence France Presse.

New clashes at Syrian Christian town Maaloula: activists

September 07, 2013/Daily Star
BEIRUT: New fighting has broken out between rebels and regime forces on the outskirts of the Christian town of Maalula in Syria, a watchdog said on Saturday. "There are clashes just inside the town in the western district between Popular Committees (militia) and rebel forces," Rami Abdul Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told AFP. "There are also clashes between soldiers backed by militias and rebel fighters around the area of one of the entrances to Maalula," he said. The fighting on the outskirts of the town started with an army attack on a group of rebels in a hotel on a nearby hill. State television, meanwhile, citing a military source, said the army had targeted the hotel and surrounding positions where "terrorists" were stationed, killing several and destroying their weapons. The Observatory said the army had strengthened its presence at posts evacuated overnight between Thursday and Friday by the rebels at one entrance to Maalula. Earlier this week, the opposition Syrian National Coalition said members of the Free Syrian Army had withdrawn from Maalula, which is north of Damascus. "Free Syrian Army (FSA) units on Wednesday destroyed posts at Maalula and Jabadine held by the army on the Damascus-Homs road after fierce clashes with President Bashar al-Assad's forces and auxiliaries," the Coalition said. "The FSA was stationed for several hours in the vicinity, but did not attack any church or convent," a statement added. The statement came after the Observatory said on Wednesday that said jihadist Al-Nusra Front fighters had seized a military post at Maalula after a suicide attack. Maalula is a symbol of the Christian presence in Syria, and many of its inhabitants speak Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus Christ that only small, scattered communities around the world still use today. Elsewhere in Syria, the Observatory said on Saturday 14 rebels and two civilians were killed in regime shelling of the Kiswa and Maqbaliya, two areas south of Damascus. The group also reported bombardments in Zamalka, east of Damascus, as well as Daraya and Moadamiyat al-Sham in the southern outskirts of the capital.
 

US officials: Iran plotting retaliation
Revolutionary Guard commander orders Shiite terrorists in Iraq to be prepared to respond with force if US attacks Syria
Ynet Published: 09.07.13, 13:10 / Israel News
The US has intercepted an order from Iran to terrorists in Iraq to attack the US Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The newspaper quoted US officials as saying they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. US officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the US Embassy in Beirut. According to the report, the US military has also readied Marines and other assets to aid evacuation of diplomatic compounds if needed, and the State Department began making preparations last week for potential retaliation against US embassies and other interests in the Middle East and North Africa.
Washington began planning for a possible strike on Syrian regime assets after the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus in which the US says Syrian government forces killed over 1,400 people using chemical weapons.
That process slowed last weekend when President Barack Obama said he would first seek an authorization for using military force from Congress.
US officials said a delay in a US strike would increase opportunities for coordinated retaliation by groups allied with the Assad government, including Shiite militias in Iraq.
Israel, The Wall Street Journal said, has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese terrorist ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel." The State Department issued a new alert on Thursday warning against nonessential travel to Iraq and citing terrorist activity "at levels unseen since 2008."
The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qassem Suleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to US officials.
In it, Suleimani said Shiite groups must be prepared to respond with force after a US strike on Syria. Iranian officials on Friday denied their government was plotting attacks in Iraq against the US, the report said.
Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for Iran's United Nations mission, said the allegation was baseless and meant to "provoke the Congress" into authorizing a strike on Syria.
"We should remember that relying on US intelligence reports from anonymous officials will repeat the tragedy of Iraq," he said. Iraqi Shiites have been sympathetic to the Alawite-dominated government of Syria and oppose US strikes against Assad's regime. The Wall Street Journal said some officials believe a direct response from the Syrian or Iranian governments is less likely than reprisals from allied militant groups, such as Hezbollah.
Hezbollah could be used to launch rocket attacks against US military assets or American allies, including Israel, the officials said.  According to the report, French officials said they are concerned Hezbollah could target the hundreds of French troops taking part in a UN-backed peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon.

