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

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2013

Is a Syrian "domino effect" being used in a power struggle in the US deep state?
written specially for the Asia Times

Following the ratification by all parties of the recent Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it is worth looking again at the official narrative explaining this "sudden breakthrough". It goes something like that:

"Iran was ruled by President Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, who did everything in his power to deny the international community the monitoring rights it demanded and to keep the Iranian nuclear program unimpeded in its progress. Then the people of Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, who accepted the terms of the P5+1 countries and a deal was finally signed."

That is pretty much the official version.

Of course, every sentence in the above paragraph is absolute nonsense.

The new President of Iran

Iran is not ruled by its President, but by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who selects the six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council which, in turn, vets all aspiring Presidential candidates before they can run for office and which also can veto any decision of the Iranian Parliament. The Supreme Leader also appoints all the members of the Expediency Discernment Council which can resolve any disagreements between the Parliament and the Guardian Council. Hassan Rouhani was appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his bid to run for President was also approved by the Guardian Council. In other words, not only did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never have the political authority to independently take any crucial political decisions, but his successor has the 100% approval of the Supreme Leader. Thus, while there is a very clear difference in style between Ahmadinehad and Rouhani, it is ridiculous to suggest that the replacement of the former by the latter is the real cause of the "sudden" breakthrough in the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran. The fact is that Rouhani has the full support of the Supreme Leader and that his election, while not trivial, cannot be considered as a real change in Iranian policies, including nuclear ones.

P5+1?

The media speaks of the P5+1 as if it was a body formed of more or less equal partners taking decisions together. This is also nonsense. Who are the P5+1? The five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States (P5) and Germany (+1; officially added for economic reasons). P5+1 is really a misnomer as it should be called "1+1(+4)": Those who matter - the USA and Russia - and those who don't China (which is happy to follow the Russian lead on this issue) France, the UK and Germany (who will pretend to have an opinion but who will let the USA deal with the serious stuff). And since Russia under Putin is a strong ally of Iran, this really only leaves the "Big One" i.e, the USA as the negotiating counterpart to Iran.

So why this "sudden" breakthrough in negotiations between the USA and Iran. Could it be that the big change which made it possible did not occur in Iran but in the United States?

I have a different interpretation to offer.

It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria, Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit": the US would not attack Syria in exchange for the full destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. I believe that this absolutely tectonic reversal US foreign policy has now triggered what I would call a "domino effect" which is still ongoing and which might result in further unexpected changes in US foreign policy.

Let's look at this domino sequence of events one by one:

Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit

Whether it was really Barak Obama himself or his puppeteers is really irrelevant here. The President being the official Commander in Chief he is the person who had to announce that an agreement had been reached and that a US attack on Syria would be delayed/scrapped. Let's set aside for a moment the exact reason(s) why the US took this decision (we will come back to this crucial issue later) and just say that this was a major change for the following reasons.

a) This meant that the US would have to delay and, in all likelihood, give up on its long-standing objective of "regime change" in Syria.
b) This also meant that the US would now have to negotiate with the Syrian government.
c) Since chemical weapons were completely irrelevant to the military dynamic on the ground and since US had committed not to strike government forces, this meant that the USA was essentially giving up on its plan to help the insurgency win the war.
d) This removed the last pretext(s) possible for the US to continue to stall and avoid a Geneva II conference. From now on, the US had to get serious about Geneva II or lose it all.

Before this development the USA had two possible ways to deal with a Geneva II conference: to try to sabotage it or to try to use this opportunity to achieve something. As soon as Obama accepted Putin's gambit only the second option remained. Indeed, since regime change in Syria is clearly not an option any more, and since the US foreign policy in the Middle-East was predicated on regime change in Syria, the US now had to reconsider it all. This meant that the best possible option for the US was to try to use Geneva II to actually finally get something done. However, there is one truism which the US diplomats had to take into account: no solution in Syria will ever be achieved unless Iran approves of it. In other words, having accepted Putin's gambit, the US was not only committed to negotiations with the Syrians, but also with the Iranians. This the real causes of the "sudden" breakthrough between the "P5+1 and Iran": the defeat of the US in Syria literally forced the White House to negotiate with Iran, at which point to continue to stonewall at the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program became counter-productive and, frankly, absurd.

Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

As I have written it many times in the past, nobody in the US (or elsewhere), really believes that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors (who are still working in Iran) while remaining a member in good standing of the NPT Treaty (no NTP member has ever developed nuclear weapons). The real US objective has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a regional economic superpower and, if possible, to find a pretext to isolate and destabilize the Iranian regime. By accepting to negotiate with Iran, the USA is not "making the world safe from nuclear-armed Mollahs" but accepting the reality that Iran is, and will remain, a regional superpower. This is really what is at stake here, and all that talk about Iran nuking Israel in a "2nd Holocaust" is just a pious fig-leaf used to hide the real US policy objectives. Now that the US had given up on the notion of attacking Syria it made no sense to continue to act as if an attack on Iran was still possible. This left only two possible solutions: let the Iranians do whatever they want and appear to have failed to persuade Iran to take into consideration US objections, or actually find a mutually acceptable compromise which would be to the advantage of both sides. The US, wisely, chose the second option.

