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

Jeff Head said:

Actually, the exact opposite is true.

Now, the US and the West in general will be absolutely disposed to identifying non-Al Quida rebels to fund and support...and support them to the max.

The US and the West will not allow Syria's WMDs to fall into the hands of an Al Quida supported regime and the biggest mistake these people could make would be, at this stage to come out in open support or alliance with Al Quida.


If they have done that, the the US and West's hands will be tied (and understandably so) in terms of support for any of those groups...and they will look to support other rebel groups who also oppose Al Quida.

Anyhow, all around it is a very dicey and difficult situation.

Click to expand...

Obama's AfPak envoy may embrace Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

The probability is that the United States President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry got around to reading the congressional testimony titled "Negotiating with Iran" given by Ambassador James Dobbins on the Hill on November 7, 2007, while deciding to name him as the new US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here is a veteran diplomat who oversaw the ouster of the Taliban regime and represented the US at the Bonn Conference in December 2001, who got Hamid Karzai installed as the head of the interim Afghan, and who raised the Stars and Stripes in the embassy compound in Kabul after a poignant interlude lasting over two decades.

Kerry paid rich tributes to Dobbins' credentials as a diplomat. Yet something remains unexplained still. The truth diggers, in fact, have already begun mocking the fact that Dobbins is an unlikely choice to have been made by Obama as the US special representative at the present juncture - when the war in Afghanistan is practically being wound up and the withdrawal of the American troops is under way.

The point is, Dobbins has been an inveterate critic of Obama's plan to reduce the US' military footprint in Afghanistan. He voiced enthusiastic support for the counterinsurgency strategy [COIN] carried out by General David Petraeus and was sharply critical that the COIN was reduced to mere counterterrorist operation.

In a memorable article in Foreign Affairs magazine in late 2010 he wrote,

By definition, any military activity that seeks to counter an insurgency is counterinsurgency, or COIN as it is often labeled for short. All of Obama's advisers agree that the Taliban is an insurgency and that the United States has a real interest in stopping its return to power. Why, then, would Obama's civilian advisers argue against organized military activity designed to counter a Taliban takeover?

Again, Dobbins used to be a passionate advocate of the nation-building work in Afghanistan, which Obama has since thrown out of the window as none of America's business. Indeed, it all but seems that Obama's choice of Dobbins could be seen as a whimsical move that is out of sync with his overall Afghan strategy. Max Fisher of the Washington Post acerbically noted,

Maybe, the [Obama] administration is hoping to bring internal dissent to a foreign policy team increasingly staffed by realists such as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, but it's an otherwise surprising move.

But then, all this could be valid criticism, provided the job of the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan were to be a war strategist. Which, however, is not the case. On the contrary, Dobbins' real credentials lie quite somewhere else than on the kinetic battlefield.

Kerry made this clear while announcing the appointment. He said,
"He [Dobbins] has deep and longstanding relationships in the region ... Jim will continue building on diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion, actively engaging with states in the region and the international community."

Interestingly, Kerry left it vague as to the regional states where Dobbins would have "deep and longstanding relationships". This is where Dobbins' 2007 congressional testimony becomes important; in it, he narrated at some length how closely he worked with the Iranian diplomats to bring about the difficult transition in 2001 and more important, how obliging and keen Tehran was in working with the US.

To quote Dobbins,

"America's rapid success in toppling the Taliban and replacing it with a broadly based, moderate successor ... depended heavily upon the support American military and diplomatic efforts received from all the neighboring states, notably Iran."

Dobbins recounted specific instances when the Iranians helped out in Bonn, "without which the Karzai government might never have been formed". But soon afterward the George W Bush administration opted to include Iran in the "axis of evil" instead of building up on the critical mass that formed in Bonn.

In a stunning disclosure, Dobbins said that nonetheless, two months after president George W Bush trotted out the thesis of the "axis of evil", the Iranians approached Dobbins again on the sidelines of an international conference at Geneva with yet another proposal of collaboration.

This time it was about Iran participating in a program to train a new Afghan National Army under American leadership. Dobbins noted,

Iranian participation, under American leadership, in a joint program of this sort would be a breathtaking departure after more than 20 years mutual hostility. It also represented a significant step beyond the quiet diplomatic cooperation we had achieved so far. Clearly, despite having been relegated by President Bush to the 'axis of evil', the Khatami government wanted to deepen its cooperation with Washington, and was prepared to do so in a most overt and public manner.

