Syrian jihadi groups are now kidnapping and killing one another

Hassan Hassan writes: If the United States wants to move against jihadists in Syria, there has never been a better time. Tensions between moderate rebel groups and extremist forces are coming to a head across the country.

The potential of a U.S. military strike over the past several weeks — which mainstream forces largely welcomed, and jihadists, fearing that the United States would target them, opposed — appears to have exacerbated tensions between the groups. Full-blown clashes broke out in the north and east of the country today, with Free Syrian Army (FSA)-affiliated groups in the city of Deir Ezzor battling with the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Meanwhile, ISIS also launched an offensive on the northern town of Azaz, which lies close to the Turkish border.

The clashes follow an ISIS announcement earlier this week declaring war against the FSA-affiliated Farouk Brigades in Aleppo, along with another moderate rebel brigade. Dubbing its operation “The Repudiation of Malignity,” the jihadist group said its offensive was in response to an attack by the brigades against its headquarters in the northern city of al-Bab last week.

ISIS even appears to be picking fights with more radical brigades. The jihadist group reportedly kidnapped nine commanders from the Ahrar Souria group in the northern city of Raqqa on Sept. 12. It also killed a commander from the powerful Ahrar al-Sham militia, after the man objected to ISIS’s kidnapping of Malaysian aid workers. In going after Ahrar al-Sham, ISIS is turning a former friend into an enemy: The Salafist group stood by ISIS last month when it clashed with Ahfad al-Rasoul, an FSA-affiliated rebel group, and as popular protests erupted against ISIS.

ISIS’s feuding with moderate Syrian rebels seems to be sanctioned by the very top of the al Qaeda hierarchy. In an audio statement last week, al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri warned his followers in Syria to avoid cooperation with “secular groups that are allied to the West.”

That’s not to say that mainstream rebel groups can afford to shun al Qaeda affiliates entirely. In the absence of an international push to help the opposition, jihadists are still the rebels’ most lethal weapon. Jihadist suicide attacks have been responsible for some of the most important strategic gains recently: Rebel groups besieged Mennagh military airbase in Aleppo for more than a year, for example, but were unable to completely capture it — until ISIS dispatched its suicide bombers on Aug. 5. The same thing happened at the Hamidiya military complex in the northern province of Idlib last month.

But there is no doubt that rebel groups are growing increasingly uneasy with the behavior of al Qaeda affiliates, particularly in rebel-held areas in the country’s north and east. Jihadists may be an indispensable asset on the front lines, but their behavior in liberated areas — where they have kidnapped activists and aid workers, terrorized civilians, and tried to implement an alien form of Islamic law — is alienating Syrians. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Liwa al Islam issue statement after videos attempt to implicate them in chemical weapons attacks

EA Worldview reports: In an official statement on Thursday, the Liwa al-Islam Brigade accused the Assad regime of deliberately fabricating video footage purporting to show its fighters firing chemical weapons.

The videos, disseminated on YouTube, gained a degree of prominence when blogger Brown Moses wrote about them.

Liwa Al Islam said that the videos were not published on their official channels, were “forged and completely fake”.

“Liwa al-Islam does not have the kind of artillery shown in the videos. Only the Assad regime has this capability. Furthermore, this kind of artillery cannot in any way carry warheads that might be filled with chemical weapons,” the statement read.

The statement later reads:

“In the targeted areas in Ghouta, there was a battalion affiliated with Liwa al-Islam. Ten soldiers of this battalion were killed and around 50 were injured”

Liwa Al Islam accused the Assad regime of also faking a video showing its members beheading soldiers, which it called a “cheap lie”.

“Liwa al-Islam denounces this kind of behavior, and it is not part of its policy to execute detainees,” the group said.

Vowing to continue to fight, the group said,”The world has forgotten all crimes by the Assad regime and focused only on the use of chemical weapons. When the international community makes a deal with Assad to eliminate his stockpile of chemical weapons and then hands him a certificate of good conduct, which puts him in a position to freely continue killing with other means, it becomes a partner in Assad’s murderous crimes.”