Israelis bewildered by Iranian president's Rosh Hashanah greeting
By REUTERS/ 09/07/2013/

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israelis-bewildered-by-Iranian-presidents-Rosh-Hashanah-greeting-325435

Israelis reacted with a mixture of pleasant surprise and wary skepticism on Friday to reports that the new Iranian president and his foreign minister had both issued greetings to mark the Jewish New Year.
Relations between the two countries have been dire for years, with Israel threatening to attack the Islamic Republic over fears it is planning to build nuclear weapons that could one day jeopardize the survival of the Jewish state.
Iran denies it wants an atomic bomb, but former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who left office last month, regularly riled Israel by calling for the destruction of the "Zionist entity."In a change of tone, his successor Hassan Rouhani and the new foreign minister, Javad Zarif, appeared to issue tweets in English wishing Jews a good Rosh Hashanah - the Jewish new year that is being celebrated this week. Iran has long declared an official respect for the Jewish faith while condemning Israel. "Happy Rosh Hashanah," tweeted Zarif on a profile that notes his career as a diplomat, academic and "Uni of Denver alum.” The reported greetings came just as Israel was settling into a long holiday weekend and there was no official reaction. Ordinary Israelis were torn about their meaning. "Gosh I hadn't heard about that, but I think it's very nice of him," said Julia Blus, 25, who works at an amusement park at Manara Cliffs. Next to the Lebanese border, it overlooks hostile territory controlled by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. By contrast, Roni Benjamin, 66, a bank executive from Kfar Saba in central Israel, said: "It doesn't mean anything; I don't see any real change there ... What (Rouhani) really needs to do is to understand that we are not his enemies." Rouhani's election in June has encouraged speculation of a more conciliatory approach to foreign affairs from Tehran, though the president's power is heavily circumscribed by the clerical hierarchy and Israel's government remains very wary. Confusing matters, Israeli news websites quoted an official in the Iranian president's office denying any New Year greetings had been sent and saying Rouhani's English-language Twitter account, used during his election campaign, was not active. There was no denial from Zarif and the minister went further to push back on a comment that Iran denies the Nazi Holocaust: "Iran never denied it. The man who was perceived to be denying it is now gone," he tweeted, apparently meaning Ahmadinejad. On Facebook, he wrote: "We condemn the massacre of Jews by the Nazis and we condemn the massacre of Palestinians by the Zionists."
Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Middle East - albeit only a few thousand people following mass emigration last century. It denies Israel's right to exist but even Ahmadinejad embraced some Jews - as long as they rejected the Zionist movement that established the Israeli state. Neither Rouhani or Zarif mentioned the word "Israel.” "It's hard to feel flattered about this form of anti-Semitism that says Jews are OK as long as they don't dare have their own sovereign state," said Michal Bachar, a 36-year-old from Jerusalem. Arieh Rosen, 33, a cultural representative at the Polish Institute, said the New Year greetings were "cute" but did not generate much talk among his family and friends at holiday gatherings. "I suppose it is a calculated PR stunt," he said. Naama Shilony, 33, a mother of two from Jerusalem, said her family did discuss the tweets. And while her relatives thought it was "bullshit", she said it had made her happy. "It was a positive encouraging sign," she said. "I just regret it was made on Twitter, which is an informal platform." Iran has been at the forefront of Israeli policy-making for years. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has urged his Western allies not to be lulled by conciliatory words from Rouhani. In his own New Year address, Netanyahu again stressed that tackling Iran's nuclear program was "of paramount importance.”He said: "We simply cannot allow the world's most dangerous regime to obtain the world's most dangerous weapon."