So far, Dominos 1 and 2 have fallen, but let us take a look at what might be happening next if nothing stops the momentum generated by these two dominos.

Domino 3: the two big losers - Saudi Arabia and Israel

It is rather obvious that the Saudis and the Israelis have done literally everything in their power to prevent the fall of Dominoes 1 and 2 from happening and that they are now the big losers. Both countries hate and fear Iran, both countries were deeply involved in the Syrian war and both countries appear to be outraged by the actions of the White House. When all the signs indicated that a deal would be struck, the Saudis and the Israelis even sent their top decision-makers (Bandar and Netanyahu) not to Washington, but to Moscow in a (futile) attempt to prevent what they see as an absolute catastrophe from happening.

Now that a deal has been reached, both Israel and the KSA are now showing all the signs of "loosing it" and are turning to crude forms of terrorism to lash out at their enemies: according to Hezollah, the Saudis are behind the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut while the Israelis are behind the murder of a Hezbollah commander, also in Beirut. One can dismiss these Hezbollah accusations as politically motivated, but I personally find them very credible simply because they "fit the picture" perfectly (and Hezbollah does have an excellent record of making only truthful statements). Whether one chooses to believe Hezbollah or not, nobody denies that there are now real and deep tensions between Israel and the KSA on one side and the USA on the other. That would also explain the rather amazing "rapprochement" taking place between Israel and the KSA who now have a common problem (the USA) and lots of common enemies (first and foremost Iran, of course).

Considering the huge power of the Israel Lobby and the, more discrete but also very powerful, Saudi Lobby in the USA, it is by no means certain that the new KSA-Israeli alliance shall not eventually prevail over what I would call the "USA-firsters" (in contrast to "Israel-firsters"). I shall also come back to this topic later, but let us assume that the current US policies will not be revered and that the US will sign a long-term agreement with Iran in six months or so. What could happen next?

Domino 4: goodbye US anti-missile "defense shield" in Europe?

Think about it: if the USA accepts the notion that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, why insist on deploying an anti nuclear missile defense shield over Europe? Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already clearly said that much and that is likely to remain a Russian policy position for the foreseeable future: now that the putative "threat" from Iran has been dealt with by means of negotiations - why should the US still deploy anti-missile systems in Europe?

Of course, the US could plow ahead with this project as if nothing had changed, but would it not be logical to at least talk to the Russians to see if some modifications could be made to the US anti-missile system which would satisfy the Russian side? Having agreed to negotiate with Syria and Iran, would it not also make sense to seriously sit down with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable compromise?

After all, Russia (backed by China, of course) can easily prevent any deal between the US and Iran (by a UNSC veto for example) and that would leave the USA is a very vulnerable negotiating position: to be in a great need of a deal with Iran while Iran would not feel equally interested in negotiating. And, of course, a breakdown in negotiations between Iran and the USA on the nuclear issue would mean very bad news for the USA in Syria. The fact is that the USA will desperately need Russian collaboration to hammer out a long term deal with Iran. And that, in turn, will have major consequences for a host of other issues, including European foreign policy.

Domino 5: an end to the European "Drang nach Osten"?

Not since the days of Hitler has Europe been so hysterically anti-Russian as in the last decade. Of course, some of that russophobia has been fed by US propaganda needs, but one quick look at the European press and will show anyone that the worst of this Russia-bashing really comes from Europe, especially the UK. As for the EU and NATO, their offensive to towards the East is really reminiscent of Hitler's, the only difference is that it is pursued with different means. Of course, West European revanchism is only part of the picture. There is definitely a desire by many East Europeans to become "true Europeans" combined with a hope that a EU+NATO combination would protect them from Russia. Nevermind that Russia is not in the least interested in invading them - most east Europeans are generically afraid of what they perceive as a resurgent superpower in the East. And if getting the "protection" of NATO and the EU means accepting a semi-colonial status in the US empire - so be it. Better to be a serf of the US empire than a serf in the Russian one. That is an ideological position which cannot be challenged by facts or logic. Most east Europeans probably understand that Russia has no interest in invading them, and most of them must be aware that joining the EU has been disastrous in economic terms for countries like Bulgaria or the Baltic States. Frankly, most people don't care. They look at German highways, French stores or Dutch airports and want to get a share of that wealth even if that is only a pipe-dream.

As for the west Europeans, they shamelessly feed that illusion, promising much and delivering nothing. As for NATO, it continues to follow Hitler's example and attempts to push its influence into the Caucasus. As a result, the EU+NATO offensive now spans a "front" from Estonia in the Baltic to Georgia in the Caucasus - an exact copy of Hitler's strategy for his war on Russia.

Hitler and his promised "1000 year Reich", of course, was defeated in only 12 years and the EU is not doing too well either. In fact, it is facing a systemic crisis that it has no idea of how to tackle.


I am not even referring to the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), but also to the supposedly "better off" nations of northern Europe. Did you know that only 3 of the 17 nations of the Eurozone have a AAA credit rating or that while no fewer than seven of the world’s top rated nations are in Europe, most are either not in the Euro (Denmark, Sweden) or not in the EU at all (Norway, Switzerland)? Anyone doubting the full magnitude of the social and economic crisis which has hit the Eurozone should read the report recently published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled "Think differently: humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe" (makes me wonder if anybody in the Ukraine has read this one!). Europe is in a deep crisis and this begs the obvious question: can Europe really afford a new Cold War with Russia? What about the US - does it need a new Cold War in Europe? Isn't it about time to set aside this crazy Drang nach Osten and accept that a non-imperial Europe would have much more to gain from a partnership with Russia than from another Cold War?

Time will show whether this last domino will also fall. What matters for our purposes here is not to accurately predict the future, but to look at the opportunities such a different future would offer. Let's ask a key question: if all the dominoes above did fall, would the USA be better or worse off? My personal reply is that the USA would be far better off, as would be Europe. And if that is the case, one can wonder, did the US really stumble into a situation which triggered a domino effect or what this the plan all along? Could it be that some forces of the USA have decided to use the failure of the US policy in Syria to trigger a much larger change?

A project of the "USA-firsters"?

As I have written in a recent article, I believe that the Presidency of Barak Obama has resulted in a shift of power in the US "deep state" which had the previously almighty Neocons pushed aside from the Executive Branch and replaced with what I call "old Anglo imperialists". They could also be called "USA-firsters" (as opposed to "Israel-firsters"). As a rule, they are far more sophisticated actors than the Neocons. Typically, the USA-firsters are better educated, more cautious in their discourse and methods and, unlike the Neocons, they can count on the support of patriotically-inclined Americans in the armed forces, State Department, CIA, and elsewhere. Finally, they enjoy the big advantage over the Neocons in the fact that they have no need to hide their real agenda: in their foreign policy they care first and foremost about US national interests (internally, of course, both the USA-firsters and the Neocons are the prototypical "one percenters" whose real objective is to defend their class interests while keeping the remaining 99% in serf-like conditions).

So could it be that this "domino sequence" was deliberately initiated by Anglo USA-firsters who seized the opportunity to promote their agenda while pushing the Neocon Israel-firsters aside?

Let's look at "domino 1" again.

I think that there is a preponderance of evidence that Obama accepted Putin's gambit against a background of absolute chaos both in Syria and in the USA. Iranian forces were covertly entering Syria to fight, a powerful Russian naval task force was positioned right off the coast of Syria, the British Parliament had refused to support an attack on Syria, demonstrations were taking place all over the USA - and elsewhere - against an attack, and all the signs were that Congress would not approve a military operation. It is hard to prove a negative, of course, but my sense is that the first domino fell pushed by all these factors and not a result of a deliberate change in US policies.

What about "domino 2" then?

In contrast to domino 1, there is strong evidence that domino 2 clearly "fell" as a direct result of a political decision made in Washington. If we accept that the only change in the Presidency of Iran was mainly a cosmetic one, then we also have to agree that the USA deliberately decided to open negotiations with Iran. Could it be that somebody in the White House or in the US deep state realized that the fall of "domino 1" presented real opportunities for the USA and the interests of the USA-firsters and decided to deliberately add momentum to "domino 1" and also push "domino 2"?

I believe that the sequence of events in Syria and Iran does offer a fantastic opportunity for the USA to finally rid itself from the disastrous legacy of many years of Neocon rule (in my opinion from 1993-2009). I should immediately stress that I am not saying that the Neocons are "out" as they still control the US corporate media and Congress with an iron hand. I am only saying that I am detecting the signs of a major change in US foreign policy which appears to be breaking free from the "Wahabi-Zionist alliance" of the combined lobbies of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Again, the fact that both Netanyahu and Bandar felt the need to travel to Moscow to stop Washington is absolutely unprecedented and amazing and I have to interpret that as a real sign of panic.

How far can the US really go?

A shift in the power equation inside the US does not mean regime change, far from it. In most circumstances US politicians will continue to mantrically repeat "there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”, the constant verbal genuflection before everything Jewish, Israeli or Holocaust-related will continue and it is quite possible that the next Israeli Prime Minister to address Congress will also get more standing ovations than the US President. However, it is also quite possible that between closed doors the Israelis and the Saudis will be told to "tone it down or else" and that the US support for these two regimes will become contingent of them not doing anything crazy (such as attacking Iran).

Let's look again at dominos 4 and 5 (basically, a stop in anti-Russian policies) from a non-Zionist and non-Wahabi point of view: would the USA gain or lose from such a development? It could lose some money if the European missile defense "shield" was scrapped, but the Russians are offering two alternative solutions: either let the Russian military become full partner in this system (thereby removing the threat to Russia) or move the entire system to western Europe away from the Russian borders (thereby also removing the threat to Russia). Since the Russian asymmetrical response (special forces, relocation of launchers, special missiles) will defeat the proposed system anyway - why not accept either one of the Russian offers?

Politically, such an agreement would open the doors for far more important collaborative opportunities (in Central Asia and the Middle-East) and it would remove the USA from the "collision course with the rest of the planet" it has been on since 9/11.

Clearly, a deal with Russia would be very beneficial for the USA.

What about Palestine?

Here, unfortunately, I have to remain as pessimistic as ever. As so many times in their history, the Palestinians have again committed something of a "strategic suicide" when they decided to support the anti-Assad forces in Syria. Just as with Saddam, the Palestinians are yet again with the losing side and, which is even worse, their only halfway decent resistance movement - Hamas - has now been taken over by Saudi interests which basically puts them under Israeli control no less than Fatah. The last "real" resistance movement in Palestine is now the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but it is comparatively small and weak and cannot be a partner in any real negotiations with the USA and Israel. In this context, it is likely the Israelis will simply impose whatever "solution" they want on the ground without having to negotiate with any Palestinians at all. This is very sad and this did not have to be, but the Palestinians really did it to themselves and they only have themselves to blame now.

Bottom line: no domino effect in Palestine.

Conclusion: a real window of opportunity

The future is by no means certain and the Israel-firsters and their Saudi allies have many options to reverse this process (just imagine Hillary as President!!). And yet it is also possible that the USA might shift away from the disastrous course it has been following for the past two decades and return to a more traditional, pragmatic, foreign policy: it will remain an imperial power with global imperialist goals, but at least it will be driven by pragmatic - if cynical - considerations and not foreign ideological interests. In contrast to what the USA has been doing for the past two decades, it is possible that the developments in the Middle-East will convince the USA that negotiations and compromise are more effective foreign policy tools than threat and military actions.

Historically, Republicans have had a comparatively better foreign policy record than the Democrats and senile psychopaths like McCain are not typical of Republican leaders. In contrast, US Democrats have often provided the most ideological and arrogant leaders and the very real possibility of Hillary running for the Presidency is a frightening indicator that what appears to be the current phase of pragmatism might be short lived. The good news is that both parties have an opportunity to seize the moment and nominate halfway sane candidates for the next Presidential election. Of course, if what we end up with is a Sarah Palin - Hillary Clinton race all bets are off and the world will be in for some very, very bad times. But if the USA-firsters can give the boot to the Israel-firsters currently controlling the key positions inside both parties (folks i
n the model of Rahm Israel Emanuel) then there is a real possibility that the US could break free from its current subservience to Zionist and Wahabi interests and resume a more pragmatic, reasonable, foreign policy.

Do these USA-firsters really exist? Honestly, I don't know. I hope that they do and I want to believe that the fact that the fall of the Syrian domino was followed so soon by the fall of the Iranian domino might be a sign that somebody inside the US deep state has decided to use this opportunity to try finally rid the USA from the foreign interests which have literally hijacked the country.

If after six month a permanent deal is agreed upon and signed by the P5+1 and Iran and if more or less at the same time the US begins serious negotiations with Russia such a scenario will become credible. At this point, it is too early to tell.

The Saker

Click to expand...

Anonymous said...
@The Saker

The "finally a mentally sane Iranian president -> let's make a deal!" theory you expose as nonsense is further contradicted by the fact that the secret US-Iran talks, according to multiple sources, went on since March, and apparently included episodes like US officials being flown into Oman on a military plane to escape detection. (Detected they were, but Obama could manage to shut the news up until the deal was clinched.)

> It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria, Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit"
> Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit
> ...
> Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

Because those secret Iran talks were started 6 months before the US-Russia axis (of good) was established to tackle the situation of Axis of Evil member Syria, and because Obama could not just willy-nilly change foreign policy that has been standing for decades, due to some random accident of history, without receiving a lot of flak from all sides, I don't see Domino 2 as a consequence of Domino 1.

I currently tend to think that "Domino 1" would be a recognition inside the US foreign policy establishment (minus Kissinger), that
* Saudi Arabia might be falling apart soon, the ageing King dying
* the former Iran strategy isn't leading to the desired result any time soon

With all that entails in terms geo-politically and in terms of stability of energy supplies etc.

Both points combined would leave the US without a meaningful partner in the Middle East, ignoring Israel, which I'd consider but a (rather effective) wedge in their "Divide and Rule" strategy in Eurasia, but without significant energy resources of itself, in contrast to the Saudis and Iran. So it could be something like the "let's get out of Vietnam" moment that suddenly made obsolete everything that was said until a day before. But decisions like this one, with common talking points and explanations, defamations of opposing views etc. established and engrained in the existing "debate", cannot be undone by a president changing his mind. That was not the case in Vietnam, as we know. And it wouldn't have worked in the the case of Iran either. Just take a look at how relatively muted the opposition in the US is. Even AIPAC isn't officially raising hell. Now it also looks like the threatened additional Iran sanctions in the US aren't manifesting. If they do, then the whole deal will blow up.

So my take is:
Domino 1: Decision to establish US-Iran relations, if Saudi Arabia goes south
Domino 2: Iran deal (although going public only after Domino 3)
Domino 3: Syria backptracking, as part of the good relations package with Iran

One more point, what makes you think Russia mattered in the P5+1? Obviously the US mattered, and they had the aforementioned bilateral secret talks with Iran, and France tried to matter - in vain. Where do you see Russia's part?

Honk

Click to expand...

​

gCaptain said:

The International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Center reports of two pirate attacks Monday on two merchant vessels within just a few miles of each other in the Gulf of Aden.

In the first attack, IMB reports that five pirates aboard a skiff approached and fired upon an underway tanker in the Gulf of Aden. The Master raised the alarm, activated fire hoses, increased speed and took evasive maneuvers before pirates aborted the attack due to the presence of the shipboard armed security team, the IMB report says.

In the second attack, IMB says that a group of five armed pirates aboard a skiff attacked a bulk carrier while underway in the Gulf of Aden. Again, the Master raised the alarm, activated fire hoses, sounded the ship’s horn, took evasive maneuvers and non-essential crew mustered in the ship’s citadel, the IMB reports. Showing increased boldness, the pirates continued the attack and fired upon the vessel even after the ship’s security team fired warning shots towards the skiff, the report says, and the pirates eventually aborted the attack.

In both instances, a military helicopter arrived on scene and patrolled the area. It is unclear if the pirates in both attacks are part of the same Pirate Action Group.

Although pirate attacks near the Horn of Africa have decreased drastically since peaking in 2011, the two attacks are the latest reminder that pirates are still active in the region. IMB reports thirteen reported incidents, including two hijackings, in the region in 2013.

Click to expand...

UAE pulls out of Eurofighter deal


Aircraft manufacturer BAE Systems says the United Arab Emirates has pulled out of a deal to buy Eurofighter aircraft.

The Gulf state had been in talks with the company and the UK government to buy 60 Typhoon jets.

The union convenor at the firm's Warton factory in Lancashire said it was "very disappointing news to get before Christmas".

But a government spokesman said it was a "commercial decision" and that it was "always going to be a difficult deal".

"As BAE have said, it was an exciting prospect but not part of their business plan," they added.

'Game changer'
In a statement BAE Systems said: "The UAE have advised that they have elected not to proceed with these proposals at this time."

A spokesman added that the collapse of the deal would not have an impact on jobs at the firm's Warton factory.

Phil Entwhistle, from the factory's Unite union branch, said the deal would have been a "game changer" in terms of recruitment and the long term future of the factory.

"Having said that, there's no threat to jobs in the short or medium term," he added.

"This deal wasn't yet part of the company's business plan so we won't be seeing people losing their jobs, certainly for the next three years or so."

Last year, BAE systems lost out on a deal to supply 126 Typhoon jets to India.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Iraq PM urges residents to expel Al Qaeda from Fallujah
Published January 06, 2014 | Associated Press
ADVERTISEMENT
BAGHDAD – Iraq's prime minister on Monday urged residents and tribes of Fallujah to "expel" Al Qaeda militants from this western city to avoid an all-out battle -- remarks that may signal an imminent military move to retake the former insurgent stronghold.

Nouri al-Maliki's message came as dozens of families were fleeing from Fallujah, 40 miles west of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in fear of a major showdown.

Iraqi government troops have surrounded the city, which lies in the western Sunni-dominated Anbar province and which was overrun by Al Qaeda fighters last week.

Al-Maliki did not say how he expects Fallujah residents and pro-government tribesmen to push the militants out. In his message, broadcast over state TV, al-Maliki also urged Iraqi troops to avoid targeting Fallujah's residential areas.

Along with Fallujah, Al Qaeda fighters last week also took control of most parts of the provincial capital of Ramadi.

Iraqi troops have since been trying to dislodge militants from the group, known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, from the two cities. On Sunday, fighting in Anbar killed at least 34 people, including 22 soldiers.

The recent gains by Al Qaeda in Iraq have been a blow to the country's Shiite-led government, as sectarian violence has escalated since the U.S. withdrawal. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that Washington was "very, very concerned" by the fighting but would not send in American troops.

On Monday, the Iranian army's deputy chief-of-staff, Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, said Iran was also ready to help Iraq with military equipment and advisers, should Baghdad ask for it. Any Iranian help would exacerbate tensions as Iraqi Sunnis accuse Tehran of backing what they say are their Shiite-led government's unfair policies against them.

Fallujah residents said clashes continued into early morning Monday along the main highway that links the capital, Baghdad, to neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Al Qaeda fighters and their supporters are still controlling the center of the city where they can be seen on the streets and around government buildings. Al Qaeda black flags have been seen on government and police vehicles captured by the militants during the clashes.

In Ramadi, sporadic clashes were taking place in some parts of in and outside the city on Monday, residents there said. All residents in Anbar that talked to The Associated Press spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for their own safety.

Dozens of families were fleeing the two cities to nearby towns, crammed in cars loaded with their belongings.

On Sunday, at least 22 soldiers and 12 civilians were killed, along with an unknown number of militants, and 58 people were wounded during clashes between Al Qaeda fighters on one side and the army and its allied tribesmen on the other.

Just hours earlier, Lt. Gen. Rasheed Fleih, who leads the Iraqi army's Anbar Military Command, told state TV that "two to three days" are needed to push the militants out of Fallujah and parts of Ramadi.

Tensions in Anbar have run high since Dec. 28, when Iraqi security forces arrested a Sunni lawmaker sought for terrorism charges. Two days later, the government dismantled a months-old, anti-government Sunni protest camp, sparking clashes with militants.

ISIL is also one of the strongest rebel units in neighboring Syria, where it has imposed a strict version of Islamic law in territories it holds in the civil war raging there. It also has kidnapped and killed dozens of people it deems critical of its rule. On Saturday, it claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing in a Shiite-dominated neighborhood in Lebanon.

Iraq's Al Qaeda branch has fed on Sunni discontent and on Syria's civil war, in which mostly Sunni rebels fight the government of President Bashar Assad whose base is a Shiite offshoot sect.

Sectarian violence in Iraq spiked after the government staged a deadly crackdown on a Sunni protest camp last April. Militants have also targeted civilians, particularly in Shiite areas of Baghdad, with waves of coordinated car bombings and other deadly attacks.

According to the United Nations, Iraq had the highest annual death toll in 2013 since the worst of the sectarian bloodletting began to subside in 2007. The U.N. said violence killed 8,868 last year.

Print Close
URL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Lebanese army fires at Syrian aircraft for first time since uprising began, officials say
Published December 30, 2013 | Associated Press
ADVERTISEMENT
BEIRUT – The Lebanese army fired on Syrian aircraft that violated the country's airspace Monday, the first time Lebanon has done so since Syria's uprising broke out nearly three years ago, security officials said.

The move suggests Beirut is trying to enforce greater respect for its borders in the hopes of slowing the expansion of the conflict into Lebanon, where it has exacerbated sectarian tensions and prompted shadowy groups to conduct attacks that have killed dozens this year.

Also Monday, a U.N. official said at least 15 people have died of hunger-related illnesses in a besieged area of Damascus over the past four months.

Lebanese officials said the military fired anti-aircraft guns at two Syrian helicopters after they fired four missiles in a mountainous, barren area close to the eastern Lebanese town of Arsal.

Syrian aircraft have frequently conducted strikes near the frontier, sometimes hitting Lebanese territory. Beirut has protested but not responded with force.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to the media.

A Lebanese military official could not confirm the report, but said the army has orders to shoot anything — planes, tanks or troops — that violate Lebanese territory. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with policy.

There was no comment from the Syrian government.

Local security officials said the Syrians were chasing rebels who were trying to sneak into Lebanon. Communities on the Lebanese side of the border dominated by Sunni Muslims have become safe havens for rebels battling the rule of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Syria's three-year conflict has grown increasingly sectarian as it wears on. The rebels are largely from the Sunni majority. Religious minorities, including Shiites, support Assad or have remained neutral, fearing for their fate if Muslim hardliners come to power.

Those loyalties are reflected in Lebanon, where Sunnis generally support the rebels, and Shiites support Assad. The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah has sent its fighters to Syria to shore up Assad's forces, adding to the tensions.

In Damascus, meanwhile, the new deaths from hunger-related illness highlighted what activists say is the Assad government's tactic of starving out rebel-held areas.

Rebels seized the Palestinian-dominated Yarmouk district last year, part of a swath of neighborhoods around Damascus now held by opposition fighters.

The U.N.'s Relief and Works Agency that supports Palestinian refugees had until recently shipped food into the area, but has not been able to do so since September, said UNRW official Chris Gunness. He said at least five people died over the weekend, but 10 people had died in the previous months. The dead include men, women and children.

Gunness estimated 2,000 civilians still lived in the area, where clashes between rebels and Assad loyalists frequently break out.

"If this situation is not addressed urgently, it may be too late to save the lives of thousands of people including children," warned Gunness in comments emailed to The Associated Press.

Rami Abdurrahman of the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has a network of activists on the ground, also confirmed the numbers. He said those who died over the weekend included an elderly man, a man suffering from unknown disabilities, and a woman.

Even though Yarmouk lies in the heart of the Syrian capital, news of their deaths took weeks to confirm because the area is so tightly sealed, Abdurrahman said.

Yarmouk before the war was a densely populated district of cheaply built multi-story homes, but was called a "camp" since Palestinians came there as refugees during 1948 Mideast war surrounding Israel's creation.

Government forces are also besieging other rebel-held areas around Damascus, including the nearby area of Moadamiyeh, where activists said at least two women and four children died of hunger-related illnesses through September.

This week, Moadamiyeh's rebels accepted a humiliating deal where they would receive food in exchange for raising the government flag over the area.

On Saturday, three small pickup trucks entered with bread, rice and canned food. Activists said it wasn't enough for some 8,000 people who remain in the town.

Also Sunday, Abdurrahman of the Observatory said the group had received death threats from other anti-Assad activists, including hard-line Islamists, who warned they would kidnap or kill the some 230 people who work for the group inside Syria.

Abdurrahman said the threats escalated after the group reported that hard-liners had attacked minority civilians simply for not being Muslims.

Other activists in northern parts of Syria and Iraq, where the al-Qaida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is strong, have also complained of threats. Dozens have been kidnapped or forced to flee over the past year, fearing for their lives.

The compliant came as the media rights group Reporters Without Borders warned that ISIL had stepped up attacks on activists.

Print Close
URL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Turkey's Erdogan says not opposed to military coup plot retrials
Photo
1:50am EST
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said he would not oppose the retrial of hundreds of military officers convicted on coup plot charges, a case that underlined civilian dominance over a once all-powerful army.
Turkey's appeals court in October upheld the convictions of top retired officers for leading a plot to overthrow Erdogan's government a decade ago.
The military last week filed a criminal complaint over the court cases, saying evidence against serving and retired officers had been fabricated.
"There is not a problem for us about retrials as long as the legal basis is established. In terms of regulations, we are ready to do what we can," Erdogan told reporters late on Sunday before leaving on an official visit to Asia.
He said he had a "positive" meeting on Saturday with the head of the Turkish bar association at which the cases were discussed and the justice minister was working on the issue.
The military complaint came as Erdogan's government is weakened by a wide-ranging corruption investigation which has led to the resignation of three members of his cabinet and highlighted concern about the independence of the judiciary.
Erdogan's backers accuse Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-based Turkish cleric with strong influence in the police and judiciary and a former ally of the prime minister, of connivance in the corruption investigations. Gulen denies the allegation.
Erdogan's Islamist-rooted AK Party is widely held to have relied on Gulen's influence in breaking the power of the army - which carried out three coups between 1960 and 1980 and forced an Islamist-led government from power in 1997 - including by pursuing suspected coup plotters through the courts.
(Reporting by Seda Sezer; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Alison Williams)

Click to expand...

Bomb attacks on Christians in Baghdad kill 37
Published December 25, 2013 | FoxNews.com
ADVERTISEMENT
At least 37 were killed in Iraq after militants targeted Christians in two separate bomb attacks on Wednesday, according to officials.

In one attack, a car bomb went off near a church during Christmas Mass in the capital's southern Dora neighborhood, killing at least 26 people and wounding 38, a police officer said.

A little bit earlier, a bomb ripped through an outdoor market in the nearby Christian section of Athorien, killing 11 people and wounding 21, the officer added.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks, but Iraq's dwindling Christian community, which is estimated to number about 400,000 to 600,000 people, has often been targeted by al-Qaida and other insurgents who see the Christians as unbelievers.

Along with Christians, other targets include civilians in restaurants, cafes or crowded public areas, as well as Shiites and also members of the Iraqi security forces, who are targeted in an attempt to undermine confidence in the Shiite-led government and stir up Iraq's already simmering sectarian tensions.

A medical official confirmed the casualty figures. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media.

The U.S Embassy in Baghdad condemned the violence in a statement released Wednesday,

"The United States Embassy condemns in the strongest terms today's attacks in the Dora area of Baghdad that targeted Christians celebrating Christmas," the statement read.

"The United States abhors all such attacks and is committed to its partnership with the Government of Iraq to combat the scourge of terrorism."

Wednesday's bombings came amid a massive military operation in Iraq's western desert as authorities try to hunt down insurgents who have stepped up attacks across Iraq in the past months, sending violence to levels not seen since 2008.

The Christmas Day attacks brought the total number of people killed so far this month in Iraq to 441. According to U.N. estimates, more than 8,000 people have been killed since the start of the year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Click to expand...

Egypt police boost security at churches ahead of Coptic Christmas
Photo
8:15am EST
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian police deployed at churches across the country with orders to use live ammunition to protect Coptic Christians over their Christmas holiday, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.
Dozens of churches and Christian properties were attacked in August, the month after the army overthrew Islamist President Mohamed Mursi.
Since then, although wider reprisals against Christians have been infrequent, sectarian rhetoric from Islamists against Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's population, has intensified and the authorities are on alert for any attack.
Mursi's relations with the Coptic church during his year in office were poor. Pope Tawadros had accused the freely elected Islamist of neglecting the Coptic community.
Tawadros supported army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's overthrow of Mursi, and appeared with a top Muslim cleric and others when the general announced Mursi's removal on July 3.
As part of its widening crackdown against the movement since Mursi's overthrow, the state designed his Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization after a suicide bombing on a police compound in the Nile Delta last month that was claimed by a militant Islamist group.
The Brotherhood denies any links to violence.
Five to 10 police officers will be deployed to each church, where they will set up cordons to prevent cars from parking along the perimeter, sources said.
Plainclothes officers and counter-terrorism specialists will be on the streets near churches, along with "combat units" on roving patrols. Bigger teams will be deployed to the country's largest churches.
"If police confirm there is a presence of any terrorist elements, they will use live rounds," an Interior Ministry official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Interim head of state Adly Mansour visited the pope on Sunday ahead of Tuesday's Christmas holiday, a gesture of symbolic importance that could help bolster Christian support for the army-backed roadmap ahead of a January 14-15 referendum on a new constitution.
The visit "reflected the state's appreciation for the great patriotic role they (Egypt's Copts) played in countering attempts to sow seeds of division among Egyptians", the presidency said in a statement.
An attack by gunmen in October that killed four wedding guests outside a church in Cairo stoked fears that Christians would become scapegoats in Egypt's upheaval, held responsible by Islamists for backing Mursi's fall.
New Year's Eve marked the third anniversary of a bombing at a Coptic church in Egypt's second city of Alexandria, days ahead of the Christmas holiday, that killed 23 people and was the deadliest attack on a church in years.
(Reporting by Maggie Fick; Editing by Alison Williams)

Click to expand...

Syria rebels push al Qaeda back; U.S. open to Iran role
Photo
Sun, Jan 5 2014
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis and Arshad Mohammed
AMMAN/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Syrian rebel fighters loyal to al Qaeda ceded ground near the Turkish border to rival Islamists on Sunday, activists said, in what seemed to be a tactical withdrawal to end clashes between Syrian- and foreign-led opponents of President Bashar al-Assad.
As Syria's civil war gets ever more complex amid a broad regional confrontation between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, the United States raised the prospect of Assad's sponsor Iran, the Shi'ite power long at odds with Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, playing some role in this month's Syrian peace talks.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tehran still should not take formal part in the peace conference scheduled to start on Lake Geneva on January 22 because it had not endorsed a 2012 accord calling for a new Syrian leadership. But he said there might be ways that Iran could "contribute from the sidelines".
There is little prospect of a rapid end to the Syrian conflict but the resurgence in Iraq of mutual enemy al Qaeda, and a recent rapprochement with the new Iranian president, have raised speculation about a common effort between the United States and Tehran to contain instability in the region.
Kerry, visiting Jerusalem, pledged to help Iraq's Shi'ite-led government fight al Qaeda but said Washington was not considering sending U.S. troops, two years after they withdrew.
SYRIA FACTION FIGHTING
Syrian opposition activists said the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), allied to al Qaeda and featuring foreign jihadists among its commanders, had pulled back on Sunday from strongpoints including al-Dana and Atma in Idlib province and that fighters from the Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham moved in.
"The Islamic State is pulling out without a fight. Its fighters are taking their weapons and heavy guns," activist Firas Ahmad said. He added that the ISIL fighters headed in the direction of Aleppo, where Assad's troops have stepped up pressure on rebel forces who captured the city 18 months ago.
Another activist, Abdallah al-Sheikh, said that some Syrian ISIL fighters had stayed in place but switched allegiance to the Nusra Front, whose commanders are mostly Syrian rather than foreign. Nusra coordinates with the Islamic Front, a coalition of Syrian Islamist brigades that includes Ahrar al-Sham.
Syrian opposition supporters and diplomats said that, despite days of skirmishing in the northwest between ISIL and other rebel factions, a broad alliance involving these groups seemed to be holding in the desert east of the country.
"There is certainly competition between ISIL and the other Islamist militants, but it does not appear there is full-scale confrontation," a Middle Eastern diplomat said.
The strength of radical Islamists, nearly three years after popular revolt broke out against Assad, has caused Western powers to hold back on practical support for the rebels despite endorsing the goal, shared with Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of overthrowing the Syrian president.
QAEDA IN IRAQ
Across the border in Iraq, ISIL seized key towns last week, confronting Sunni tribal forces and the Iraqi government and making their greatest territorial gains since U.S. troops ended a nine-year occupation of Iraq in December 2011.
On Sunday, Baghdad officials met Sunni tribal leaders to seek their help against a bid by ISIL to consolidate a hold on desert territory straddling the Iraqi-Syrian frontier and Iraq's U.S.-armed air force struck the city of Ramadi, killing 25 Islamists, according to local officials.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has secured pledges of more U.S. military aid, despite concerns in Washington that his government has failed to share power with the once-dominant Sunni minority and has helped Iran channel supplies to Assad.
In the eastern Syrian province of Raqqa, Sunni Islamist activist Khaled Abu Alwalid said that the presence of Iraqi Shi'ite militia fighters in Syria was galvanising a common front against them by ISIL and other Islamist factions.
"This is a religious war encompassing Iraq, Syria and Lebanon," Alwalid said.
Like Iraq, Lebanon has seen violence linked to the Syrian war, and its Hezbollah militia, backed by Iran, has sent fighters into Syria to help Assad. There were clashes on Sunday in the Lebanese city of Tripoli between Sunnis and members of the Shi'ite-linked Alawite sect to which Assad belongs.
SYRIA PEACE TALKS
Western powers preparing for the peace conference in Montreux later this month have been pressing other opposition groups, friendlier to Western interests, to resolve their own factional disputes and take a full role in negotiations.
The Syrian National Coalition (SNC), a Western-backed umbrella body formed largely by exiles, was meeting in Istanbul to elect new leaders and vote, probably on Monday, on whether to take part in talks with Assad's representatives.
Ahmad al-Jarba was re-elected as SNC leader for a second six-month term, defeating former Syrian prime minister Riyad Hijab, a senior coalition member told Reuters.
Many in the SNC are concerned that it could jeopardise what support it enjoys inside Syria by taking part in the talks with Assad's delegates at what is known by the U.N. organizers as "Geneva 2" - a sequel to international talks in Geneva in 2012.
While the Islamic Front and others fighting in Syria have ruled out negotiations, the SNC has said it would take part on certain conditions - though few of these, such as the release of prisoners and more aid to rebel areas, have been met.
Nonetheless, senior SNC member Anas Abdah told Reuters the Coalition was under pressure to take part in talks, if only to avoid losing the goodwill and support of Western powers: "The only clear political option is Geneva 2," he said.
"If we don't explore this option, the international community might lose interest and not do anything."
Monzer Makhous, the SNC envoy in Paris, said: "There cannot be a political solution from Geneva because the terms set out by the international community at previous meetings have not been met ... But at this stage we have no other option."
(Additional reporting by Dasha Afanasieva in Istanbul; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Click to expand...