Facebooktwittermail

Syria’s main arms suppliers among least generous aid donors, says Oxfam

The Guardian reports: Countries in the forefront of arming either side in Syria’s civil war have been among the least generous when it comes to dealing with the resulting humanitarian disaster, according to a new Oxfam report.

The aid agency and advocacy group found that Russia and Qatar had committed just 3% of their fair share to the United Nations humanitarian appeal, measuring their contributions as a proportion of national income and wealth.

Russia has long been the Syrian government’s main arms supplier, providing nearly half its imports in 2006-10, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

On Wednesday, Moscow launched a diplomatic assault in defence of the Syrian regime, claiming to have evidence implicating Syrian rebels in the chemical attack in Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds were killed. Russia’s move once again pits it against the UK, France and the United States, which blamed the attack squarely on Bashar Al Assad.

Meanwhile, Qatar is widely reported to be the main source of finance for weapons for the rebels, particularly jihadist groups.

France, the most vociferous supporter of the opposition in western Europe, has given less than half its fair share, the Oxfam report found.

At the other end of the scale, Kuwait has contributed more than four times its share, while Britain has given more than one and a half times what the agency estimated a proportionate contribution to the UN fund. Saudi Arabia has given nearly twice its share.

Overall, under-payers far outnumber over-payers, especially among rich countries. The US, despite being the biggest contributor in absolute terms, has given 63% of its fair share in relation to national income, Oxfam found. Japan has paid 17% of its fair share and South Korea 2%.

As a result, the £3bn Syrian humanitarian fund launched by the UN in June this year is so far only 44% funded, with days to go before a high-level donor meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly next week. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian border town overrun by al-Qaeda group

Al Jazeera: Fighters linked to al-Qaeda have overrun a Syrian town near the border with Turkey after fighting broke out with units of the anti-government Free Syrian Army, opposition activists say.

Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on Wednesday stormed the town of Azaz, 5km from the Syrian-Turkish border, and killed at least five FSA members, the activists said, adding 100 people were taken captive.

Reports in the late evening said that fighting was continuing and getting closer to a border crossing at Bab Al Salama, which is controlled by the FSA.

The fighting is the most severe since tensions mounted earlier this year between the rebel factions fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The fighting could pose a dilemma for the Turkish government, which has been allowing fighters to cross into Syria from its territory, but may not be keen to see al-Qaeda so close to its border.

Facebooktwittermail

Sectarian violence reignites in an Iraqi town

The New York Times reports: The orange archway at the entrance to this farming community welcomes visitors in “peace.” The lush palm groves are heavy with ripe dates. For generations, Shiite and Sunni families worked the land, earning a living from their sheep and cows, their wheat fields and lemon trees.

On a recent morning, though, the only talk was of how to stop them from killing one another.

The latest strategy: new concrete walls with separate entryways for the different sects.

“So there’s a Sunni way in, and a Shiite way in,” Abu Jassim, a Sunni resident who recently fled his home after sectarian revenge killings by Shiite gunmen, explained to a local representative in Parliament.

During the worst of Iraq’s carnage over the last decade, this area of Diyala Province, a mixed region where Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds still compete for power, faced killings and displacement. But what is happening now, villagers say, is worse — what one Western diplomat described in an interview as “Balkans-style ethnic cleansing.”

Iraqi leaders worry that the violence here may be a sign of what awaits the rest of the country if the government cannot quell the growing mayhem that many trace to the civil war in Syria, which has inflamed sectarian divisions, with Sunnis supporting the rebels and Shiites backing the Assad government. Attacks have become more frequent this year, with major bombings becoming almost a daily occurrence. The violence countrywide has increased to a level not seen in five years, according to the United Nations, reinforcing fears that the type of sectarian warfare that gripped the country in 2006 and 2007 will reignite. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Wave of car bombs, other attacks kill 33 in Iraq

The Associated Press reports: A new wave of car bombs rocked commercial streets in the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, part of a series of attacks across the country that left 33 dead.

Meanwhile, Sunni leaders in Basra said unknown gunmen had shot dead 17 Sunnis in the Shiite-dominated southern city over the past two weeks, following threats to retaliate against them for attacks on Shiites in other parts of Iraq.