America's real Middle East priority: Iran
Reuters/While we've been distracted by a flurry of intelligence releases on Syria's chemical weapons strikes - and the ongoing saga over the United States' response - many have overlooked another intelligence report pertaining to weapons of mass destruction with severe implications for America's red lines and credibility in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's nuclear watchdog, reported that "Iran plans to test about 1,000 advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges it has completed installing." As Iran's enrichment capabilities increase, its breakout time - how long Iran would need to rapidly amass enough highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon - is dropping considerably. In the next year or two, Iran's breakout time could drop to about 10 days: too short of a window for the United States to reliably respond before Iran could secure enough material for a bomb. America's next step in Syria is inextricably linked to the situation in Iran. The US government's biggest national security concern in the region is an Iranian regime with potential access to nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region, shock oil prices, and threaten US allies. Longer term, it's harder to map out the implications, but they aren't pretty. A nuclear Iran could trigger a domino effect among Middle Eastern countries; should another Arab Spring occur, a failed state with a nuclear weapons cache is a frightening prospect.
Not intervening in Syria - letting Bashar Assad cross Obama's red line of using chemical weapons on civilians - makes any red lines regarding Iran's nuclear progress blurrier. In fact, by punting the decision to Congress and further complicating the causality between a broken red line and punishment, Obama may have already done just that.
It's a quirk of history that Obama is in this position in the first place. When Obama originally set his red line back in August 2012, he caught his advisers completely off guard. As the New York Times reported in May: "Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a 'red line' and 'change my calculus,' the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the "red line" came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back."
If Obama set the red line without consulting his own staff, he certainly didn't ascertain whether other nations would also "change their calculus" in response to chemical weapons use. That helped lead to the embarrassment in Britain last week, when the House of Commons declined to join any potential American strike against Syria. This is possibly Obama's hardest-earned lesson of the Syria debate thus far: even if you feel the need to tout American exceptionalism, don't let it apply to your red lines. If you set a red line by yourself, be prepared to defend it alone as well.
Let that be a lesson on Iran. With the recent IAEA report suggesting that Iran is inching ever closer towards nuclear breakout capacity, potential upcoming negotiations with Iran carry an even greater urgency than usual. And there are compelling reasons to be optimistic (or at least less pessimistic than usual): both parties have something that the other wants, and Iran has a new president.
In June, Hassan Rouhani won the Iranian presidential election with an outright majority - as a centrist candidate with a platform of patching up relations with the West. Ahmadinejad's retirement is perhaps an even greater addition by subtraction. While it's important to remember that the buck stops with the Ayatollah, Rouhani's election could usher in a reset in negotiations, and perhaps a modest deal, likely in the form of inspections and a slowdown in enrichment in return for reduced economic sanctions.
The United States needs to seize this chance. If negotiations fail, it could still prove difficult to maintain the current level of sanctions pressure for two reasons. First, because Iran now has a charismatic president instead of one who's easy to hate and speaks out against Israel. Second, Rouhani is bent on promoting transparency and efficiency in the Iranian domestic economy. This makes it more tempting for countries like China, India and Russia to strike deals with Iran -- even if it means bending the rules on sanctions. As the United States has witnessed in Syria, it's hard to hold the international community to a strict red line - especially when there are economic incentives to the contrary. So what's next in Syria? It's more likely than not that Congress will approve a limited military strike - and that the ensuing intervention will prove to be limited. If Congress rejects the president's call for a military strike, it will set a dangerous precedent on American red lines and undermine the United States' credibility in advance of possible talks.
If Obama's proposal does pass and the US strikes, the administration must prepare for the risk that Iran will respond with escalatory asymmetric attacks, and it must ensure that any fallout from Syria does not scuttle upcoming nuclear negotiations. A few months from now, in all likelihood, the US will once again be on the sidelines in Syria, decrying continued violence with rhetoric but little action. Media attention will shift to the high stakes dynamics with Iran. It is, after all, where the US government has been focusing all along.

US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses

http://www.debka.com/article/23257/US-Air-Force-will-also-target-Syria’s-air-force-ballistic-missiles-and-sections-of-its-air-defenses

DEBKAfile Special Report September 7, 2013/The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive. Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrianj ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him. These air raids could moreover be conducted from afar without American aircraft coming within range of Syrian air defense batteries. The US operation will also target the Syrian army’s 4th and Republican Guard divisions, protectors of the Assad presidency and regime, which were responsible for using chemical weapons, but not the weapons themselves. debkafile’s military sources say they can’t be destroyed by air assault - only by ground forces, which the US president has ruled out in advance.
It was that conclusion which led Washington to considering air strikes for taking down the ballistic missiles, which may be used as the vehicles for delivering the poison gases both within Syria and beyond its borders.
This expanded inventory of targets portends a broader operation in scope than Obama’s first plan, which was designed only to caution the Syrian ruler of his peril for engaging in chemical warfare. The extensions to this plan would go a lot further than a deterrent warning and seriously downgrade his military and strategic capabilities. Russia and Iran are already getting set to replenish by air and sea the losses the US air and missile offensive is expected to inflict on the Syria military. US Secretary of State John Kerry and ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stressed in the last few hours that the US felt fully justified in going forward against Syria’s use of chemical weapons without a UN mandate and, indeed, they indicated, the president would consider such action “the right thing to do” even if US Congress withheld its support. For now, Obama will be spending all his time on a blitz to win lawmakers round to the strike against Syria, while Kerry seeks European and Arab partners for the operation, in addition to France which has already come forward.

