ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Broccoli said:

Rebels in Damascus belong to same groups who have been fighting IS since 2013 and Israelis have already said that if Syrian regime tries to give weapons for Hezbollah terrorists IAF will annihilate those convoys.

If you have conspiracy theories then you have to prove them.

Click to expand...

delft said:

From the BBC website:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I understand that the Brits usually say their armed forces are better than those of European countries.

BTW I know that Ireland is a European country, and Scotland too, but is England European?

Click to expand...

Obama’s Faustian deal with Turkey’s Erdogan

The United States is reportedly discussing with Turkey the latter’s longstanding demand about establishing a no-fly zone in northern Syria on the Turkish border. When asked about it last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington is “having a very serious discussion with Turkey.”

Kerry explained, “But it is premature to suggest at this moment of time that we are close to making a decision or moving forward with any form of a safe zone or a buffer zone. But we are continuing our discussions with our Turkish allies in order to have conversations about how we best bolster security in the region and deal with the problem of Syria.”

Kerry added that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has “lost all legitimacy” and peace will elude Syria as long as he remains in power. “There needs to be some kind of transition.”

President Barack Obama faces growing pressure in Washington as well as from US’ Arab allies to pay more attention to the ‘regime change’ in Syria. Former secretary of state and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for “a protective humanitarian approach,” a code word for establishing so-called safe areas in Syria.

The Washington Post has carried details of a plan the Obama administration is weighing to establish a no-fly zone “potentially up to 100 miles long and 20 miles deep inside Syria” where US-backed Syrian rebel forces would move in and where Turkish special forces would assist them to “consolidate their hold on the territory.”

In a separate editorial, Washington Post complimented the Obama administration for “creeping toward a correction of its strategy in Syria.”

In what appears to be a related move signifying an imminent expansion of the US military intervention in Syria and Iraq, Pentagon has established a new military command to handle the mission in the two countries. The US Central Command was hitherto handling the operations in Iraq and Syria. A contingent of paratroopers drawn from the the 82 airborne division of the US army has been deployed in Iraq this week.

A deal between the US and Turkey would have several components. For Turkey, toppling the Assad regime has been the principal objective. Turkey wants a Sunni-dominated Syria on its southern borders so that it can project power into the Levant. Here, Obama would probably lead from behind and let Turkish President Recep Erdogan be upfront.

For all practical purposes, the Obama-Erdogan deal appears a match made in heaven. Turkey has offered to train and equip the Syrian rebels on its soil. The US would have no problem with the ‘regime change’ agenda so long as it wouldn’t have to take the responsibility for any chaotic aftermath of the overthrow of the Syrian regime.

But then, Turkey also has a problem with the emergence of any independent Kurdish political entity in Syria. Fortuitously, however, the Kurds themselves have come under pressure on various counts to rein in their ambitions to secure political independence. The IS factor has altered the Kurdish calculus.

As part of the package, Turkey would allow the US-led coalition to use its air base at Incirlik to fight the Islamic State. Clearly, the bottom line is that the US and Turkey are on the same page insofar as both agree that fighting Assad and the IS must go hand in hand.

This has been Erdogan’s thesis all along, and Obama is now falling in line. The plan of action means Obama will henceforth focus more, much more, on fighting the Assad regime while Turkey will cooperate with the US effort to defeating the IS.

There are serious contradictions in the US-Turkish game plan. The most important would be that the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria with the cold-blooded agenda to force a ‘regime change’ in that country under the pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention’ would be hugely controversial under international law in the absence of a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.

In essence, Obama and Erdogan are just about to decide that they will do whatever they like in Syria, notwithstanding the fact that it is a sovereign country. They do not attach any importance to the non-violability of the territorial integrity of nation states.

Alas, Obama will be adopting his predecessor George W. Bush as his role model here — unilateralist military intervention in sovereign countries on the pretext of ‘humanitarian’ considerations. What a fall for a politician who had promised something entirely to the contrary as his presidential legacy. (See an excellent commentary, here, on the legal implications of establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.)

To be sure, Syria is going to witness more bloodshed. And it could turn out to be bloodbath. The Syrian regime is not a pushover and the Turkish resolve to overthrow it is an obsession with Erdogan.

The Ottoman savagery is etched deep in the Arab psyche and how Turkey’s march into Syria will go down in the Arab opinion remains to be seen. One way out could be that the ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria could also include a clutch of Arab forces drawn from countries such as Jordan or the GCC states. The Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal’s call for the insufficiency of air attacks alone to contain the IS points in that direction.

The big question is how Iran will take all this. In a manner of speaking, Obama administration has nicely cornered Tehran by dangling before it the carrot of a nuclear deal. In all probability, Obama lacks the political courage or the authority to deliver such a deal (which the US Congress opposes), but he strives to keep the Iranian leadership guessing. How this hide-and-seek diplomatic game pans out is one thing.

At any rate, Iran will be hard-pressed to watch the ‘regime change’ agenda in Syria is unfolding with renewed vigor at a crucial juncture when its negotiations with the US are delicately poised. (See an incisive commentary by the Moscow-based Strategic Culture Foundation.)

Most important, while the US tacitly acknowledges that Iran is a stakeholder in degrading and defeating the IS, on the other hand, on the pretext of ‘capacity-building’ of the Iraqi armed forces, Washington has begun quietly projecting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] into Iraq. NATO of course is raring to go.

For NATO, this is a dream come true, as it is about to become a security provider for the Middle East for the first time. There are deep implications. If NATO arrives in the Middle East, it becomes a historic moment in the alliance’s evolution as a global security organization. Like in Afghanistan, it will be operating in Iraq as well without a UN mandate. It is a defining moment for international security.

When asked about this, Kerry parried, but a senior state department official admitted in a deep briefing: “Well, yeah, there are many different ways that NATO can have a role. And what we would want to do is we would want to talk to NATO about what that role might be. But NATO has had an important role in many of the things that we have done, and the secretary-general has been clear that NATO has some very useful organizing capabilities. And NATO ran my training mission in Afghanistan. And so we know that NATO can do that sort of thing. I don’t think NATO has made a specific commitment, and I don’t think Iraq has made a specific ask. But I think they both agreed together to examine ways where NATO and Iraq can deepen their partnership.”

Interestingly, the new leadership in Baghdad is also making overtures to Saudi Arabia for strengthening the ties. Is the Iranian influence in Baghdad on the wane?

Most certainly, the recent Israeli-Saudi disinformation campaign that Iranian aircraft have bombed the IS locations in Iraq intended to put Tehran on the defensive. Again, a misperception has been created that Iran and the US are covertly ‘coordinating’ in the fight against IS.

The reality, on the other hand, is that the Obama administration is finalizing a deal with Turkey to overthrow the Syrian regime and is introducing NATO into Iraq with the intent to incrementally reduce Baghdad’s dependence on Tehran on the security front.

All in all, the IS saga has provided the US the perfect alibi to stage a full-fledged military comeback in Iraq and to intervene in Syria to attend to the unfinished business of overthrowing the Assad regime.

The creation of the IS by the US’s close regional allies – Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, in particular – as a geopolitical tool is no longer the stuff of conspiracy theory. The ‘unknown unknown’ here is only as to when and how the hydra-headed IS monster will be let loose on Iran and other theatres in the Middle East, Central Asia or Xinjiang and North Caucasus.

No doubt, Tehran is closely watching. On Wednesday, the foreign ministry in Tehran reiterated for record, in plain terms without ambiguity, Iran’s stance on Syria – lest Obama and Erdogan could be under some misconceptions.

Posted in Diplomacy, Military, Politics.

Tagged with Arab spring, Iran nuclear issue, Islamic State, Syria's civil war.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 6, 2014

Click to expand...

Report: Two Hezbollah men killed in alleged IAF strike on Syria


Reports in Arabic-language press says attacks targeted sites storing Russian-made advanced missiles for Hezbollah; Moscow demands explanation.

Click to expand...

delft said:

Ambassador Bhadrakumar on the situation wrt Iraq and Syria:

Click to expand...

9 December 2014 Last updated at 05:22 GMT
Syria war: Southern rebels see US as key to success

By Kim Ghattas BBC News, Washington


Rebels in southern Syria are working to convince Washington to provide more decisive support as they continue to make small but steady gains against government forces.

While most of the world's attention and the Syrian government's forces have been focused on Kobane and Aleppo in northern Syria, moderate rebels south of Damascus have successfully taken territory and held it over the last three months, in the Deraa province, along the Jordanian border and along the Golan Heights.

The growing coalition of 58 US-backed rebel groups south of Damascus known as the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is inching closer to the capital but with restricted military supplies and only half-hearted political support from the White House, they admit their progress will be limited.

"For three years most factions in the opposition have been asking Washington 'what can you do for us?'" said one activist speaking by phone from the Middle East.

"We want to make Washington want to help us because of what we achieve on the ground," added the activist, who is close to the rebel groups.

In northern Syria, rebels are squeezed between President Assad's forces and Islamic State militants and are close to collapse.

There are growing warnings that the US is on the verge of losing the last remnants of influence it has on the ground in Syria.

