Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Russia takes centre stage on Syria

Russia has taken a big step forward in mending fences with the Arab League with the drafting of an Action Plan for the Russian-Arab Forum [RAF]. The RAF has been languishing even as Russia’s ties with Saudi Arabia and Qatar plunged in the wake of the conflict in Syria and many uncertainties appeared in the MIddle East with the advent of the Arab Spring.

The Action Plan affirms that there are no contradictions of a fundamental character in Russia’s ties with the Arab world when it comes to the core issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian problem or the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear weapons and “international cooperation in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy.”
It is yet another indication that the Syrian conflict is moving toward political negotiations and Russia hopes to play a pivotal role in the process that the RAF held its first session in Moscow on Wednesday. The joint statement issued after the meeting underscores a high degree of convergence with regard to the Syrian situation.
Thus, the two sides rejected foreign intervention and affirmed their respect for Syria’s sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity; more importantly, they touched on the modalities of “transition” in Syria.
They suggested that a political process should begin following an immediate ceasefire, which would “lead to forming a transitional governing body with full executive powers to steer the transitional period and transfer the power within an agreed time framework.” Of course, “all the Syrians” should participate in the political process.
Interestingly, the joint statement cites the Geneva communique of June 2012 as the cornerstone of peace process. (Russia has consistently argued that the Syrian regime should be a participant in the peace process.)
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after the RAF meeting that Moscow is willing to host an intra-Syrian dialogue. The Syrian FM Walid al-Mualem is scheduled to visit Moscow on Monday and a visit by the Syrian opposition leader Moaz al-Khatib to Russia in March is also on the cards.
Things seem to be looking up. The MFA in Moscow has been tweeting good tidings: ”Today [Wednesday] we heard that there are signs of a move towards dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.”
Furthermore, the MFA tweets attributed to Lavrov the following remarks: ”We [Russia] have done a great deal to convince the Syrian leadership to cooperate with the Arab league on the basis of its initiative.” Again: “Russia has supported the idea of sending Arab League observers to Syria.” Yet again, interestingly: “It is important that the readiness the Syrian opposition leaders have shown for dialogue is reciprocated by the government.”
Lavrov strongly nudged the Syrian regime in the presence of the Arab League secretary-general Nabil al-Arabi (who was in Moscow on Wednesday for the RAF meeting): “The need to start a dialogue becomes more and more clear. Neither side can allow itself to bet on a military settlement as this is a path to nowhere, a path to self-destruction.”
Significantly, Egyptian FM Mohamed Kamel Amr attended the RAF meeting. This is Amr’s second visit to Moscow in the past two months. Egypt is set to assume the rotating presidency of the Arab League.
Attention now shifts to Rome where on coming Thursday and Friday, the countries clamoring for “regime change” in Syria will meet — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. This will be US secretary of state John Kerry’s first major involvement with the Syrian question.
With the peace doves straining to spread wings and take to the Moscow skies, the meeting in Rome needs to ponder over the appropriateness of continued beating of the war drum. The prospect of the US arming Syrian rebels seems even more improbable today.
Having said that, notwithstanding tactical retreats, the US strategy hasn’t fundamentally changed. The immediate priority will be to work toward forming a transitional government in Syria, which is not “anti-Western”, and which Washington hopes to influence.
Meanwhile, US would hope that the Syrian government forces and radical islamist fighters would degrade each other and get weakened by the day. From the US viewpoint, the post-Bashar al-Assad era may have begun already, although the spectre of al-Qaeda instils doubts about hastening the dynamic on the ground.
The heart of the matter is that the Syrian crisis has already shifted the regional strategic balance. The rupture in Hamas’s ties with Damascus, eruption of Shia-Sunni sectarian tensions, isolation of Iran in the Arab world — these have shown seamless potentials for “managing” the Syrian crisis on a broad spectrum with a view to calibrating other regional issues such as the Iran nuclear issue, Palestinian problem, Israeli intransigence, etc.
Again, on an even broader scale, Syrian conflict did provide the alibi for the deployment of the US’s missile defence system in Turkey, where the real purpose is to aim at other targets.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with Iran nuclear issue, Missile Defence, Russian-Arab Forum.