But, Dobbins recalled that there were no takers in Washington for the Iranian proposal although he approached the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, and national security advisor Condoleeza Rice and was even briefed an inter-agency meeting attended by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Without doubt, what Dobbins brings into Obama's team is an invaluable insight into where things began going haywire for the US in Afghanistan, by overlooking "the impossibility of holding together disintegrating societies without the cooperation of adjoining states".

Dobbins concluded his testimony with the following advice to the Bush administration: "It's time to speak to Iran, unconditionally, and comprehensively."

Of course, Dobbins didn't carry sufficient weight within the Bush administration, and the diplomatic path he pursued with the Iranians ended in a cul-de-sac, almost inevitably. This is where Obama could make all the difference.

To be sure, Dobbins' selection as the special representative will be noted with interest in Tehran. The Iranian diplomats who dealt with him still have warm words to speak of him. They acknowledge him as a formidable champion of US interests and a tough negotiator, but also recognize him as a realist who has tried to understand without pride and prejudice the Iranian motivations too.

The heart of the matter is that the US has nothing to lose and everything to gain by reviving the collaboration with Iran over the stabilization of the Afghan situation. The peace talks with the Taliban have not taken off, and the Taliban spring offensive has begun. Five American soldiers were killed in an ambush on Saturday.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's strategic ambiguity has continued. The Afghan-Pakistani tensions are spiraling with the eruption of clashes between security forces on the Durand Line. The prospects appear more remote than ever that that Islamabad will permit any substantive direct talks to take place between the Taliban and Karzai's government. All this is when the US troop withdrawal is gathering momentum.

Suffice to say, an opening to Tehran can entirely change the matrix in favor of the overall US strategy in the period ahead. Iran is a stakeholder in the stabilization of Afghanistan. It enjoys considerable influence within that country.

If Dobbins is true to his word in his seminal 2011 monograph titled "Afghan peace Talks: A Primer", a substantial American military engagement is becoming necessary beyond the 2014 deadline now that it is clear that the negotiations with the Taliban are getting nowhere.

However, Dobbins also forewarned in the monograph that much water has flowed under the US-Iranian bridge and Tehran today is "likely to have a low level of trust in American intentions". This is how Dobbins estimated Iran's hardcore, "must have" objectives in Afghanistan:
1. The "eventual withdrawal" of American and International Security Assistance Force military and intelligence forces from Afghanistan;
2. A stable Afghanistan with a regime in Kabul that is friendly to Iran and not dominated by Pakistan or Pakistan's Taliban proxies.
Clearly, the Iranian objectives do not necessarily clash with Obama's Afghan strategy. But then, the big question remains, as Dobbins noted: "The rhythm of Iranian support for or obstruction of a peace process is more likely to depend on timelines external to Afghanistan, such as progress in Iran's nuclear program, competition between Iran and the Gulf states, and Iran's long-standing tensions with the United States."

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

(Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Click to expand...

delft said:

I just read this article by Ambassador Bhadrakumar in Asia Times on line:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Continuing the destruction of Syria is no way to win the trust of Iran. So why was Ambassador Dobbins then selected?

Click to expand...

The dissolution of Syria

When Syrians, swept up in the once-transcendent spirit of the Arab Spring uprisings, undertook their own revolution against the corrupt, myopic regime of Bashar al-Assad, few had any idea it would lead to the dystopian reality of massacres and foreign predations the country faces today. The revolution - a legitimate, democratic uprising against a despotic government - provided a prize opportunity for the country's neighbours to violently exploit Syrian unrest to further their own venal interests.

The tragic result of this situation is the vicious proxy war playing out today in the streets of Aleppo, Homs, Deir ez-Zor and countless other cities and towns throughout the country. A once-proud nation - long recognised as the cultural and historical jewel of the Levant - has been reduced to a grim battlefield between the West and its Gulf allies on one hand and the Syrian government and its allies in Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the other. The Israeli airstrikes perpetrated with impunity onto Damascus this past week are yet another illustrative example of the depths of turmoil to which Syria has sunk.

As analysts openly discuss the "Somaliasation" of Syria and growing factions within the country call for military intervention to break the state up into small ethnic and religious enclaves - literally, "into pieces" - the prospect of a united Syria grows more remote by the day. Again, just as in Iraq, the benefactors of Syria's dismemberment will be the external actors which seek hegemony in the region and have never hidden their desire to see the country collapse.