Reluctant backing has led to a lack of trust by the moderate rebels, and the newly announced Pentagon programme to train and equip new rebel recruits only starts in the spring of 2015.

So the southern front is even more crucial for any short-term Western strategy in Syria, especially if it still envisages putting the squeeze on the government in Damascus.

Better organised

Much has been written over the last three years about the southern front, as the rebels repeatedly failed to advance in a sustainable manner.

Conversations with commanders and civilian activists, reached by phone and over Skype over the last few weeks, now paint a picture of a Southern Front that is better organised than in the past and more disciplined than other rebel groupings.

Conversations with US officials in Washington said this chimed with their assessment.

The southern rebels' current progress is helped by better, more focused co-ordination between their outside backers, and the Syrian government's manpower shortage as it battles rebels in northern Syria.

The rebels in the Southern Front are watching negotiations for ceasefires around Aleppo warily. Any easing in the fighting there could be an opportunity for the government to re-direct its forces to the south.

Outside support

The rebels say they can count on 38,000 experienced fighters, most of them vetted by the CIA, though both the numbers and the vetting are hard to confirm.

No American official was willing to comment on the details of the Southern Front or the extent of the US support for them.

But the former ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, said that he would not rule those numbers out.

Two-year long mandatory military service in Syria and three years of rebellion also mean most men of fighting age have at least some experience on the battlefield.

External backing comes through the Military Operations Center in Jordan, a logistics and supply hub, run mainly by the US, with allies, including the UK, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Jordan keeps its role very quiet, and remains wary of too much progress by the rebels. There have been reports that Israel is tending to wounded rebel fighters.

Bashar el-Zoubi, head of the Yarmouk division and one of the key commanders in the south, would not be drawn into detailing who supplied weapons but said there was a steady stream and talked about recent deliveries.

Speaking over Skype from southern Syria, he also said rebels often seized government military hardware. But the rebels want a no-fly zone to protect civilians from barrel bombs and anti-aircraft missiles to target military aircraft.

He said the factions in southern Syria had learned from the mistakes of the Free Syrian Army in the north and avoided a centralised command.

He described the military co-ordination between the different groups as a moving command centre, with a unified leadership but no overall commander.

The fluid arrangement allows the rebels to remain nimble in their operations and is aided by tight-knit tribal ties, which helps resolve disputes.

Rights pledge

The region south of Damascus is dotted by military installations because of Syria's long-standing enmity with nearby Israel, which makes the rebels' advance on Damascus an arduous if not impossible task in the current circumstances.

But Mr Zoubi said the goal was two-fold: to forge a passage to the capital and encircle the military installations along the way, while encouraging soldiers to defect.

"We don't need to overrun the bases, we don't want to destroy the army, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq," he said.

The rebels say they consolidate their rule by working with local civilian councils. Earlier this year, all 58 units signed up to a document outlining the principles of the revolution that includes justice for all Syrians, and a document with 15 pledges from rebels on the battlefield to protect civilians and abide by international human rights laws.

But Christians in the town of Izraa have expressed fear for their lives because of the presence of the al-Qaeda affiliated group the Nusra Front, which recently gained control over two nearby towns.

Abu Majd el-Zoubi, a spokesman for the Southern Front, acknowledged that the Nusra Front operated in the region but insisted they were only 10% of the fighting force and that the rebels were all "100% Syrians".

"We are not making these pledges about human rights to please the West," he said. "We are the better alternative for Syria," he added.

Political template?

In the confusing landscape of rival Syrian opposition groups, the rebels in southern Syria insist they represent a template that can effectively challenge President Assad if they receive enough outside political and military support.

They are planning to announce a transition framework for the day after the fall of the Assad government to demonstrate they also have the political acumen and vision to offer a local alternative for Syria's future, one that is not dependent on a discredited opposition in exile, according to the rebels.

The plan has yet to be made public but a copy was sent to the BBC.

But the rebels are acutely aware that Washington will not back an all-out advance on Damascus, not just out of fear of the "day after" but also because of wider strategic calculations.

Chief among these are the fight against Islamic State, which is the Obama administration's key priority, and the need to maintain calm with Iran as nuclear negotiations continue.

"We know the West sees us a way of keeping the pressure on Assad in Damascus," said Mr Zoubi. "The goal is to change the balance of power on the ground and end the war".

Click to expand...

thunderchief said:

"Obsolete" A-10 in action over Iraq, F-35 nowhere to be seen (pun intended )

[video=youtube;0Kg0CBT5WWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kg0CBT5WWw[/video]

Click to expand...