The Washington Post reports: The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”

“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank. [Continue reading…]

Tehran Bureau: This week’s statement by the US defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, that his country’s armed forces are preparing for a strike on Syria appears to have produced a marked shift in the public position taken by the Iranian leadership on Tehran’s primary Middle Eastern ally.

Early this year, Ali Akbar Velayati, the top international affairs adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said of Syria’s embattled president: “Bashar al-Assad is our red line and we will support him to the end.” Three weeks ago, the conservative Alef website featured a letter from Assad that was hand delivered to Khamenei, which read: “With the support of steadfast, visionary and strong allies like Iran we are certain of victory.”

On Wednesday, however, in his first meeting with President Hassan Rouhani’s new cabinet, Khamenei limited himself to expressing Iran’s strong kinship with Syria and characterising a potential western attack as “a certain catastrophe”. Avoiding any pledge of specific support, he raised his palms in prayer, saying: “I hope merciful God protects this region from the menace of America and Zionism and other evils.”

Khamenei’s silence about defending Assad was underscored by a subsequent report from the semi-official Fars news agency on a speech delivered by General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. In extensive excerpts of his address to a conference of ground force commanders, there was not a single word about Syria.

A year ago, by contrast, Colonel Mohammad Ali Asoodi, the head of the guards’ culture and propaganda office, said: “If America attacks Syria, Iran, along with Syrian allies will go into action.”

The tone of General Masoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief-of-staff of Iran’s armed forces, took a particularly noticeable turn this week.

On Sunday, he had threatened: “The United States is aware of the red zone of the Syrian front and any violation of the Syrian red line will have serious consequences for the White House,” including revenge by multiple nations.

Three days later, however, he said little more than that an internationalised war would be a net loss to Israel. Like Khamenei, the only intervention he invoked was divine. “God willing, the flames of this conflagration will set Zionism’s robe ablaze,” he said.

He refrained from making any threats towards the US, and settled for offering advice: “The Americans should rid themselves of this arrogant self-assuredness and if they have any resources, spend them on saving the American people.” [Continue reading…]

EA WorldView adds: In contrast to days of heated propaganda from Iran, warning that airstrikes on Syria will bring “fire” upon Israel and lead to defeat for the US and its allies, President Rouhani continues to avoid the rhetoric of confrontation while warning against military intervention.

The President’s office said via Twitter that Rouhani had agreed with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin that “any use of military force against another country without a UN mandate was a blatant violation of international law” and that the Syrian conflict can “be resolved only through diplomatic means”. The office emphasized the warning that US-led airstrikes “could destabilize entire region, breeding extremism and terrorism” with the hashtag “#prudence”.

Rouhani’s mentor, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, bolstered the line on Thursday by urging “leaders of powerful countries” to resolve the situation with dialogue, rather than military force.

Mohammed Attar interviewed Noam Chomsky in July, 2013:

Attar: Your discourse unambiguously states that America and Israel have no desire to see the regime fall and that their actions are determined by the “better the devil you know” principle. How do you explain a counter-discourse, promulgated by analysts and intellectuals, especially among Leftist circles in Europe the US and the Arab world, which is based on the supposition of an American/Israeli/imperialist plot? For some people, the revolution in Syria has been a conspiracy from the outset. For others it was hijacked by the conspiracy.

Chomsky: For a long time, the Arab world and other places beside have played host to stories and illusions about the supernatural power of the United States, which controls everything through complex conspiracies and plots. In this worldview, everything that takes place can be explained in terms of imperialist conspiracies. This is an error. Without a doubt, the United States are still a great power and capable of influencing events, but they are not always able to manipulate them by means of complex conspiracies: this really is beyond their capacities. Of course the Americans do sometimes try to do this, but they fail, too. What happened in Syria is not outside our understanding: it began as a popular and democratic protest movement demanding democratic reforms, but instead of responding to it in a constructive, positive manner, Assad reacted with violent repression. The usual outcome of such a course of action is either a successful crushing of the protests or otherwise, to see them evolve and militarize, and this is what took place in Syria. [Continue reading…]

Bloomberg reports: The powerful brother of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is suspected of authorizing the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians, according to a United Nations official who monitors armed conflicts in the region.

Maher al-Assad, the younger brother of the president, commands the regime’s Republican Guard and controls the Syrian Army’s 4th Armored Division, an elite unit that the opposition says launched the Aug. 21 attack on the eastern Ghouta suburbs of the capital, Damascus.

The use of chemical weapons may have been a brash action by Maher al-Assad rather than a strategic decision by the president, according to the UN official, who asked not to be named.

Identifying the chain of command behind the chemical attack would go into calculations about who, what and how to strike in any retaliatory action, the UN official said. If Maher al-Assad is the culprit, for example, a Republican Guard stronghold may be targeted rather than a presidential facility, the official said.

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, doubts that such an important action — openly defying U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line” against the use of chemical weapons — would be done without Bashar al-Assad’s approval. [Continue reading…]

Hans Blix writes: It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a “moral obscenity”, but would we not feel that “a measured and proportionate punishment”, like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that “you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons”? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?

It is hard to avoid the impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear weapons. [Continue reading…]

The following comes from the USG unclassified intelligence report released today:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

Simon Jenkins writes: The urge of much of Britain’s political establishment to attack Syria is in retreat. The prime minister’s eagerness to join an American bombing run on Damascus hit a humiliating reverse in the Commons on Thursday evening. The prime minister now appears to accept there will be no British intervention in Syria.

Prior to the vote, Downing Street had been swerving and skidding to avoid the Iraq trap. It wisely published the intelligence report indicating the Assad regime used chemical weapons in a raid on a Damascus suburb, possibly in random retaliation for an attempt on his life. Such weapons are illegal under international law. While it was wrong to rush to judgment with inquiries still in train, there is justice in a desire to enforce the law. But enforcement must be meticulous in its legality. Otherwise what is dispensed is anarchy, not law.

The government claimed it could attack Syria under the UN’s “responsibility to protect” doctrine, where people in a foreign state are abused by their own government. We know from the Iraq invasion that British politicians are adept at finding lawyers to say what they want. But facts are facts. The UN’s resolution 1674 on responsibility to protect plainly states that such action must be “through the security council in accordance with the charter”. That process was absent. [Continue reading…]

The United States has ruled out unilateral military action against Syria and is conferring with allies on potential punitive strikes that could last for more than a day, a senior US official said Wednesday.

“Any military action would not be unilateral. It would include international partners,” the senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.

That was yesterday. Now it’s clear that the U.S. will not have British support, the administration seems to have reversed its position on unilateral action. If the President of the United States issues a royal decree, the soldiers under his command will follow their orders — they answer to their commander, America’s king, not its people.

CNN reports: The United States may have to take action against Syria without the support of one of its staunchest allies, U.S. officials said Thursday after British lawmakers voted down a proposal for military action.

Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement issued Thursday evening.

“He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable,” Hayden said.

And a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said unilateral action was “a possibility” after the late-night vote in London.

“We care what they think. We value the process. But we’re going to make the decision we need to make,” the official said.

The Guardian reports: David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour.

Ministers had thought they were secure after a Labour amendment was defeated, in the first vote of the night, 332 votes to 220, a government majority of 112.

Labour claimed that the government ran into trouble when deputy prime minister Nick Clegg struggled, in the closing minutes of the debate, to answer concerns on all sides of the house that the government motion would have taken Britain closer to joining a US military operation against the Assad regime in Syria after last week’s chemical weapons attack.

One MP shouted “resign” as the results were read out by the speaker. David Cameron said the government would respect the decision of parliament which means that Britain will not take part in military strikes against Syria.

Yahoo News: If President Barack Obama chooses to unilaterally launch a military attack against Syria in retaliation for the government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last week, he is certain to face criticism that he’s overstepping his executive authority.

The president has already run up against resistance from some members of Congress, who argue that under the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the U.S. Constitution he must seek the body’s full approval before taking military action against the country.

The disagreement is part of a larger and thorny constitutional and legal argument over how far Congress can go to check the chief executive’s war powers and what types of military actions constitute war.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., has said it would be “unquestionably unconstitutional” for Obama to bomb the country without Congress’ approval, and he has authored legislation to withhold funds from the effort. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia also has suggested the president might be on shaky legal ground if he doesn’t get a congressional OK. More than 100 members of Congress signed a letter to the president warning him to seek their approval before attacking another country.

Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first getting Congress’ approval. (Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to impeach President George W. Bush in 2007 if he bombed Iran without first getting approval from Congress.)

Foreign Policy reports: With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad’s government is responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack. They just don’t know who in the Syrian government is to blame.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. “The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if … he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, ‘Go,’ on this,” Harf said. “I don’t know what the facts are here. I’m just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I’m not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I’m just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made.”

On Tuesday, The Cable reported that U.S. officials are basing their assessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike or what kind of command and control structures are in place for the use of such weapons. “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable Tuesday. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

Because of that lack of clarity, Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.

It wasn’t “very nearly” — she was quite explicit in saying that Assad will be held responsible irrespective of who ordered the attack and that she has no specific information on the chain of command.

The Guardian reports: A furious row between Downing Street and the Labour leadership has erupted after No 10 accused Ed Miliband of giving “succour” to the Assad regime after he moved to block an early Commons vote on military action.

As Cameron rejected a Labour amendment on Syria, the prime minister’s spokesperson accused Miliband of “flipping and flopping” and of having moved the goalposts in negotiations over the past 48 hours.

Asked whether Miliband was giving succour to the Assad regime, another Downing Street spokesperson said: “Yes. The fact is that a lot of the arguments over this could give succour to the regime.”

Labour immediately hit back. A spokesman said: “That is frankly insulting. Language like that demeans Downing Street.”

Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit.” [Continue reading…]

The Guardian reports: A British military attack on Syria will have to be a “judgment call” as there is no “single smoking piece of intelligence” that the regime used chemical weapons, David Cameron said at the beginning of the emergency Commons debate on Syria.

Arguing in favour of military intervention, the prime minister said he believed that forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad did use poisonous gas against the Syrian people “right in front of our eyes”.

Cameron told MPs there were at least 95 “horrific videos” of people dying in a gas attack in a suburb of Damascus two weeks ago, and added there was further evidence in the form of witness and social media reports.

However, the prime minister did concede that there could be no 100% certainty about the intelligence on which Britain would have to make a decision on whether to intervene in Syria. [Continue reading…]

The Guardian reports: The report by Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee on the Syrian chemical warfare attacks fails to answer a central question – about the motivation of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Its conclusion that the Syrian government was “highly likely” to be responsible largely rests on precedent and the firm view that the opposition was not capable of carrying out attacks on this scale.

The JIC did say that it had “some intelligence” to suggest “regime culpability” for the August 21st attack, which it says resulted in at least 350 fatalities. David Cameron, according to a covering letter from the JIC chairman, Jon Day, has had access to it all. But there is no further elaboration on this central point.

There is also a striking lack of any scientific evidence in the document.

The committee’s most unequivocal statement is that it was “not possible” for the anti-Assad opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale. The Syrian regime and supporters such as Russia (“with a good degree of confidence”) claim (though without producing supporting evidence) that that is exactly what did happen. The JIC addressed this point simply by noting that a number of (unidentified) opposition groups “continue to seek a CW capability”.

Overall, Day told the prime minister, the JIC had “high confidence” in the accuracy of all its assessments. But there was one significant qualification: “Except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.” [Continue reading…]

The Guardian reports: Britain and the US are under pressure to delay military intervention in Syria after Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said more time should be allowed for inspections in Damascus.

Ban said the inspectors, who are investigating the chemical weapons attack last week, would need a total of four days to carry out their site visits and then further time to analyse their findings.

He spoke as a 90-minute meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), devoted to discussing the options for targeted attacks against Syria, broke up in London before a debate and vote in the House of Commons on Thursday on government plans to respond with force to Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

Sources in London and Washington have been suggesting that a limited attack could take place before the end of the week, but Cameron’s desire to show that he is not ignoring the UN could put that timetable in jeopardy. [Continue reading…]

It’s worth remembering that when France and Britain led NATO’s intervention in Libya, they only did so after getting the support of a UN Security Council resolution, and President Obama only agreed to participate if the U.S. could have a back-seat role.

This time, while there have been lots of signals the White House is willing to launch attacks without the authority of a UNSC resolution, it’s less clear whether Britain and France are willing to go that route.

David Cameron is facing growing opposition in parliament as Labour leader Ed Miliband says the government should not be provided with a “blank cheque.” Add to that the fact that Obama has already ruled out unilateral action and the war machine ready to be unleashed “within hours”, may in fact end up in a holding pattern.

And now the UN Secretary General is also stepping his foot on the breaks.

The Associated Press reports: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says a team of chemical weapons inspectors needs a total of four days to complete its investigation into an alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus.

Ban said Wednesday the team had completed a second day of investigations at a site in a suburb of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

He says, “Let them conclude … their work for four days and then we will have to analyze scientifically” their findings and send a report to the Security Council.

So that would delay any U.S. action until next week. But on Tuesday, Obama will be leaving the U.S. heading for Russia — I can’t see him launching an attack while overseas, least of all in Russia.

And then come these rather telling comments:

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.

If or when Obama speaks to the nation, expect the word “calibrated” to feature prominently in his message.

These days Bashar al-Assad probably welcomes support from any quarter including that from ultra-right British National Party leader Nick Griffin who just “dramatically cut short a conference in Brussels to embark on an emergency BNPeace mission to war-torn #Syria.”

The Guardian reports: The United States and its allies are unlikely to build a clear case under international law for a military strike against Syria, and may instead make novel arguments about chemical weapons prohibitions, legal experts have said.

Britain is putting forward a resolution to the United Nations security council on Wednesday, condemning the alleged chemical attack in Syria last week and “authorising necessary measures to protect civilians” in the country.

However, Russia, which has a veto on the council, is widely expected to oppose any military action against Syria at the vote in New York. Western powers will therefore need to find another basis – outside of a security council resolution – under which to justify a strike against Syria.

The only other universally agreed basis for military action under international law is self-defence, and it would be hard for the US to argue that the Syrian conflict poses an imminent national security threat.

In Geneva, the UN special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said on Wednesday that while inspectors had uncovered some evidence of a chemical attack, “international law says that any US-led military action must be taken after” agreement at the 15-nation security council.

“At this point the weight of international opinion would be that military action would not be legal,” said Ian Johnstone, a professor of international law at Tufts University. “However, I do think that there could be a case where violation of the law would be excused on the grounds of humanitarian necessity.”

Barry Pavel, a former director on the national security council under the Bush and Obama administrations, said that without UN or even Nato support, the US and its allies would seek to justify of a strike on “policy, political, moral and legal grounds”.

Pavel, who spent 18 years at the Pentagon is is now a vice-president at the Atlantic Council, said Obama would be expected to make a speech, answering questions about the legal basis of military action, prior to any strikes.

US, British and French political leaders have so far described the expected assault on Syria as a form of punishment or deterrence over its purported use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, which resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Senior US officials have repeatedly said that President Assad’s forces “flagrantly violated” international law governing the use of chemical weapons, indicating that may form the basis for a justification of any future attack.

Defence secretary Chuck Hagel recently told reporters that any military action would occur “within the framework of legal justification”, but stopped short of saying it would be sanctioned under international law.

Professor Matthew C Waxman, from Columbia law school, said that even if the US and allies believed an attack on Syria was justified, they would “undoubtedly face some tough questions about the legality” of an intervention.

He said the US might forgo even attempting a technical justification for military action under international law which, in practical terms, would need the support of China and Russia, and instead build a moral case that use of force was “justifiable and legitimate”. [Continue reading…]

As UN resumes investigations, President #Rouhani calls on intl community to show #prudence over #Syrian crisis and observe international law

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 28, 2013

#Leader in a meeting with cabinet members now: US #intervention in #Syria or any other country will turn into a disaster for the region

— khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) August 28, 2013

Leader:Region is like a #gunpowder stock. US’s #intervention means nothing but warmongering& acts like a #spark in a stockpile of gunpowder

— khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) August 28, 2013

Iran gives notice to international community to use all its might to prevent use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, esp. in #Syria

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

Iran suffered chemical weapons attacks by Iraqi forces during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war 2/2

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

We completely & strongly condemn use of chemical weapons in #Syria because Islamic Republic of Iran is itself victim of chemical weapons 1/2

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

Christopher Dickey writes: With the United States on the verge, once again, of military action in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the Syrian conflict as what it is: the epicenter of a widening regional conflict. The limited U.S. missile strikes expected to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons will sink the United States more deeply than ever into this turbulent quagmire. But there’s no guarantee that inaction would help the Obama administration get out or stay out. The regional players include too many American allies that are too important to U.S. interests, even though many of them are rivals and enemies of each other.

Let’s start with the Saudis, not least because Washington and Riyadh have had such close ties for so long, especially in the dark world of covert operations.

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan used to be one of the most popular figures in Washington D.C., where he was ambassador, and for that matter in Aspen, Colorado, where he owned an enormous mansion. With a cigar in one hand and a snifter of Cognac in the other, he helped guide successive American administrations through the maze of intrigues in the Middle East, and helped create quite a few of them himself, including the arming of the Afghan mujahedeen and the complicated conspiracy that came to be known as Iran-Contra.

Since Bandar’s 22-year tenure in Washington came to an end in 2005, he has moved deeply into the shadows, and is now the head of his country’s intelligence services.

The Saudis see Iran as the single greatest threat to their security militarily (especially if it gets nuclear weapons), religiously (Shiite versus Sunni), and even territorially (by promoting unrest among the Shiite populations of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province and in neighboring Bahrain). And in many respects the Syrian war is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but, of course, it’s not as simple as that.

The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, before him have been intimate allies of the Iranian mullahs since the 1980s. Together, Iran and Syria have trained and armed Lebanon’s Hezbollah, one of the most effective guerrilla and terrorist organizations in the world.

In 2006, Prince Bandar actually encouraged Israel to wage what turned out to be a failed effort to obliterate the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. Saudi support for Sunni rebels in Iraq also is meant to undermine a government in Baghdad that has grown ever closer to Tehran. Today, the Saudis have every interest in using the Syrian conflict to weaken Iran by depriving it of its allies in Damascus, or, at a minimum, draining Iran’s resources in a protracted Syrian war.

But there’s a twist. A secondary but significant Saudi concern is the Muslim Brotherhood, an international organization of Sunni Islamists which has deep roots in Syria and a clear ambition to dominate its political future. While the Saudis and the Brotherhood share the goal of deposing Assad, they are bitter enemies. [Continue reading…]