As early as 2011, a particularly frank prescription for the future of Syria was given by Lawrence Solomon, who called for a radical redrawing of the country's borders to facilitate Western interests:

"There is a better end game… Syria's dismemberment into constituent parts. US and NATO countries… should confine Alawites to a state in the central Western part of the country where they are predominant… the West has no cause to favour appeasement… over the many gains to be had through a dismemberment of Syria."

As risible as Solomon's suggestions seemed at the time, the unfathomable reality is that today just such a situation is occurring - as analysts dispassionately discuss the possibility of an independent Alawite state in Lattakia and the fragmenting of the rest of the country into separate portions for Kurds, Sunnis, Shias, and the many other ethnic and religious groups which once made up the diverse tapestry of modern Syria.

In the background of this all echoes the policy plan for Syria illustrated in "A Clean Break", whose influential authors counselled open confrontation with Syrian interests throughout the region and explicitly called for menacing the country's territorial integrity itself.

Oded Yinon's prescription for dissolving Syria and Iraq - which at one time appeared arrogantly grandiose - today seems almost inevitable. The legitimate democratic aspirations of the Syrian people have been overtly hijacked by a foreign agenda which long predated their own revolution - and which increasingly looks ready to dissolve the country they sought to liberate.

Towards a new balance of power

In a 2007 piece for The New Yorker, the Pulitzer-Prize winning American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, reported on what White House insiders called "the Redirection" of US policy in the region. Seeking to reassert influence in the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the US deliberately became party to the fomentation of sectarian conflict throughout the Middle East.

In words that today seem utterly prescient, Hersh wrote:

"The US has taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda."

The extremist groups fighting today in Syria - many of whom openly state their allegiance to al-Qaeda and who have terrorised not just the Syrian government, but also the secular activists who were the progenitors of the revolution itself - are the fruit of this explicitly sectarian policy.

Furthermore, as Hersh noted this policy has: "brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace", a claim widely viewed as impossible at the time but which over the intervening years has become increasingly acknowledged by both sides. Indeed, official recognition of this new alliance appears to be increasingly imminent, as reports emerged this week of a US-brokered defence pact between Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE to guarantee mutual interests in the region.

These changes represent no less than a sea change in Middle Eastern politics, as the old order experiences its final violent convulsions and makes way for a new Western-backed alliance to exert its hegemony over the region. In this new environment, once-cherished concepts of self-determination and independence will be suffocated under the financial, political and military might of an unprecedented new axis of control exerted from the centers of power in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh.

The nations of Syria and Iraq today are little more than political fictions, crushed underfoot by foreign military and political intervention and devoured from the inside by politically-fomented sectarian hatreds. The same terrifying dynamic increasingly threatens to envelop Lebanon as well, as the former Arab states continue their fragmentation into innumerable weak and ethnically-homogenous political enclaves.

For the people of the region, the scenes playing out on the streets around them and being broadcast to the world at large represent nothing less than the end of Sykes-Picot borders and the dissolution of the Middle East as they once knew it. As war continues to spread from the borders of Iraq and Syria and into the countries beyond, the endgame for the regions upheaval - when it finally, mercifully, comes - looks increasingly as though it will entail the establishment of many of the "Blood Borders" which Oded Yinon and his ideological peers have long sought to create.

Click to expand...

Hezbollah chief: Syria will supply ‘game-changing’ weapons to the Lebanese militia

By Associated Press, Published: May 9

BEIRUT — Syria will supply “game-changing” weapons to Hezbollah, the chief of the Lebanese militant group said Thursday, less than a week after Israeli airstrikes on Damascus targeted alleged shipments of advanced Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah.

Israel has signaled it will respond with airstrikes to any future weapons shipments, meaning it could quickly get drawn into Syria’s civil war if the Hezbollah chief’s declaration is more than an empty threat

Tension has been rising in the region since Israel struck targets inside Syria on Friday and Sunday. Hezbollah and Israel fought several battles in the past three decades, including a 34-day war in 2006 that left some 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead.

Israel has largely tried to stay out of Syria’s 26-month-old conflict. It never acknowledged the airstrikes, but Israeli officials have signaled Israel’s air force would strike against any shipments of strategic missiles that might be bound for Hezbollah.

Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging threats over the past months.