Car bomb attacks blamed on hard-line Sunnis aiming to undermine confidence in the Shiite-led government, coming alongside revenge killings by Shiites, are reminiscent of the cycle of violence that brought the country to the brink of civil war some years ago. A surge of bloodshed is now in its fifth month, although overall death tolls are still lower than at the height of the conflict in 2004-2008. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Iraq’s latest surge: state executions

Samir Goswami writes: In the bloody shadow of Iraq’s recent surge in violence lurks another troubling statistic: this year, Iraq has executed nearly 70 people accused of terrorist-related activities, including 17 men and women last month alone. Let me be clear, the death penalty should be abolished everywhere, including in the United States. Tragically in Iraq, though, it seems the death penalty has become a key component in Baghdad’s counterterrorism strategy.

And the trend is headed in the wrong direction. A recent Amnesty International report showed that in 2012, Iraqi executioners killed at least 129 people, almost twice as many as the previous year, putting Iraq in third place among countries using the death penalty (the United States was fifth, with 43).

With reports showing that more than 1,000 people were killed in sectarian and terrorist attacks in July alone, it is easy to understand why Iraqi authorities might seek desperate measures. But violence thrives where justice, due process, and human rights are denied. Continuing that cycle of violence by executing people only serves to further erode confidence in the government’s ability to protect its citizens, especially when its own institutions do not live up to their own standards.

Simply put, adherence to the rule of law grounded in human rights principles can help prevent violence. This is especially true for fragile governments that are trying to instil confidence in their core governance responsibilities. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Time for Americans to stop defending their right to kill each other

Rosa Brooks writes: Here we go again. With 12 dead bodies at Washington’s Navy Yard, not including that of the shooter, Americans are back to the usual handwringing: Why, oh why can’t we stem the tide of gun violence?

People, this is not rocket science. (Yes, I’m mad).

For a start, we have too many guns sloshing around. A recent Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) backgrounder notes that “The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has about 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns.” Reading the news, you might imagine that Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or some other conflict-ravaged nation would be leading the most guns-per-capita race, but nope: That’s us. We’re number one.

Yes, you say, but guns don’t kill people, people do. Well, bless your shrunken little NRA heart, that’s true! Last I checked, guns just lying around all by themselves don’t spontaneously start shooting at elementary-school children or random passersby. With rare exceptions (“I dropped it on the floor and it just went off…”), it takes a finger on the trigger to get them going.

But while guns don’t kill people on their own, they sure make it easier for people to kill people. This, incidentally, is why our troops carry guns, instead of slingshots or brass knuckles: If you need to be able to kill quickly and surely, guns will do the trick. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Egypt’s crackdown on Morsi supporters called worse than Mubarak era

McClatchy reports: In the two months since Egyptian authorities started rounding up supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi, a repressive regime has emerged here that appears to be far worse than the one political activists thought they’d ended when they pushed Hosni Mubarak from office two and a half years ago.

Egyptians caught in the roundup have told McClatchy they were tortured while awaiting charges. Islamist leaders claim that the government is rounding up family members in the night as leverage against them. Lawyers tasked with representing arrested Morsi supporters often are arrested when they go to be with their clients during prison interrogations. Once again, civilians are facing their charges in military courts.

“I saw torture chambers that made me wish they would shoot my husband dead,” said one woman who was arrested the same day her husband also was seized. “I would rather see him, the father of three children, dead than tortured,” she recounted in a phone interview, her voice still shaking 10 days after her two-week detention.

The woman, who asked not to be identified for fear she’d be arrested again, said she was mistreated while in custody but hadn’t been tortured. Her account matches that of other prisoners, who say they’ve gone on hunger strikes to protest the crowded conditions and refusals to let them see their lawyers.

Not just Morsi supporters have been arrested. A growing number of journalists and human rights advocates also have been detained, leaving fewer eyes to document what’s happening.