Obama tells nation that Syria is 'not another Iraq or Afghanistan'
By Roberta Rampton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama told his war-weary country on Saturday that America needs to use limited military force in Syria to deter future chemical weapons attacks, but said he did not want to enter into another costly and protracted war. "This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan," Obama said in his weekly radio and internet address, previewing arguments he will make in a nationally televised address on Tuesday. "Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope - designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so," Obama said.
A week ago, Obama said he felt limited strikes in Syria were needed, but added he wanted to ask Congress to authorize the use of military force. Neither Democratic nor Republican lawmakers have been enthused about the prospect, partly because Americans strongly oppose getting involved in a another Middle Eastern conflict. A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Tuesday said 56 percent of Americans believed the United States should not intervene, while only 19 percent supported action. "I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That's why we're not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else's war," Obama said in his recorded address. Obama and his top officials plan an intensive lobbying effort on Capitol Hill next week, scheduling meetings with undecided lawmakers.
Obama said failing to respond to the August 21 attack that Washington blames on President Bashar al-Assad's government and that killed hundreds of children and more than 1,400 people in total, would threaten U.S. national security by increasing the chance of future chemical attacks from the Syrian government, terrorist groups, or other nations. "We are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we've seen out of Syria," he said.(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Peter Cooney)
 

Question: "Does war with Syria have anything to do with the end times?"
GotQuestions.org/Answer: As civil war rages in Syria and other nations ponder potential involvement, some Bible teachers believe we can see biblical end-times prophecy unfolding right before our eyes. The Middle East is a religious-political powder keg and has been for years, but the Syrian Crisis seems to be making the situation that much more explosive. Because of Syria’s proximity to Israel, Egypt’s troubles, Iran’s threats, and the United States’ ultimatums, there is talk of the end times, Armageddon, and World War III. It is true that, with every passing day, we draw closer to the Second Coming of Christ (James 5:8). And the prophecy of Isaiah 17:1 has yet to be fulfilled: “A prophecy against Damascus: ‘See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.’” Damascus, the capital of Syria, has a longstanding reputation for being the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. It has never been without citizens or totally destroyed. But Isaiah’s prophecy still stands; there is coming a day when Damascus will be nothing but a “heap of ruins.” The current war in Syria could indeed be one of the events leading up to the capital’s destruction. There are other verses in the Bible tethered to Isaiah 17:1, but the idea of a ruinous heap suggests that not one building is left standing in Damascus. The city will no longer be a city. Some students of prophecy believe a nuclear bomb could be the means of fulfilling this prophecy; others suggest the possibility of an earthquake. Regardless of exactly how or when it happens, two things we know for sure: God is sovereign and His Word will stand (Isaiah 40:8). There is much unrest in the Middle East, and the war in Syria is capturing the attention of the whole world. However, this particular conflict, even if it expands to other nations, cannot be associated with Armageddon. That battle occurs near the end of the Tribulation, during the bowl judgments, as the nations of the earth gather to fight against the Lord (Revelation 16:12–16). The war in Syria, if it is indeed part of end-times prophecy, is more likely part of the “birth pains” described in Mark 13:7–8. In 700 BC, Isaiah wrote of the demise of Damascus. Today, 2,700 years later, many believe that we are close to seeing that long-standing prophecy fulfilled. However chaotic the events on the world stage appear, we know that all things are working toward the fulfillment of God’s Word.
“The Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)—are you ready for His coming?