Israeli officials say the Lebanese militant group has tens of thousands of rockets, though most of them are unguided. The shipments targeted last week included precision-guided missiles, the officials said.

Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has said in the past that his group has missiles that can strike anywhere in Israel, including as far south as the Red Sea resort of Eilat.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Iran have become increasingly involved in Syria’s civil war, supplying troops and military advisers to help Syrian President Bashar Assad fight armed rebels trying to oust him.

Nasrallah spoke Thursday to mark the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hezbollah’s radio station, Al-Nour, in a speech televised in Beirut. Nasrallah has rarely appeared in public since the 2006 war, for fear of being targeted by Israel.

Nasrallah said Hezbollah could expect strategic weapons from Syria in the future.

“Syria will give the resistance special weapons it never had before,” Nasrallah said. “We mean game-changing.”

Nasrallah said the weapons shipments were Syria’s response to the Israeli airstrikes. “This is the Syrian strategic reaction,” Nasrallah said. “This is more important than firing a rocket or carrying out an airstrike” against Israel.

The military alliance between Syria and Hezbollah will continue, the Hezbollah chief said.

“We in the Lebanese resistance declare that we stand by the Syrian popular resistance and give our material and moral support, and cooperate and coordinate in order to liberate the Syrian Golan,” he said.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed the strategic plateau.

Asked to comment on Nasrallah’s declaration, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said: “We don’t respond to words. We respond to action.”

In a related development, Israeli security officials said Thursday they have asked Russia to cancel the imminent sale of an advanced air defense system to Syria.

The officials said Israel shared information with the United States in hopes of persuading Russia to halt the planned deal to provide S-300 anti-aircraft missiles. The Israeli officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters.

In Rome, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday the transfer of advanced missile defense systems from Russia to Syria would be a “destabilizing” factor for Israel’s security.

Kerry said the U.S. has expressed concerns about what such defensive systems in Syria would mean for Israel’s security, though he declined to address what the missiles might mean for Syria’s civil war.

Earlier Thursday, the Assad regime said it welcomed efforts by the United States and Russia to try to bring the sides to the negotiating table before the end of the month.

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said the government is willing to consider any proposals for a political solution of the conflict, while it retains the right to fight “terrorists,” the regime’s term for the opposition fighters and their supporters.

Al-Zoubi did not specifically mention the U.S.-Russian initiative in his brief remarks to reporters in Damascus, carried by the state-run SANA news agency.

The main Western-backed opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, said Wednesday it welcomes the U.S.-Russia effort to reach a political solution but that any transition must begin with the departure of Assad and officials in his regime.

The U.S.-Russian initiative is identical to a plan, set out in Geneva last year, to bring the Damascus regime and opposition representatives together for talks on an interim government. Each side would be allowed to veto candidates it finds unacceptable.

The Geneva proposal also called for an open-ended cease-fire and the formation of a transitional government to run the country until new elections can be held.

Even modest international efforts to halt the fighting have failed as neither side in the Syrian civil war has embraced dialogue, underlining their resolve to prevail on the battlefield.

In Cairo, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, briefed Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby on the U.S.-Russian efforts, according to a diplomat at the Arab League. Patterson called for Arab support for the plan, including pressing the Syrian opposition to back it, said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of a private meeting.

Separately, Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohammed Amr Kamel welcomed an international Syria conference and said Egypt is willing to help make it work.

At the United Nations, an Arab-backed resolution calling for a political transition in Syria and strongly condemning Assad’s regime’s escalating use of heavy weapons and “gross violations” of human rights was circulated Thursday to the 193-member U.N. General Assembly.

The Arab group decided to seek approval of a wide-ranging resolution on Syria in the assembly, where there are no vetoes, to reflect international dismay at the growing death toll, which has surpassed 70,000, and the failure to end the more than 2-year-old conflict.

A General Assembly resolution would also counter the paralysis of the deeply divided U.N. Security Council, where Syrian allies Russia and China have vetoed three Western-backed resolutions aimed at pressuring Assad to end the violence. Unlike Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding, General Assembly resolutions cannot be enforced. But if they are approved, especially by a large majority, they do reflect world opinion and can carry moral weight.

In fighting Thursday, Assad’s forces attacked rebel positions in Aleppo and Idlib in the north, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The group said warplanes hit rebels near the Mannagh military air base outside Aleppo.