Ahmed Helmi, a human rights lawyer who represents many of those arrested, estimated that as many as 10,000 people have been arrested since the military deposed Morsi on July 3. That’s far more than human right groups’ estimates of 3,000. Diplomatic officials told McClatchy the number could be 5,000. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Egypt troops storm Islamist stronghold near Cairo

The Associated Press reports: Egyptian security forces backed by armored fighting vehicles and helicopters stormed a tourist town near the Great Pyramids that became an Islamist stronghold on Thursday, the latest in a stepped up campaign by the military-backed government to put down armed supporters of the ousted president.

As they moved into Kerdasa at around 6 a.m., the troops and policemen came under barrages of fire from gunmen on rooftops. Militants took control of the town just outside Cairo more than a month ago amid a nationwide backlash of violence by Islamists enraged by the military coup that removed President Mohammed Morsi and by a crackdown against his supporters that followed.

A police general fell in the first moments of the battle. Gen. Nabil Farrag had just given a pep talk to his men on the street, preparing them to roll into the town, when they came under a hail of gunfire, according to an Associated Press video journalist and a photographer working with AP. [Continue reading…]

AFP reports: Gaza rulers Hamas and residents of the Palestinian territory fear Egypt’s destruction of tunnels used to smuggle goods across the border is part of a plan to tighten a blockade of the Strip.

“The Egyptian army has destroyed 95 percent of the tunnels with the aim of setting up a security buffer zone,” Sobhi Ridwan, head of the Palestinian municipality in the border town of Rafah, told AFP.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum echoed the concern.

“We have big fears of a buffer zone being set up and the tunnels all being shut down,” Barhum said.

Egypt’s army has destroyed many of the tunnels on the Egyptian side of Rafah which are used to smuggle goods, including building material and fuel, into the blockaded Palestinian territory. [Continue reading…]

The New York Times reports: Security forces on Tuesday arrested Gehad el-Haddad, a senior official of the Muslim Brotherhood who handled the group’s communication with the foreign news media, security officials said. His arrest was part of a continuing roundup of thousands of Brotherhood members in the two months since the military ouster of President Mohamed Morsi, an ally of the group.

Mr. Haddad is an aide to Khairat el-Shater, a Brotherhood leader who was arrested last month, and the son of Mr. Morsi’s top foreign policy adviser, Essam el-Haddad, who was detained with Mr. Morsi at the time of the takeover. The arrests have already swept up much of the group’s leadership, effectively crippling its organizational ability.

Facebooktwittermail

Egypt’s constitutional disorder

Ursula Lindsey writes: The divisive constitution that the Muslim Brotherhood pushed through last year — over howls of indignation from the opposition — was one of the great mistakes of the Islamist organization’s short time in power. The Brothers and other Islamist parties were determined to give the country a more Islamic charter, and in doing so they ran roughshod over the concerns of many non-Islamists and their own promises of inclusiveness.

Last year’s constitution was suspended when President Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the army on July 3 after mass protests. The interim government appointed a 10-person legal panel to amend the charter, and now a 50-person committee is revising it further. They have two months to produce a new document, which will be put to a national referendum.

Egypt’s current authorities say they want to correct the Brotherhood’s mistakes and produce a truly representative, inclusive national charter. But some of the ways this constitution is being written inspire a sense of déjà vu.

The constitution drafted by the Islamist-dominated assembly was socially conservative and contained provisions that extended the role of Islam and the purview of religious institutions in public life. It seemed to open the door to the state and regular citizens enforcing a particular interpretation of Islamic values and behavior.

Much of that — except for an introductory article stating that “the principles of Islamic Shariah” are the basis of Egyptian law — is likely to be scrapped. There is also talk of reinstituting the ban on religious parties that existed under President Hosni Mubarak.

This is where the similarity between the previous and the current constitution-writing process lies: Both reflect and enshrine a particular imbalance of power rather than trying to represent the aspirations of all citizens.

The last assembly was drawn overwhelmingly from Islamist parties that had just performed well at the polls. Non-Islamists didn’t have the numbers to exercise veto power and complained about their marginalization; eventually almost all of them withdrew. The new drafting committee looks like a photo negative of the old one: It contains a single delegate from an Islamist party, and he has already walked out in protest over being ignored. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

The American psyche can be easily manipulated

The “American psyche can be easily manipulated” Sheherazad Jaafari – a press attache at Syria’s mission to the UN – advised an aide to the Syrian president prior to Barbara Walters’ interview with Bashar al-Assad in late 2011. That observation remains just as true now as it was then.