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 21, 2013

Click to expand...

delft said:

Dutch radio news just said that the "Syrian opposition" will not take part in talks that were planned for Washington , Rome and Moscow. They want instead that the Syrian government will be removed by Western intervention. Apparently they lack support among the Syrian population to achieve their purpose without such help.

Click to expand...

US and British plans to seize Syria's chemical weapons
British and American military commanders have drawn up plans to seize or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons if the country slides into further chaos.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
9:00PM GMT 23 Feb 2013

They fear that nerve agents and chemical weapons held by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime could fall into terrorists’ hands if the government collapses entirely.
Senior officers have also held talks on a range of “rogue state” contingency plans to prevent chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from being seized by terrorists, which they fear could also happen if Pakistan or North Korea’s regimes were to collapse.
Iran, which according to one senior British source is “bent on developing nuclear weapons”, is also causing great concern to western governments.
British intelligence believes Syria has amassed an extensive arsenal of WMD including nerve agents such as Sarin – one of the most deadly weapons ever created – and chemical weapons such as mustard gas.
They have so far not been used and are currently considered to be well guarded by the Syrian security forces.
However militant Islamist groups are already inside Syria fighting against the government and would be perfectly placed to raid WMD stockpiles, according to intelligence sources.
Sources have said that the most likely option to prevent WMD falling into the hands of extremists would be to destroy stockpiles in a series of air strikes.
Alternative options include the use of special forces and troops trained in chemical warfare to secure WMD sites in Syria if and when the government eventually collapses.
An RAF Regiment unit called the Defence Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Wing based at Winterbourne Gunner, Wilts, has already been warned that it should be prepared to work alongside the SAS in securing WMD sites in the Syria at short notice.
Last week a US-based body known as the Strategic Working Group began rehearsing how WMD stockpiles would be secured in both the Middle East and the Pacific in the event of an international emergency.
The group is composed of military personnel from the US Army, Marine Corps, Navy as well as British and Australian officers and government officials.
The senior officers tested a variety of plans at a classified war gaming session called Unified Quest 2013 at the US Army Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.
The scenario focused on a failed state that has lost control of its WMD stockpiles, forcing the United States and other countries to intervene.
The location of the game was classified, but informed opinion suggested that North Korea was the target country.
One source who took part in the war games said: “We need to have plans in place so that we can properly prepare our soldiers for this job. It’s a dangerous and messy business.
"Soldiers will be driving into potentially contaminated areas, possibly under fire while handling hazardous material.”
MI5, Britain’s security service has repeatedly warned that it is “only a matter of time” before extremist groups carry out a “chemical, biological or radiological attack” on a western city.
Such an attack was also identified as a “Tier Two Priority Risk” in the 2010 National Security Strategy.
Defence sources said that one of the unintended consequences of the Arab Spring was the huge volume of illicit weapons which have entered the illegal arms market, increasing concerns about what could happen if Assad lost control of his WMD.
A source said: “After Libya collapsed thousands of man portable air defence weapons went missing and these can bring down an airliner.
"We know Syria has a pretty extensive armoury and a lot of chemical weapons. We need to ensure these do not enter the terrorist food chain.”
Both British and US commanders agree that the West has paid “lip service” to training troops in WMD scenarios and has focused almost solely on counter-insurgency operations such as those undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One senior British source added: “Syria has a sizeable arsenal of chemical weapons including nerve agents and mustard gas.
"Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear weapons and it is widely believed that Iran also intends to develop a nuclear weapon.
“These are all unstable or unpredictable states and the potential for WMD ended up in the hands of terrorists is very real. We need contingency plans to deal with a wide variety of scenarios.”