The rebels stormed the base near the border with Turkey and captured parts of it on Sunday but were later forced to retreat in the face of the regime’s superior air power.

In neighboring Idlib province, heavy clashes were under way Thursday outside several army bases near the government-controlled provincial capital, according to the Observatory, which relies on a network of informants inside Syria.

In Damascus, the state-run SANA news agency said government troops regained control of one more village and some land near the border with Lebanon on Thursday. The agency claimed troops inflicted heavy losses on the rebels in Aleppo and Idlib.

In Lebanon, a senior security official said several rockets landed Thursday on Lebanese territory, the latest incident of the Syria conflict spilling over the country’s volatile borders. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with state regulations. There were no reports of casualties in the northwestern Lebanese town of Harmel.

___

Associated Press writers Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, Aron Heller in Jerusalem, Bradley Klapper in Rome and Sarah El Deeb in Cairo contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

Source: Patients from Syria being tested for chemical weapons
By Ivan Watson and Gul Tuysuz , CNN
updated 5:48 AM EDT, Fri May 10, 2013
CNN.com
(CNN) -- The Turkish government is treating around a dozen patients who have exhibited unusual symptoms suggesting they were exposed to a chemical weapons attack, a Turkish source said.

"They were not injured by any kind of conventional arms. Tests showed excessive results which produced findings to let us make that statement," a Turkish source with access to Turkish government findings told CNN, on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the allegations.

The Turkish source was referring to an announcement by Turkey's prime minister which accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.

"It is clear the regime has used chemical weapons," said Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in an interview broadcast on NBC News Thursday night.

"There are patients who are brought to our hospitals who were wounded by these chemical weapons," Erdogan added, speaking through an interpreter.

Erdogan said he wanted the US to "assume more responsibilities and take further steps" when it comes to Syria.

The Turkish leader is expected to travel to Washington next week to hold talks with U.S. president Barack Obama.

Erdogan was once a close ally of the Syrian president Bashar al Assad. But he gradually distanced himself from Assad in 2011, as Syrian security forces mounted an increasingly deadly crackdown on anti-government protesters.

Today, Erdogan is an outspoken critic who hs repeatedly demanded Assad step down from office.

Turkey hosts more than 190,000 Syrian refugees in state-run camps, as well as many more Syrians who have fled across the border to take shelter in Turkish cities and towns.

In addition, Turkey has played a major role providing assistance and a relatively safe springboard for operations to Syrian opposition groups.

Ambulances routinely rush war-wounded across the border from Syria to Turkey for treatment in Turkish hospitals. Ankara says it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars housing, feeding and providing medical care to Syrian civilians.

The latest accusations by Turkey are not the first time allegations of chemical weapons use have emerged from Syria.

The Syrian government and rebels have accused each other of using chemical weapons on the battlefield, prompting the United Nations to call for the deployment of an international team of investigators.

This week, in an exclusive interview with CNN's Frederick Pleitgen, Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal al-Mekdad declared his government "would never use" chemical munitions. He also accused Turkey of supply rebels with chemical weapons.

Syrian rebels as well as the Turkish government have denied such allegations, and answered with counter-accusations.

Last week, Syrian rebel spokesman Louay al Mokdad claimed opposition fighters had captured an unexploded canister from an alleged chemical weapons attack. Mokdad told CNN he hoped international experts would use the canister as evidence of alleged Syrian government war crimes.

The deadly conflict in Syria has repeatedly spilled across borders to Turkey, prompting Turkish security forces to reinforce the frontier. At Turkey's request, the NATO military alliance deployed several Patriot missile batteries to protect Turkish border cities from the threat of Syrian missile attacks.

The Turkish government appears to also be responding to more recent reports of chemical weapons use emerging from Syria.

This week, Turkey's semi-official Anatolian Agency reported that a special chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear research vehicle had been deployed to one of the busiest border gates between Turkey and opposition controlled Syria.


CNN's Saad Abedine and Frederick Pleitgen contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

delft said:

To the contrary, if you want countries to defend themselves against AQ you don't sponsor terrorists to fight the government as well as AQ.

Click to expand...