If America’s war on terrorism has turned out to be an abysmal failure in terms of eradicating terrorism, it has nevertheless been extraordinarily successful as an exercise in brainwashing a whole nation. Americans believe in terrorism with close to the same conviction that they believe in God.

“Terrorism” and “terrorist” are absolute terms. There might be small-time crooks but there are no small-time terrorists. The terrorist has become the archetype of evil whose power is treated as almost metaphysical — a threat to whole nations and to a way of life.

Whatever PR advice Assad received early on, it was sound, he took it to heart, and he has remained “on message” even while his international political opponents have become increasingly incoherent.

Assad’s fight is the good fight; the fight that virtually no American dare question: the fight against terrorism.

In Assad’s interview with Fox News which aired last night he said that “80 to 90% of the rebels or terrorists on the ground are Al Qaeda and their offshoots.”

A statement from Michael Clemente, executive vice president of news at Fox News, said that the interview “was conducted with no restrictions on the questions that could be asked,” yet neither Fox contributor Dennis Kucinich nor Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent Greg Palkot, made any serious attempt to question Assad’s assertion.

They could for instance have pointed out that in a conflict that now involves an estimated 1,000 armed groups, the expressions “rebels,” “terrorists,” and “al Qaeda and their offshoots” grossly over-simplify a complex environment. Moreover, within that array of 100,000 fighters only 10% are believed to be linked to al Qaeada.

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), with its historical ties to the infamous Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Jabhat al-Nusra have both been branded terrorist organizations and al Qaeda affiliates yet in Syria are operating as rivals. Furthermore, the complexity of that rivalry is open to differing interpretations even by close observers.

Mohammed Al Attar writes:

Some tend to the view that there is no great difference between the two, with both functioning as two extremist arms of a main body that is Al Qaeda. Others believe that open confrontation between the two is on its way, driven by a dispute over approach and vision and, moreover, over legitimacy of representation. People tell the story of an Al Raqqa-born Front commander called Abu Saad who joined ISIS in the wake of the dispute between the two groups, after Al Nusra leader Abu Mohammed Al Jolani refused to swear an oath of loyalty to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. Within months, Abu Saad and a group of mujahideen split from ISIS and re-joined the Al Nusra Front in Al Tabaqa. We heard a number of similar stories in the countryside around Idlib and Aleppo of this reverse migration of fighters from ISIS to the Al Nusra Front. Some attribute this to the predominantly Syrian make-up of Al Nusra as opposed to ISIS, while others talk of the revulsion felt by certain mujahideen towards the excessively extreme and uncompromising practices of ISIS. None of this equips us to make a precise measurement of the numbers and strength of the two groups, but it points to a constant movement between them.

Is there any chance that this kind of analysis might be incorporated into an interview with Assad on Fox News? No way!

Assad knows without doubt that with American journalists and in front of an American audience, the terrorism narrative works. Use the label terrorist and supposedly few other details are necessary.

The terrorism narrative also works in the sense that it has effectively shut down intelligent political discourse on the issue inside the United States.

I don’t think that Dennis Kucinich is stupid or utterly naive and he is surely in no doubt that Assad uses the term terrorist as a label of political convenience to vilify his opponents, yet would the former Congressman be bold enough to challenge Assad by referring to “so-called” terrorists? Not likely. Why? Because if anyone on the left talks about “so-called” terrorists, they will swiftly get jumped on for being soft on terrorism. At the same time, someone like Charles Krauthammer, a bona fide neoconservative and general-purpose supporter of American wars, can freely scoff at Assad’s assertions and refer to “so-called” terrorists confident that he is not going to be accused of being soft on terrorism. The American right, having taken full ownership of the terrorism discourse can speak freely, while the left needs to perpetually monitor itself and polish its national security credibility.