Click to expand...

Syria's regime has fired at least six Scud missiles on rebels, dramatically escalating the conflict. Photo: REUTERS

Click to expand...

In Syria, new influx of weapons to rebels tilts the battle against Assad

A surge of rebel advances in Syria is being fueled at least in part by an influx of heavy weaponry in a renewed effort by outside powers to arm moderates in the Free Syrian Army, according to Arab and rebel officials.

The new armaments, including anti-tank weapons and recoilless rifles, have been sent across the Jordanian border into the province of Daraa in recent weeks to counter the growing influence of Islamist extremist groups in the north of Syria by boosting more moderate groups fighting in the south, the officials say.

The arms are the first heavy weapons known to have been supplied by outside powers to the rebels battling to topple President Bashar al-Assad and his family’s four-decade-old regime since the Syrian uprising began two years ago.

The officials declined to identify the source of the newly provided weapons, but they noted that the countries most closely involved in supporting the rebels’ campaign to oust Assad have grown increasingly alarmed at the soaring influence of Islamists over the fragmented rebel movement. They include the United States and its major European allies, along with Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the two countries moIn Syria, new influx of weapons to rebels tilts the battle against Assadst directly involved in supplying the rebels. Security officials from those nations have formed a security coordination committee that consults regularly on events in Syria, they said.

Although the Obama administration continues to refuse to directly arm the rebels, the administration has provided intelligence assistance to those who are involved in the supplies, and it also helps vet opposition forces. U.S. officials declined to comment on the new armaments.

The goal of these renewed deliveries, Arab and rebel officials said, is to reverse the unintended effect of an effort last summer to supply small arms and ammunition to rebel forces in the north, which was halted after it became clear that radical Islamists were emerging as the chief beneficiaries.

“The idea was to get heavier stuff, intensify supply and make sure it goes to the good guys,” said an Arab official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operation. “If you want to weaken al-Nusra, you do it not by withholding [weapons] but by boosting the other groups.”

Louay al-Mokdad, the political and media coordinator for the Free Syrian Army, confirmed that the rebels have procured new weapons donated from outside Syria, rather than bought on the black market or seized during the capture of government facilities, the source of the vast majority of the arms that are in the hands of the rebels. But he declined to say who was behind the effort.

Another coordinator for the Free Syrian Army, whose units have received small quantities of donated weaponry in the past two weeks, said that as much as empowering moderates, the goal of the supplies also is to shift the focus of the war away from the north toward the south and the capital, Assad’s stronghold. Nearly 70,000 people have been killed so far in the conflict, which has thus far frustrated all attempts by the international community to broker a diplomatic settlement.

The shift was prompted by the realization that rebel gains across the north of the country over the past year were posing no major threat to the regime in Damascus, said Saleh al-Hamwi, who coordinates the activities of rebel units in the province of Hama with others around the country. But the province of Daraa controls a major route to the capital and is far closer.

“Daraa and Damascus are the key fronts on the revolution, and Damascus is where it is going to end,” he said.

Such is the secrecy surrounding the effort, however, that even those receiving the weapons can’t say with certainty who is supplying them, he said, though it is widely assumed that they are being provided by Saudi Arabia, with the support of its Arab, U.S. and European allies.

“All we can say for sure is that there are some new weapons coming across the border in the south, they are coming with high secrecy and they’re only going to groups that they want,” he said.

The Jordanian government denied any role. There has, however, been a rise in the smuggling of small arms, mostly automatic rifles, across Jordan’s border with Syria, and “Jordan is actively trying to prevent this rise in smuggling,” government spokesman Samih Maytah said.

The snowball effect

Despite the secrecy however, the influx was publicized this month by Eliot Higgins, a British blogger who uses the name Brown Moses and who tracks rebel activity by watching videos rebel units post on YouTube.