Car bombs kill 20 in Turkish town near Syrian border

10:18am EDT
By Ece Toksabay
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed at least 20 people near Turkey's border with Syria on Saturday, increasing fears that Syria's civil war was dragging in neighbors and drawing a swift warning from Ankara not to test its resolve.
Turkey supports the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was no coincidence the attacks in the town of Reyhanli came as diplomatic moves to end the conflict intensify.
"There may be those who want to sabotage Turkey's peace, but we will not allow that," Davutoglu told reporters during a trip to Berlin. "No-one should attempt to test Turkey's power, our security forces will take all necessary measures."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
NATO member Turkey has been one of Assad's harshest critics and has harbored both Syrian refugees and rebels during the uprising against him, now in its third year.
Prospects appeared to improve this week for diplomacy over the civil war, in which more than 70,000 people have been killed, after Moscow and Washington announced a joint effort to bring government and rebels to an international conference.
But a Russian official said on Saturday that there was already disagreement over who would represent the opposition and he doubted whether a meeting could happen this month.
DEATH TOLL MAY RISE
Smoke rose above Reyhanli, which lies in Turkey's southern Hatay province, after the blasts, which occurred close to local administrative buildings.
"We have around 20 dead and 46 people were injured, but we have to note that many of the injuries are severe, which means the death toll could unfortunately rise," Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said in comments broadcast on Turkish television.
Erdogan said this week that Turkey would support a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in Syria and warned that Damascus crossed President Barack Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons use long ago.
A no-fly zone to prohibit Syrian military aircraft from hitting rebel targets has been mentioned by American lawmakers as one option the United States could use to pressure Assad.
Erdogan is due to meet Obama in Washington on May 16.
Violence has spilled over the border before.
In February, a minibus blew up at a border crossing near Reyhanli, killing 14 people and wounding dozens more.
The Syrian opposition said one of its delegations appeared to have been the target of that attack, but there has been no confirmation of this from the Turkish authorities.
In October, five Turkish civilians were killed in Akcakale when a mortar bomb fired from Syria landed on their house, prompting Turkey to fire back across the frontier.
Turkey is sheltering more than 300,000 Syrians, most of them in camps along the 900-km (560-mile) frontier, and is struggling to keep up with the influx.
(Additional reporting by Gulsen Solaker in Berlin and Steve Gutterman in Moscow; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

Click to expand...

Palestinian-Syrian group says forming units to fight for the Golan

7:50am EDT
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A militant Palestinian group in Damascus said it is forming combat units to try to recapture Israeli-occupied territory, in particular the Golan Heights, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah that they would support such operations.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) said it was preparing for new operations after nearly 40 years of quiet on the Israel-Syria border.
The group, designated terrorists by the United States and others in the West, was most active in the 1970s and 80s but retains influence with Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon.
"The leadership of the PFLP-GC announces that it will form brigades to work on liberating all violated (Israeli-occupied) territories, first and foremost the occupied Golan," it said in a statement late on Friday.
"The Popular Front's leaders have opened the door to all Syrian citizens to volunteer in the formation of the resistance."
Israel launched a series of air strikes around Damascus last week that inflamed regional tensions already on the rise as Syria's two-year civil war slowly seeps across its increasingly chaotic and porous borders.
Intelligence sources said Israel was trying to take out "game-changing" Iranian weapons destined for Lebanon's Shi'ite militant and political group Hezbollah.
Assad is a pivotal ally of regional Shi'ite power Iran, and is believed to serve as its arms conduit to Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon.
Assad and his father, who ruled for 30 years before him, maintained calm in the Golan despite an official state of war between the two countries and Syria's support for militants in Lebanon and Gaza.
But following last week's strikes, which shook the Syrian capital and set its skyline alight with flames, Assad was quoted by state media as saying he would turn the Golan into a "resistance front" and would allow combatants to attack Israel from the area.
Hezbollah, which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006 and is believed to coordinate with the PFLP-GC, turned up the rhetoric further by saying it would support any such operations.
"We announce that we stand with the Syrian popular resistance and offer material and spiritual support as well as coordination in order to liberate the Syrian Golan," the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech on Thursday.
Nasrallah said Syria would defy Israeli strikes by sending his group sophisticated weaponry, which he hinted may change the balance of power in the region.
The regions bordering the Golan Heights have already collapsed into disarray, with daily battles between state forces and rebels fighting to topple four decades of Assad family rule.
The war, which has killed more than 70,000 people, risks becoming increasingly regionalized, as the country's borders mark the faultlines of several Middle Eastern conflicts.
(Reporting by Erika Solomon; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

Click to expand...