Meanwhile, as Assad takes advantage of easy access to a U.S. media short on analysis, witness the contrast between the deferential treatment being offered to a president who has sanctioned mass killing, versus the zealous denouncing of a 26-year old Syria analyst who is guilty of having padded out her résumé and been less than forthright about some of her affiliations.

I refer to Elizabeth O’Bagy, the analyst cited by Secretary of State John Kerry when he asserted in Congress that the majority of Syria’s rebels are “moderates” — an analyst who it turns out does not possess a doctorate. Alongside working for Washington’s Institute for the Study of War, she also worked for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, “which both lobbies in Washington for the moderate Syrian opposition and does humanitarian work inside Syria,” reports Time.

Those vilifying O’Bagy see her as an easy target because the actions she has been faulted for cannot be easily defended, yet these attacks also, and not incidentally, sidestep the issue of the credibility of her analysis of the Syrian opposition.

It’s as though her lack of a PhD reveals much more about her knowledge of Syria than her six trips to rebel-controlled territory taught her. The fact that she can speak Arabic apparently matters much less than that she was hired by the Syrian Emergency Task Force. And to cap it all, she’s 26 — as though we can overlook the fact that plenty of similarly youthful reporters do not have their journalism dismissed on the basis of their age.

O’Bagy’s critics expose their superficiality and hypocrisy by glossing over the precise basis of her expertise which derived from neither academic credentials nor institutional affiliations but the very thing that hardly anyone in Washington possesses when it comes to Syria: on-the-ground experience.

Facebooktwittermail

Iran frees political prisoners ahead of new president’s UN visit

The Guardian reports: Iran’s most prominent human rights activist was released from jail on Wednesday along with several other political prisoners in what appears to be the most tangible sign of change yet under the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani.

Ahead of Rouhani’s eagerly awaited visit to the UN general assembly in New York next week, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has been likened to Aung San Suu Kyi, was driven from Evin prison in Tehran to her house in another part of the Iranian capital and told she did not need to return to jail.

“They were quite certain this time that I’m freed and I don’t need to go back,” the 50-year-old women’s rights activist told the Guardian by phone from her home.

Opposition website Kaleme reported on Wednesday that seven other women political prisoners had also been released in the previous 24 hours, including the dissident journalist Mahsa Amrabadi, and at least four men, including reformist politicians Feizollah Arabsorkhi, Mirtaher Mousavi and former deputy foreign minister Mohsen Aminzadeh.

“In the past, when I was granted prison leave they used to give me a document, this time they gave me nothing,” said Sotoudeh, who last October was awarded the European parliament’s most prestigious human rights award, the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, which has previously been won by Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela.

“My goals and mentality are the same as before, I haven’t changed,” Sotoudeh insisted, adding that like other lawyers she would still work “to restore justice and defend the rights of protesters”.

The prisoner releases have come amid increasing signs of a political opening-up in the Islamic republic following Rouhani’s inauguration last month and as he prepares for his UN visit, which many have suggested may be the scene for a historic meeting between the Iranian president and Barack Obama. [Continue reading…]

The question is, can Obama muster the heroic flexibility to defy the Israel lobby and talk to Rouhani? They are going to be in the same building at the same time. Can the U.S. really afford to squander such an opportunity? If nothing else, a friendly greeting to a noteworthy visitor really should be a matter of common courtesy. A handshake should be a bare minimum and since — as the media now credits Rouhani as a bona fide “moderate” because he’s had a Western education and speaks fluent English — can’t they at least have a conversation?

Facebooktwittermail

What does Khamenei mean by ‘heroic flexibility’?

Reza HaghighatNejad writes: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has created a stir this week by declaring that he supports “heroic flexibility” in diplomacy, during a speech to commanders of the Revolutionary Guards. The term has been the buzz of Iranian media since Khamenei uttered it, raising questions as to what precisely the supreme leader meant with his elusive phrasing.

This isn’t the first time Khamenei refers to “heroic flexibility.” On September 5, during a meeting with members of Assembly of Experts he said, “artistic and heroic leniency and flexibility in all political arena is desirable and acceptable,” though he cautioned that this “maneuvering must not mean passing redlines, regressing from fundamental strategies, and disregarding the ideals.”