Is prosecuting Assad a better option than Syria strike?
CBC – As U.S. President Barack Obama continues to drum up support abroad and at home to “punish” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged “brazen” use of chemical weapons, some diplomats and policy experts say the crisis calls for a legal solution rather than a military one. Although Obama discussed Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, there’s a widening rift between countries supporting the U.S.-led plans for a military strike on Syria and those that are opposed to it. Tony Smith, a political science professor at the University of California Irvine, who has written extensively on war crimes trials, told CBC News that charging Assad at the International Criminal Court is a better option. “Courts matter, law matters,” said Smith. “This is the exact right time to have the ICC step up.”
If the ICC gathers enough evidence to prosecute Assad, they would hold a trial in his presence, allowing him a chance to defend himself.
“He should be tried for his crimes in a court of law approved by most of the world,” said Smith, adding, “so it isn’t another case of the U.S. beating up another country”
Though they would be unable to arrest Assad upon indictment, since the ICC does not have an enforcement arm, Smith said the short-term positive benefit would be that Assad would have to rein in the violence so he could take the position that the prosecution is inappropriate.
Recently, the West was exposed to gruesome execution videos smuggled out of Syria, reportedly showing opposition fighters swearing revenge while executing Syrian army soldiers in April 2013.
As evidence mounts against both sides in the 2½-year-old civil war, ICC action “would send the message that seeking justice for victims of crimes against humanity has not been forgotten,” University of Waterloo Professor Andrew Thompson told CBC News. Thompson is an expert in the field of international human rights, civil society movements, and fragile states.
In 2009, Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. He mocked the court, calling it the “new face of colonization,” as he travelled freely without detention in countries that are not signatories to the ICC.
However, the ICC ruling did have an effect on Bashir’s actions, as he eventually allowed a secessionist South Sudan the right to vote for independence.
“The only thing that changed — from violent oppression to not even a verbal opposition — was the indictment,” Smith said.
“Maybe there were other reasons,” said Smith. “But there is a correlation in events that is difficult to argue with.”
The Bashir precedent shows that the ICC could influence Assad to stop persecuting opposition groups, and it may even lead to a vote in Syria, as it did in South Sudan, Smith argues.
The ICC can investigate Syria upon referral by the UN Security Council.
Syria is not party to the 1998 Rome Statute that established the ICC but it can function as a “court of last resort” for nations like Syria, where the justice system has collapsed or is unable to hold trial, Smith said.
Moammar Gadhafi, for example, was indicted for crimes against humanity, although Libya is not party to the ICC.
“Is the action complained of a violation of international law? Like Libya, for Syria, the answer is ‘yes,’” said Smith.
In this case, potentially anybody affected by the conflict can petition the ICC prosecutor to investigate, although that avenue would be relatively new territory for the ICC.
In a word, Russia. In January 2013, Switzerland submitted a proposal signed by 58 countries, petitioning the Security Council to refer the Syria crisis to the ICC. The proposal was rejected behind a closed-door meeting, and Russia said in a statement, "We view this initiative as untimely and counterproductive to achieving today's main goal — an immediate end to the bloodshed in Syria."
University of Toronto criminology professor and Russian politics expert Matthew Light says Russia would not want to approach the ICC because any investigation of war crimes would “undermine Assad and might ultimately embolden the U.S. and others western countries to step up their military support for the rebels, or even create a justification for an international arrest warrant against Assad.”
Russia’s strategy in the UNSC has also been to block resolutions criticizing or restraining Syria, Light explained.
After the reported chemical weapons attacks in August, Russia has repeatedly challenged the U.S. to produce "convincing” evidence that the regime is responsible for atrocities.
UC Irvine’s Smith says it would be a clever diplomatic move now for Russia to refer the case to the ICC, thereby delaying action to protect their interests, and allowing an independent body to gather evidence on both sides of the conflict.
“If I were an American diplomat I would be pushing Russia to make this argument,” he said.
Time. In an already prolonged war, another six to eight months of investigation and hearings before a final indictment could mean many more lives will be lost in the interim.
To put things in perspective, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has been calling for the Security Council to refer Assad’s case to the ICC for "crimes against humanity" since December 2011. At the time, the death toll was 5,000 people. Today, the toll has surpassed 100,000 people, and over seven million people have been displaced inside the borders as well as into neighbouring countries.
In February 2013, months before the chemical warfare reports emerged from Ghouta, a Damascus suburb, Pillay renewed her call to the council, telling them that referring Syria to the ICC “would send a clear message to both the government and the opposition that there will be consequences for their actions.”
London-based European Council on Foreign Relations policy expert Anthony Dworkin told CBC News that apart from being a lengthy process, the ICC intervention could further antagonize Assad.
"An ICC referral is a big deal," said Dworkin. He said a criminal investigation would make Assad less inclined to reach a diplomatic solution through UN talks.
"A military strike is a bigger deal," Dworkin added, and said a political transition between the regime and opposition will bring more lasting peace to the region.
But Smith said if the world signals to Assad that there’s no scenario in which he'll ever be indicted for war crimes, he can safely assume that nothing’s going to happen, and he might just sit tight while the criticism dies down so he can continue his regime.
@YahooCanadaNews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Why the West must intervene in Syria
Andrew Coyne/Canada.ca
Published: September 6, 2013, 8:14 pm
Sometimes it helps to boil an issue down to its essence. It is endlessly fascinating, for example, to discuss whether the Parti Quebecois ban on the wearing of religious symbols in the public service has its roots in the laicite of post-revolutionary France, but in the end it still amounts to a hiring bar on religious minorities.
So, on a much more serious level, to Syria. One reads the many, many elegant explanations of why the West cannot, must not, need not intervene in Syria — it would be hypocritical, in view of past failures; the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons is an arbitrary one; the credibility of the United States is not on the line (and anyway, credibility is overrated); it is not worth spilling blood in the service of abstractions like the Responsibility to Protect; the rebels are no better than the Assad regime; the UN Security Council has not approved military action; and that old favourite, what’s our end game? — and in none of them will you find a frank acknowledgment of what in fact they are arguing: that we should stand by and do nothing while tens of thousands of civilians are slaughtered; that we should do nothing, even when the means of slaughter escalates to chemical weapons.
Obama notes splits over Syria attack plans
There isn’t any way to put a fig leaf on this. There isn’t any “peace process” to which one might appeal for all sides to return. Nor is “arming the rebels” an alternative, unless it is proposed we arm them with chemical weapons, too (and anyway, it conflicts with the “rebels are just as bad” objection). A refusal to intervene at this point amounts, objectively, to ratifying the indiscriminate killing of civilians — not only in the past, or on a limited scale, but in the much worse massacres to come. At best, it is a policy of the rueful wringing of hands.
It would be interesting to know how absolute this position is. Much mockery has been made of U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line,” as if it were mere macho posturing. Very well: do his critics have a line? If 100,000 dead are not sufficient numbers to warrant military intervention, would a million be? If chemical weapons are not quite horrific enough, how about biological? Nuclear? If we are untroubled by the precedents being set this time, what about the next? Or the next? Or the one after that? Or does the doctrine of non-intervention apply in all cases, at least where neither we nor our allies are directly engaged?
I’ll declare my own callousness: the deaths of dozens would not be sufficient, in my view, for the world to step in. But somewhere between a skirmish and a genocide, I’d suggest, the balance tips in intervention’s favour. Or if that seems too vague, then yes, chemical weapons will do.
Sometimes it helps to boil an issue down to its essence. It is endlessly fascinating, for example, to discuss whether the Parti Quebecois ban on the wearing of religious symbols in the public service has its roots in the laicite of post-revolutionary France, but in the end it still amounts to a hiring bar on religious minorities.
So, on a much more serious level, to Syria. One reads the many, many elegant explanations of why the West cannot, must not, need not intervene in Syria — it would be hypocritical, in view of past failures; the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons is an arbitrary one; the credibility of the United States is not on the line (and anyway, credibility is overrated); it is not worth spilling blood in the service of abstractions like the Responsibility to Protect; the rebels are no better than the Assad regime; the UN Security Council has not approved military action; and that old favourite, what’s our end game? — and in none of them will you find a frank acknowledgment of what in fact they are arguing: that we should stand by and do nothing while tens of thousands of civilians are slaughtered; that we should do nothing, even when the means of slaughter escalates to chemical weapons.
Obama notes splits over Syria attack plansThere isn’t any way to put a fig leaf on this. There isn’t any “peace process” to which one might appeal for all sides to return. Nor is “arming the rebels” an alternative, unless it is proposed we arm them with chemical weapons, too (and anyway, it conflicts with the “rebels are just as bad” objection). A refusal to intervene at this point amounts, objectively, to ratifying the indiscriminate killing of civilians — not only in the past, or on a limited scale, but in the much worse massacres to come. At best, it is a policy of the rueful wringing of hands.
It would be interesting to know how absolute this position is. Much mockery has been made of U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line,” as if it were mere macho posturing. Very well: do his critics have a line? If 100,000 dead are not sufficient numbers to warrant military intervention, would a million be? If chemical weapons are not quite horrific enough, how about biological? Nuclear? If we are untroubled by the precedents being set this time, what about the next? Or the next? Or the one after that? Or does the doctrine of non-intervention apply in all cases, at least where neither we nor our allies are directly engaged?
Reid introduces Syria resolution in SenateI’ll declare my own callousness: the deaths of dozens would not be sufficient, in my view, for the world to step in. But somewhere between a skirmish and a genocide, I’d suggest, the balance tips in intervention’s favour. Or if that seems too vague, then yes, chemical weapons will do.
If chemical weapons are no different than conventional, why did Syrian President Bashar Assad use them? Or rather, why did he keep them in reserve at first, then try them out on a smaller scale, then escalate their use, in places where the resistance had proved particularly entrenched? Because they work where conventional weapons do not; because, like other “weapons of mass destruction,” they are the ultimate weapon — because of the high ratio of lethal capacity to resources at risk, because of their portability, their undetectability, their sheer indiscrimination, especially when used against civilians.
Pres. Obama says he'll address nation on SyriaThat is why they have been banned, by one treaty or another, since the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Were its signatories naive about war — having suffered all the horrors that conventional weapons could inflict in the First World War? Is it unrealistic to hold today’s combatants to a line that, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reminded us, even Hitler and Tojo did not cross?
Or if we’re not prepared to draw such lines on behalf of others, then let’s do so for ourselves. Conventional weapons, of the kind responsible for the bulk of the deaths in Syria, generally require a military force of some kind to deliver them. Whereas chemical weapons can be delivered by one nut on the subway. Non-proliferation is as desirable with regard to chemical weapons as with nuclear, but non-use is an absolute that must be enforced.
Harper says Russia should not have veto over Syria actionIntervention has potential risks of its own, some of them terrible. But to take the “do nothing” position in response depends upon two further assumptions. One: that in the absence of intervention, things stay essentially as they are — that there are not equal or worse consequences that flow from non-intervention. Do we suppose that, if Assad is permitted to use them this time, he will not do so again? Or that if he succeeds in defeating the rebels with them, others in similar situations will not do likewise?
And two: that we are morally implicated by the consequences of our actions, but are absolved of the consequences of inaction — that there are only sins of commission and not of omission. I’m afraid that’s not the world we live in, or should want to.
If chemical weapons are no different than conventional, why did Syrian President Bashar Assad use them? Or rather, why did he keep them in reserve at first, then try them out on a smaller scale, then escalate their use, in places where the resistance had proved particularly entrenched? Because they work where conventional weapons do not; because, like other “weapons of mass destruction,” they are the ultimate weapon — because of the high ratio of lethal capacity to resources at risk, because of their portability, their undetectability, their sheer indiscrimination, especially when used against civilians.
Pres. Obama says he'll address nation on Syria
That is why they have been banned, by one treaty or another, since the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Were its signatories naive about war — having suffered all the horrors that conventional weapons could inflict in the First World War? Is it unrealistic to hold today’s combatants to a line that, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reminded us, even Hitler and Tojo did not cross?
Or if we’re not prepared to draw such lines on behalf of others, then let’s do so for ourselves. Conventional weapons, of the kind responsible for the bulk of the deaths in Syria, generally require a military force of some kind to deliver them. Whereas chemical weapons can be delivered by one nut on the subway. Non-proliferation is as desirable with regard to chemical weapons as with nuclear, but non-use is an absolute that must be enforced.
%name Why the West must intervene in Syria
Harper says Russia should not have veto over Syria action
Intervention has potential risks of its own, some of them terrible. But to take the “do nothing” position in response depends upon two further assumptions. One: that in the absence of intervention, things stay essentially as they are — that there are not equal or worse consequences that flow from non-intervention. Do we suppose that, if Assad is permitted to use them this time, he will not do so again? Or that if he succeeds in defeating the rebels with them, others in similar situations will not do likewise?
And two: that we are morally implicated by the consequences of our actions, but are absolved of the consequences of inaction — that there are only sins of commission and not of omission. I’m afraid that’s not the world we live in, or should want to.
Postmedia News