In a series of blogs, he noted the appearance in rebel hands of new weapons that almost certainly could not have been captured from government arsenals. They include M-79 anti-tank weapons and M-60 recoilless rifles dating back to the existence of Yugoslavia in the 1980s that the Syrian government does not possess.

He also noted that most of the recipients of the arms appear to be secular or moderate Islamist units of the Free Syrian Army. In a sign of how organized the effort is, he said, one of the recent videos shows members of the local Fajr al-Islam brigade teaching other rebels how to use some of the new weapons.

The items appear to have already begun influencing the course of the war, he said. They have contributed to a sharp escalation of fighting in the Daraa area this year in which opposition fighters have overrun government bases, including several checkpoints along the Jordanian border, a key but long-neglected front.

That, in turn, has enabled the rebels armed with the new equipment to seize weapons and ammunition from captured government facilities, giving them clout over other small groups, mimicking the pattern observed in northern Syria, where the ascendancy of Islamist extremists has snowballed into soaring influence as their military victories mount.

“It's like what happened with the jihadi groups in Aleppo when they started capturing all these bases and getting the best gear,” he said. “You could call it the Aleppo-ization of Daraa.”

The M-79 anti-tank weapons in particular appear to be giving the rebels new confidence to attack government positions and armor, said Jeff White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who says he also noted the unexpected appearance of the weapons in rebel videos several weeks ago.

“This isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to dramatically shift the equation, but it’s allowing them to inflict more damage on regime forces, and it’s allowing them to have more successes,” he said. “They’re the right kind of weapons, and they’re what the rebels have been asking for.”

To what effect?

It seems unlikely, however, that the influx will be enough to decisively influence the outcome of a raging battle that continues to embrace a broad spectrum of tactics and weaponry, from suicide bombs to Scud missiles, experts say.

Though there have been scattered sightings of the new weapons in other parts of the country, including Aleppo as well as Idlib and Deir al-Zour, in those provinces the battle is primarily being fueled by the significant quantities of weapons that the rebels are capturing from government forces, said Joseph Holliday of the Institute for the Study of War.

The rebels have also been asking for anti-aircraft missiles to counter the government’s use of airpower against their strongholds. But there has been no indication that they are acquiring those in significant quantities outside the few they have captured from government bases, White said.

Hamwi said he suspects the real aim of the international effort is to provide the rebels with just enough firepower to pressure Assad into accepting a negotiated settlement but not enough to enable them to overthrow him. “The international community is using us to put pressure on Bashar,” he said.

Although plans for an offensive on Damascus are being readied, the rebels still lack sufficient firepower to take on government forces there, said Mokdad of the Free Syrian Army. “Even if we are getting weapons, it is not enough,” he said.

Click to expand...

Even if Iran gets the Bomb, it won’t be worth going to war

Containment is a better response than conflict in dealing with a country we have long mishandled

By Jack Straw
8:18PM GMT 25 Feb 2013

"All options remain on the table”, goes the mantra. This is code for saying that the West retains the choice of using military force to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. We’ll hear it repeated this week, as negotiations between Iran and the “P5 +1” (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany) resume in Kazakhstan. On occasions, I’ve used the phrase myself. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve become convinced that it is a hindrance to negotiations, rather than a help.
If Iran were to attack Israel, or, say, one of its Arab neighbours, international law is clear: the victim has the right to retaliate. But such an attack is highly improbable. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council can authorise military action where there’s a “threat to international peace and security”. Such resolutions were the legal basis for the actions against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Libya in 2011. But there are no such Article 42 resolutions against Iran; and there won’t be – China and Russia would veto them.
There are Security Council resolutions against Iran under Article 41, but this Article explicitly excludes measures involving the use of force. These resolutions have progressively tightened international sanctions against Iran, because of its lack of full co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). With even tougher measures imposed by the US and the EU, sanctions have severely restricted Iran’s international trade, and led to the collapse of its currency, and high inflation.
The negotiations which restart today are the latest round of a 10-year effort by the international community to satisfy itself that Iran is not embarked on a nuclear weapons programme. This initiative was begun in 2003 by me and the then foreign ministers of France and Germany, Dominic de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, when it became clear that Iran had failed to disclose much of its activities to the IAEA, in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it adheres. I visited Tehran five times as foreign secretary. The Iranians are tough negotiators, more difficult to deal with because of the opacity of their governmental system. (When I complained to Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian foreign minister, about this, he replied: “Don’t complain to me about negotiating with the Iranian government, Jack. Imagine what it’s like negotiating within the Iranian government”). They have not helped themselves by their obduracy.
Resolving the current impasse will require statesmanship of a high order from both sides. From the West, there has to be a better understanding of the Iranian psyche. Transcending their political divisions, Iranians have a strong and shared sense of national identity, and a yearning to be treated with respect, after decades in which they feel (with justification) that they have been systematically humiliated, not least by the UK.
“Kar Inglise” – that “the hand of England” is behind whatever befalls the Iranians – is a popular Persian saying. Few in the UK have the remotest idea of our active interference in Iran’s internal affairs from the 19th century on, but the Iranians can recite every detail. From an oppressive British tobacco monopoly in 1890, through truly extortionate terms for the extraction of oil by the D’Arcy petroleum company (later BP), to putting Reza Shah on the throne in the 1920s; from jointly occupying the country, with the Soviet Union, from 1941-46, organising (with the CIA) the coup to remove the elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, then propping up the increasingly brutal regime of the Shah until its collapse in 1979, our role has not been a pretty one. Think how we’d feel if it had been the other way round.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Iranian president Mohammad Khatami reached out to the United States, promising active co-operation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and, in the initial months, delivering that. His “reward” was for Iran to be lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as part of the “axis of evil” by President Bush in January 2002, a serious error by the US which severely weakened the moderates around Khatami and laid the ground for the hardliners who succeeded him.
What Iran seeks is twofold. First, it wants its “full rights” under the NPT for civil nuclear power. It can fairly point out that three nuclear weapons states – Israel, India and Pakistan – have always refused to join the NPT, while North Korea, now boasting about its atomic capability, withdrew from the Treaty in 2003. Second, it seeks an end to its international isolation and a recognition (especially by the US) of its regional status.
Normalisation of relations with Iran is also an important prize for the international community. It has a considerable capacity to make conditions in its unstable neighbours – Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, the Occupied Territories, the Gulf States, and Afghanistan – more, or less difficult. An early priority for the UK should be the reopening of the embassies in Tehran and London.
I have never been complacent about a nuclear-armed Iran, which is why I devoted so much time to negotiations with the country. My own best judgment is that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who controls the nuclear dossier, probably wants to create the intellectual capacity for a nuclear weapons system, but will stop short of making that system a reality. If I am wrong, further isolation of Iran would follow; but would it trigger nuclear proliferation across the Middle East? Not in my view. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia “have little to gain and much to lose by embarking down such a route” is the accurate conclusion of researchers from the War Studies Department of King’s College London.
In any event, a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly not be worth a war.
There has been no more belligerent cheerleader for the war party against Iran than Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Netanyahu was widely expected to strengthen his position in the January elections for the Israeli parliament, but lost close to a third of his seats. The electorate seemed to take more heed of real experts such as Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, Israel’s external intelligence agency, and Yuval Diskin, a former chief of Shin Bet, its internal security agency.
In 2011, Dagan described an Israeli attack on Iran as a “stupid idea”. More significantly, both Dagan and Diskin have questioned the utility of any strike on Iran. Diskin says there’s no truth in Netanyahu’s assertion that “if Israel does act, the Iranians won’t get the Bomb”. And Dagan is correct in challenging the view that if there were an Israeli attack, the Iranian regime might fall. “In case of an attack [on Iran], political pressure on the regime will disappear. If Israel will attack, there is no doubt in my mind that this will also provide them with the opportunity to go ahead and move quickly to nuclear weapons.” He added that if there were military action, the sanctions regime itself might collapse, making it easier for Iran to obtain the materiel needed to cross the nuclear threshold.
As with the reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea, the international community would have to embark on containment of the threat if, militarily, Iran did go nuclear. But these hard-boiled former heads of the Israeli intelligence agencies are right. War is not an option.

Jack Straw is MP for Blackburn and was foreign secretary, 2001-2006

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Chinese made FN-6 used by rebels to down a Syrian military helicopter (looks like a Mi17).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The video is really badly made with some horrible focus, but from what I can see, I was quite impressed the FN6 managed to hit its target because when the missile was fired, it looked like the gunner was aiming way too low, but the missile climbed and recovered.

By my count, it took 7 seconds between launch and the flash of impact, with the FN-6's speed quoted at 360sm/s, that puts the helo at just over 2.5km away.

I think this is the first conformed instance of a modern and functional MANPADS being used by insurgents, or rather, by anyone in anger, and I must say I am deeply troubled by the idea of such weapons on the loose in the hands of insurgents who are closely linked to, or even Al Q themselves.

The biggest question would be where did these missiles come from?! I cannot see China suppling them direct to the insurgents, nor were there any reports that the Syrians bought FN6s, so it is improbably that the insurgents captured these from government forces.

We know that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States and maybe even Turkey are secretly supplying the insurgents with advanced weapons, and a boat load of western supplied kit must have came over from Libya, but as far as I can tell, FN6 missiles had not been exported to any of those countries. The closest country to import FN6s is Sudan, and I can't see them being responsible.

Pakistan would undoubtedly by suggested at some point by the western media or their cherry picked 'experts', especially given its close links with Turkey, but I really doubt that they would supply these missiles. For one thing, if Pakistan were inclined to 'misplace' some MANPADS, I would have expected to have shown up in Afghanistan rather than Syria.

I am really scratching my head as to how the insurgents in Syria managed to get their hands on FN-6 missiles. Anyone else have an ideas?

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

Chinese made FN-6 used by rebels to down a Syrian military helicopter (looks like a Mi17).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The video is really badly made with some horrible focus, but from what I can see, I was quite impressed the FN6 managed to hit its target because when the missile was fired, it looked like the gunner was aiming way too low, but the missile climbed and recovered.

By my count, it took 7 seconds between launch and the flash of impact, with the FN-6's speed quoted at 360sm/s, that puts the helo at just over 2.5km away.

I think this is the first conformed instance of a modern and functional MANPADS being used by insurgents, or rather, by anyone in anger, and I must say I am deeply troubled by the idea of such weapons on the loose in the hands of insurgents who are closely linked to, or even Al Q themselves.

The biggest question would be where did these missiles come from?! I cannot see China suppling them direct to the insurgents, nor were there any reports that the Syrians bought FN6s, so it is improbably that the insurgents captured these from government forces.

We know that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States and maybe even Turkey are secretly supplying the insurgents with advanced weapons, and a boat load of western supplied kit must have came over from Libya, but as far as I can tell, FN6 missiles had not been exported to any of those countries. The closest country to import FN6s is Sudan, and I can't see them being responsible.

Pakistan would undoubtedly by suggested at some point by the western media or their cherry picked 'experts', especially given its close links with Turkey, but I really doubt that they would supply these missiles. For one thing, if Pakistan were inclined to 'misplace' some MANPADS, I would have expected to have shown up in Afghanistan rather than Syria.

I am really scratching my head as to how the insurgents in Syria managed to get their hands on FN-6 missiles. Anyone else have an ideas?

Click to expand...

muddie said:

They are bought by Iran and then shipped to Syrian Army, by Iran. Probably captured by rebels.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...