Even so, emphasizing these words in the presence of Guards’ commanders, the powerful military and political figures most loyal to him, suggests that Khamenei is not playing with shades of meaning but signaling a new approach.

If “heroic flexibility” suggests a new approach, how can this nascent policy be interpreted? In the same speech, Khamenei outlined the main condition for this type of diplomatic flexibility to be exercised: “A technical wrestler may also show some flexibility on technical grounds occasionally, but does not forget who his opponent is and what his main goal is.”

What Khamenei is likely stressing here is that the Rouhani government’s diplomatic innovations must be limited to the technical area of Iran’s nuclear program. Khamenei has said recently that though he is not optimistic about negotiations with the United States, he has issued permission for certain case-by-case negotiations. Talking about case-by-case negotiations is, in fact, a manifestation of the reason for diplomatic leniency. Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator, has recently said that the supreme leader has permitted President Hassan Rouhani to hold direct talks with the United States.

Khamenei also emphasized, however, that he expects the new cabinet to project an image of strength, as it is representing the regime politically alongside whatever new diplomacy it takes forward. He spoked repeatedly in his speech about the rightfulness of the Islamic Republic, the defeat of the West, and the importance of presenting a new model to the world. He stressed that Iran’s relationship within the West and the handling of the nuclear crisis must be evaluated in the context of the West’s dealings with Islam and the Iranian state.

One of the most significant aspects of the speech was Khamenei’s efforts to prepare hardliners, especially the most radical, for the potential innovations, read concessions, of the Rouhani government. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Diplomacy over Syria brings another chance to talk with Iran

Hans Blix writes: For some weeks the world’s attention has turned from the brutal civil war that continues to rage over much of Syria, and focused instead on the horrible large-scale use of chemical weapons near Damascus – which has now been verified in a report by UN appointed impartial inspectors. After several bewildering political turns, the framework agreed in Geneva by the foreign ministers of the US and Russia may be viable and meet the interest of their own and many other governments – even though it is bitterly denounced by Syrian rebels, who had hoped for strong US military action, and even though there is no consensus on the question of guilt.

Rather than a fast-track, global-police action with the US ignoring the UN security council – and charter – to punish Syria with limited military strikes, we now see Damascus brought on a fast-track to the chemical weapons convention and an accelerated process for those weapons to be declared (within a week), verified by international inspectors and removed from or destroyed in Syria (within the first half of 2014). The executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the security council are, quite properly, to run the process and supervise it.

This “framework” takes the US off a military course that appeared to go against American public opinion, might have been rejected in Congress, and could have led to loss of many lives in Syria and dragged Washington into further armed conflict. Many governments welcomed that, under the framework, the security council is no longer ignored but made the central forum for action and supervision. For Russia, as a permanent council member with a veto, this meant preserved influence. Through the framework, Russia also protected the Syrian government from the loss of military assets that would have been destroyed in punitive strikes. While Moscow reaped praise for preventing armed action, the only price it paid was the destruction of a chemical arsenal that the Syrian government could hardly have used a second time.

What now looks almost like an international “due process” will undoubtedly raise questions. It seems unlikely the Syrian government will seek to obstruct the process and raise a need for enforcement measures, but troublesome practical and political problems will inevitably arise. The reset that has already taken place between the US and Russia in Geneva will be needed to solve such problems. Even more co-operation will be needed between the two, and within the security council, to tackle the much greater challenge of achieving a ceasefire in Syria and a conference to bring about a transitional government.

It is welcome that the US now seems fully aware that Iran is central to this challenge, and that dialogue with Tehran – and not only threats – are needed. In comments made before the final deal was struck, President Obama made clear that Iran will have a place at the conference about peace in Syria. He cautioned Iran that its getting closer to a nuclear weapon is a far larger issue to the US than Syrian chemical weapons, and warned Tehran it should not conclude that the readiness to strike against it was gone. However, Obama also signalled that the deal reached in Geneva showed there is a potential to resolve these issues diplomatically. One would hope this potential will soon be explored. It could improve the atmosphere. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail