Iran confirms military stationed in Syria

Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps are in Syria helping Assad's government crush the rebellion. It warned it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack.

In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for President Bashar al-Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".

It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition.

"The crisis is dangerous and getting worse and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.

Reports from Syria on Sunday described government forces fighting rebels amid shelling and sniper fire in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in Homs and Deir ez-Zor. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, reported 103 dead.

Enmeshed in rivalries

Opposition activists reported 115 people killed on Saturday. According to the UN some 20 000 people have been killed. Opposition sources say the figure is closer to 30 000.

Jafari's admission underlines the way in which the Syrian uprising has become enmeshed in regional and international rivalries.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming Syrian rebel groups, while the US, Britain and France have called for Assad to go but are offering only limited and non-lethal backing to the armed opposition.

Russia and China have repeatedly blocked action against Syria at the UN.

The Qods force includes elements of special forces, intelligence-gathering and aid, and answers to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It has been accused of planning attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Jafari said the IRGC was providing "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria.

British officials say the IRGC has provided riot control equipment and technical advice on how to crush dissent, for example on how to flood areas with security forces.

Intelligence-gathering

Iran is also providing support to improve the Syrian regime's intelligence-gathering capabilities and help to monitor protesters' use of the internet and mobile phone network, including text messaging.

Iran is said to have been dismayed at the heavy-handed way its long-standing Arab ally responded when the unrest began in March 2011, contrasting it with its relatively more sophisticated response to protests that followed its own disputed presidential election in 2009.

"If Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," AFP reported Jafari as saying at rare press conference in Tehran.

The general also said the Strait of Hormuz, the channel at the mouth of the Gulf through which a third of the world's traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked.

"If war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties.

"The US has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the guards' missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic," he said.

Tolerated

In Damascus, Brahimi also met Syrian opposition figures who are still tolerated by the regime.

"We told Mr Brahimi ... of our support for his efforts to resolve the crisis by ending the violence and killings, providing medical care and releasing political prisoners," said Hassan Abdel Azim, spokesperson for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.

But the head of the Free Syrian Army's military council in Aleppo, Colonel Abdel Jabar al-Oqaidi, predicted that the envoy's mission would fail, like Annan's, because he had nothing to offer people who were fighting for their freedom, al-Arabiya TV reported.

Syria's state news agency Sana quoted Assad as telling Brahimi that the success of his mission hinged on "pressuring countries which finance and train the terrorists, and which traffic weapons to Syria, to stop these actions".

In Istanbul, Tariq al-Hashimi, the fugitive Iraqi vice-president, said in interview that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was failing to stop ammunitions and armaments reaching Syrian government forces.

"My country is unfortunately becoming an Iranian corridor to support the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad," he said. "There is no doubt about that."

Source: Mail & Guardian

Mursi wants Egypt at centre of Arab affairs, urges end to Syrian government

Egypt's president on Wednesday promised to put Cairo back at the heart of Arab affairs and made an impassioned appeal to Arab states to work to end the bloodshed in Syria, saying the time had come to change the Syrian government. By Yasmine Saleh and Ayman Samir.

Mohamed Mursi, making his first presidential address to the Arab League in Cairo, told Arab foreign ministers that Egypt and its people would "return to occupy their natural place at the heart of the Arab nation". Mursi, elected in June after last year's popular uprising forced Hosni Mubarak from power after three decades, said the time had come in Syria for "change and not wasting time speaking of reform. This time has passed now. Now it is time for change".

"The Syrian regime must take into account the lessons of recent and ancient history," he said in the speech in which he also talked of the revolt in Egypt.

Mursi also said a quartet of states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt - would meet to discuss the Syrian crisis.

"The quartet which Egypt has called for will meet now," he said, without giving details.

An Egyptian delegate said the president's comments meant the four states were talking about what action could be taken but the formal formation of the quartet was still under discussion. He said no date had been set for its representatives to meet.

Tehran has backed Syria's government but the three other states want President Bashar al-Assad to stand down.

Analysts said the group was unlikely to agree on how to handle the crisis but said the initiative was a sign of how determined the newly elected president was to put Egypt back at the centre of regional politics.

FRESH APPEAL

As Mursi was leaving the podium, the Islamist president briefly returned to the microphone to say: "Syria, Syria, this is the arena to do something", pointing to the ministers below him, and then again saying "Syria" before stepping away.

It was the second such appeal for action in a week by Mursi. At the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Iran on Aug. 30, Mursi referred to Tehran's ally as an "oppressive regime" and said it was an "ethical duty" to back rebels.

More than 20,000 people have been killed in Syria since initially peaceful protests against Assad erupted in March 2011. Tens of thousands more have fled across its borders to neighbouring states to escape the violence. Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations-Arab League mediator on Syria, arrived in Cairo on Wednesday to join the talks with Arab ministers. Brahimi, who is expected to visit Cairo on Sunday, has described his bid to broker peace as "nearly impossible" but Kidwa told reporters at Cairo airport that "we have not lost hope" despite the difficulties facing the mission.

According to a draft of the resolutions obtained by Reuters and approved on Wednesday, ministers called on the Arab League chief and its special committee on Syria to follow up with the U.N. secretary-general to outline a "new vision" for Brahimi.

The draft also called for Nilesat and Arabsat, two regionally owned satellite firms, to stop broadcasts of Syrian state and private channels. Broadcasts of the three Syrian channels on Nilesat stopped before the draft was approved, with a Nilesat source citing unspecified contract violations.

Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told Reuters he was disappointed by the resolutions, saying Arabs should work more closely with Europeans opposed to Assad's rule and put more presure on Syria's ally Russia.

He said Arabs should back "using all means including force against the Syrian regime to reach that end". DM

Source: Daily Maverick

What next for SA-Israel relations?

By Howard Sackstein

This week the South African ambassador to Israel was summoned by his hosts for a severe reprimand. Our government’s increasingly aggressive stance on Israel has caused relations between Jerusalem and Pretoria to implode.

One by one we have watched our despotic friends in the Middle East tumble from power and we watch silently as tens of thousands of Syrians die at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and that country spirals towards civil war.

At the end of August SA will attend a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, seat of one of the most oppressive theocracies of the modern era. Oil and political donations triumph over policy!

Despite our manifest indifference to human suffering, Israel features prominently in our foreign policy.

When Israel stopped a Turkish flotilla from illegally breaking the blockade on Gaza, South Africa, Nicaragua and Ecuador were the only countries, other than Turkey, to withdraw their ambassadors from Tel Aviv.

In March South Africa granted entry to renowned Hamas terrorist Abdul Aziz Umar to visit. Umar was given seven life sentences for taking part in the Café Hillel suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem, which killed seven people. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist and calls for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East. Ironically, Umar was dispatched to South Africa to promote Israel Apartheid Week.

On August 22, cabinet approved a plan promoted by pro-Palestinian advocates “to require traders in South Africa not to incorrectly label products that originate from the Occupied Palestinian Territory as products of Israel”. Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies denied the move was politically motivated. But he was soon contradicted by the deputy minister of international relations, Marius Fransman, who said “economic diplomacy could be one of the most effective weapons of change in the Palestinian situation. I am glad to inform you that our government released a government notice, as a strategy to apply economic pressure on Israel”.

So sympathetic has South Africa become to the anti-Israel cause, that terrorists last month plotted a foiled attack on Israeli targets in South Africa.

When a group of South African Jewish organisations and business leaders attempted to address the poor service-delivery record of our government by training South Africans in Israel, Deputy Minister of International Relations Ebrahim Ebrahim applied pressure to scupper the trips.

Over the past 60 years Israel has been training people throughout the continent. Under the leadership of the Israeli trade union movement black South African civic leaders, trade unionists and NGOs have been trained in Israel since the 1970s. Yehuda Paz was banned by the apartheid government from entering South Africa. Today a post-apartheid government attempts to ban South Africans from travelling to Israel to meet Paz.

Last week Ebrahim informed South Africans that Pretoria discourages all South Africans from visiting Israel. He said “because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people, we strongly discourage South Africans from going there”.

Probably the most scathing criticism of the deputy minister came from the chief rabbi of South Africa, Dr Warren Goldstein, who described the deputy minister as unfit to hold public office and demanded he resign. Goldstein said: “Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship. For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less.”

Officials in Ebrahim’s own department told the City Press that Ebrahim was old and sometimes did not understand policy.

Israel has little to gain from its contributions to South Africa. In the mind of Israel, South Africa is underdeveloped, battling with corruption, spiralling unemployment, chronic under-education and crippling service delivery.

South Africans must worry that Israel may take action to restrict its technology from being used in South Africa. Many farmers in rural South Africa have moved from subsistence farming to commercial farming based entirely on Israeli know-how and technology.

South Africa’s bona fides have been further dented by the MTN-Turkcell court case in the US. Turkcell alleges that South Africa protected Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in return for awarding a cellular licence to MTN. Assisting Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not only destabilises the entire Middle East, but puts South Africa on a collision path.

South Africa has abandoned its desire to play any meaningful role in Middle East peace. Its failure to take any moral stand on international conflicts other than Israel/Palestine has undermined its own credibility. Its pronouncements are mere platitudes to gain domestic Muslim votes in the Western Cape and while service-delivery protests spread across the country fewer and fewer South African government officials will receive the training in Israel they desperately need.

Howard Sackstein has a degree in law and international relations, a post-graduate law degree and a masters in political advocacy and international conflict resolution. He was one of the founders of the Jewish anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and was executive director of South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission. He led the only ANC delegation to ever visit Israel and took Nelson Mandela to Brussels on behalf of the World Jewish Congress.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Analysis: Syria - three wars for the price of one

If you think the war in Syria is hard to follow, that’s because there’s actually three of them—at least. Distinct but interconnected, the competing web of allegiances and motivations puts al-Qaeda on the same side as the USA and makes a solution impossible. By SIMON ALLISON.

Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical, propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.

There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened, freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the facts).

Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion, prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.

There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries. Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo; autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and civil wars.

War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies. The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.

Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them. Qatar has also been accused – with some justification – of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera (specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by portraying a one-sided version of events.

Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents, summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”

Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be fought in the open.

But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as “terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian rebels.

This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline, combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad regime where it hurts most.”

The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to know what’s really going on.

Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to be. DM

Source: Daily Maverick

Syria conflict: 'Scores of bodies found' near Damascus

Syrian opposition activists say scores of bodies have been found in a town near the capital Damascus, accusing government troops of "massacre". The activists say many of the victims in the town of Daraya had been "summarily executed". One unconfirmed report said more than 200 bodies were discovered in houses and basement shelters. Without commenting on the activists' claim, Syrian state TV said Daraya was being "purified of terrorist remnants".

'House-to-house' raids

The forces of President Bashar al-Assad launched an assault on the town on Saturday, after days of heavy bombardment. Activists on the ground later posted video footage on the internet, which apparently showed numerous bodies in the Abu Auleiman al-Darani mosque. The activists say that many of the victims had gunshot wounds to the head and chest and were killed during house-to-house raids by government troops. "Assad's army has committed a massacre in Daraya," an opposition member in Deraa told Reuters. The activist added that most of the victims had been killed from close range, and some died from sniper fire.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based opposition activist group, had earlier put the number of dead in Deraa at more than 120 for this week alone. The claims by the activists have not been independently verified because of restrictions placed on on foreign media across Syria.

Failed ceasefire

In a separate development, the head of the UN mission to Syria left the country after the mission had been wound up. Senegalese Lt Gen Babacar Gaye joined a UN convoy to Lebanon on Saturday. Last week, the UN decided against extending the mission, which was originally part of a six-point peace plan for Syria. However, the ceasefire mandated by the plan never took hold and rising violence forced the UN monitors to be confined to their hotels since June.

Source: BBC News

Obama threatens to invade Syria

Yesterday US and NATO officials discussed plans for a US military invasion of Syria to bring down Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, after US President Barack Obama announced that the US was contemplating a direct attack on Syria at a press conference Monday night.

A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”

Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.

At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”

Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”

Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”

The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)

Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!

The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”

For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.

By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.

A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.

A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.

Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.

A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”

Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”

Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”

Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

Why are you repeating the sins of the apartheid regime?

DEAR Deputy Minister Ebrahim,

You are a minister of the South African government, appointed to advance the interests of the republic and the people of South Africa in an impartial and rational manner. As a citizen and as a national religious leader of South Africa, I object to the way in which you are abusing your high office to promote your personal agenda.

You obviously have a "blind spot" when it comes to Israel; you lose your sense of objectivity and rationality when dealing with the Jewish state.

You have used your platform and title in an active campaign to prevent South Africans — and especially members of the government — from visiting Israel. This is but one example of your irrational obsession with Israel to the detriment of the proper execution of your governmental duties. You have acted in breach of your government’s own foreign policy, in terms of which South Africa and Israel have full diplomatic relations.

Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship.

Why would you try to prevent South Africans from travelling to Israel and seeing the situation for themselves? Do you think, Mr Ebrahim, that the South African people are not as clever as you are, that they cannot think for themselves and that they need to be protected from the facts?

Maybe you are afraid — and rightly so — that if people go to Israel and see the situation for themselves, their perspective will be completely different. Are you worried that they will see that, in fact, there is no apartheid in Israel? South Africans visiting Israel will find a multiracial, multi-ethnic vibrant society in which more than 1.5-million Arabs live as full and equal Israeli citizens, vote as part of a single national voters’ roll and have full legal rights in all areas of society.

Are you concerned that when South Africans travel on buses, visit parks, malls, hospitals and university campuses, attend the Israeli parliament and the Supreme Court, they will find Jews and Arabs living and working together in complete equality? They may hear, for example, that, in fact, it was an Arab judge who convicted former Israeli president Moshe Katsav on rape charges.

Maybe you are afraid that South African Christians will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can practise their religion freely, without fear; that South African women will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can be fully equal citizens; that South African trade unionists will discover that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there are legal and active trade unions that protect workers’ rights; that South African journalists will see that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of expression is properly upheld.

Are you worried that our fellow South Africans may learn that successive Israeli governments have supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated peace agreement?

Are you concerned that South Africans may speak to Ehud Barak, the dovish former prime minister of Israel, who desperately tried at the Camp David and Taba negotiations to create a Palestinian state, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership?

Are you concerned that South Africans might hear for themselves directly from the current Israeli government how it seeks to return immediately to the negotiating table without preconditions, and that it is the Palestinian leadership that refuses to do so?

Maybe you are worried that our fellow South Africans may discover that the so-called "separation wall" is actually a security fence; that before it was erected, waves of suicide bombers killed more than 1,300 Israelis and wounded more than 10,000, and that since its erection these attacks have stopped. Maybe you are afraid that South Africans might speak to members of Hamas, who openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder of all Jews around the world.

Mr Ebrahim, your personal bias against Israel prevents you from fulfilling your legal and ethical duties as minister of international relations and co-operation, who, with impartiality and sound judgment, is supposed to further peace, justice and South African strategic interests in the world. Your actions to discourage South Africans from travelling to Israel are but one manifestation of your extremist views.

In so doing, you are jeopardising SA’s international credibility and strategic interests. It is indeed the ideological allies of Hamas and Hezbollah — Israel’s sworn enemies — who have also launched a terror campaign against Christian communities throughout Africa. In recent months, scores of churches have been burnt and hundreds of Christians have been murdered because of their faith. Nigeria, one of our key African partners, has borne the brunt of some of the worst attacks.

As a leading African nation, South Africa must condemn these attacks and express support and offer assistance to its fellow African governments in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere. To South Africa’s shame, you have remained silent. You have been too hesitant and weak in condemning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s actions, which have resulted in the deaths of more than 20,000 of his citizens and the displacement of nearly 150,000 people.

These are but a few examples of how your prejudice precludes you from fulfilling your role as a minister of this government.

You seem to forget that your mandate is to serve the interests of the people and the government of South Africa and not your own personal allegiances. A judge who is biased or perceived to be so is legally and ethically required to remove himself from the case, in the interest of integrity, justice and truth. These same values require that you do the same and resign.

Especially during such turbulent times, how does a minister of international relations discourage people from travelling and seeing for themselves?

Why do you repeat the sins of the apartheid regime and shun dialogue with and understanding of the "other"?

Peace cannot be achieved by withdrawal and isolation; as the Book of Psalms (34:15) says: "Seek peace, and pursue it." The dream of peace will become a reality only when people proactively pursue it and move beyond their prejudices and preconceptions and truly understand the complex realities of the Middle East in an open-minded and balanced way. Your actions support the forces of extremism, hatred and violence, and undermine the forces of tolerance, freedom and peaceful negotiations.

For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less. You clearly do not believe so, and hence you are unfit to hold public office.

Do the honourable thing: resign.

Dr Warren Goldstein

Chief Rabbi

Source: Business Day

Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday issued a warning against anyone “attempting to exploit the misery of the Syrian people, either by sending in proxies or sending in terrorist fighters.” She insisted that such actions would “not be tolerated.”

Neither she nor the State Department cared to spell out precisely which countries or organizations were being warned. Hidden behind Clinton’s hypocritical statement is the reality that US imperialism and its allies are themselves relying on, bankrolling and arming just such “proxies” and “terrorist fighters” to pursue their war for regime-change in Syria.

Chief among these forces is Washington’s supposed arch enemy, the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda.

The growing acknowledgment within official circles that Al Qaeda is playing a decisive role in Syria’s civil war exposes both the real nature of the US-backed bid to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the fraud of Washington’s “war on terror.”

Having for months dismissed as “propaganda” the Syrian government’s statements that it is battling Al Qaeda terrorists, the corporate media and sources close to the US government are now not only acknowledging the role of this organization in the Syrian events, but celebrating it.

The major US news networks all carried reports on Monday and Tuesday highlighting Al Qaeda’s presence inside Syria. These follow a report in the New York Times late last month that Al Qaeda is operating in the heart of the so-called Syrian “revolution” through three groups: the Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and Al Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.

The frankest admission of the significance of Al Qaeda’s role came Monday in an article posted on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations by Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies and one of the council’s chief analysts on Islamist political movements in the Middle East.

Husain wrote: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective… Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

Husain predicts that “Al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA” to its ranks continue growing and “the ranks of foreign fighters continue to swell.” Recent media reports have made clear that Islamist fighters from as far away as Chechnya are being funneled into Syria across the Turkish border, along with many more from Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere.

The US reaction? “Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue,” writes Husain. “The unspoken position of policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with Al-Qaeda later.”

Such statements are not made lightly and are based upon intimate knowledge of American policy. The Council on Foreign Relations has the closest ties to the State Department of any Washington think tank. Sitting on its board of directors are two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.

What is involved here are political realities that serve to blow up the pretexts for both the war in Syria and the “global war on terrorism” that has served as the touchstone for US policy, both foreign and domestic, for over a decade.

Washington is not waging a crusade for democracy and human rights in Syria. It is involved in a dirty war in which carnage is being unleashed against the Syrian population as a means of toppling a regime that has historic ties to Tehran. This, in turn, is meant to pave the way for a wider war aimed at eliminating Iran as a rival for regional hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

That Iran itself recognizes these aims was spelled out Tuesday by Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili, who traveled to Damascus. “What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” he said.

The New York Times as much as admitted the accuracy of this assessment, acknowledging that it is not “surprising that Tehran should view the internal conflict in Syria as part of a wider international war--with Iran as the ultimate target.” It continued: “To understand the roots of Iranian paranoia, just look at the map. Iran has been steadily encircled by a network of US military bases in the decades since the Iranian revolution of 1979.”

As for Al Qaeda, after being used as a bogeyman to justify two wars of aggression and a sweeping and continuing assault on democratic rights within the US itself, it now emerges as the indispensable shock troops in Washington’s war for regime-change in Syria.

This alliance is virtually a direct repetition of the relations established by the CIA and Washington when Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in the early 1980s. Then it funneled Islamist mujahideen fighters across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan in a war against a Soviet-backed regime that was orchestrated by the CIA and funded with billions of US dollars.

Now the CIA is playing a similar role in Syria, overseeing a huge logistical operation on the Turkish border. Can anyone believe that armed Chechen jihadis are marching across Georgia and Turkey into Syria without the active collaboration of US intelligence?

All of the rhetoric about a global war against Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, the reality is that US imperialism has utilized such forces over the course of decades. Saudi Arabia, which provides these forces with both financial and ideological backing, is Washington’s key Arab ally. Throughout the Cold War, the US government promoted the virulently anti-communist forces of political Islam in the Middle East as well as Asia as a means of destabilizing and toppling nationalist and secular regimes and countering the development of socialist movements.

The response of the US media and the political apparatus as a whole to revelations about Al Qaeda’s role in Syria goes beyond cynicism. It expresses deep-going political disorientation. In Orwellian style, the media reports that yesterday’s mortal enemy has turned into today’s ally without skipping a beat and without seeing the need for explanation. Not a single leading politician has seen fit even to publicly question this transformation.

The lineup of US imperialism and Al Qaeda in Syria exposes even more glaringly the reactionary role played by pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in supporting the imperialist-led drive for regime-change and even casting it as a “revolution.”

Do they all really believe that the American people won’t notice, after having been dragged into two protracted wars, costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, as well as trillions of dollars, all in the name of the struggle against Al Qaeda? If so, they are deeply mistaken. These revelations will have an explosive effect in laying bare and discrediting the entire US ruling establishment.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

Profile: Syria's ruling Baath Party

During nearly five decades in power, Syria's Baath Party has evolved from an Arab nationalist movement into a vast organisation that has infiltrated every aspect of public life.

When Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup in 1970, the party became a vital tool to instil loyalty, as well as help control the government and military alongside the pervasive security services. The party's senior leaders have remained loyal to the late president's son, Bashar, despite a call from the main opposition coalition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), for them to defect in protest at the violent crackdown on anti-government protests that began in March 2011.

Pan-Arabism

The Baath Party was founded in 1947 by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian teacher, whose brand of radical Arab nationalism won supporters across the region. The party's early slogan "unity, freedom, socialism" attracted a generation of Arab political activists who wanted to overthrow the European-backed governments of the Middle East and create a modern industrial economy. Former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad (2000) Hafez al-Assad used the Baath Party to help control the Syrian government and military

In 1953, the Baath Party merged with Akram Hawrani's Arab Socialist Party to become the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The shrewd alliance helped the new group quickly become a serious challenge to its rivals. However, it was army officers who played the leading role in establishing Baathist rule. Hafez al-Assad was among a group of Baath supporters in the Syrian army who seized power in 1963.

Growing disagreements between the civilian Baathists, such as Aflaq, and the party's Military Committee, led by young officers such as Assad, caused a split in the pan-Arab movement. Aflaq's supporters were forced from the Baath Party leadership. They found refuge in Iraq, where the Baath Party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. The Iraqi Baathists elected a new pan-Arab leadership, which included Saddam Hussein and Aflaq. After Hafez al-Assad launched his own coup in Syria in 1970, dubbed the "Corrective Movement", the rift between the rival wings of the Baath Party deepened. A Syrian court condemned Aflaq and other veteran Baathists to death, after trials held in their absence.

Indoctrination

In 1973, the Syrian constitution was amended to give the Baath Party unique status as the "leader of the state and society", ushering it into all areas of public life.

Its main role was to issue directives from the central government to regional representatives, mobilise the masses for political activities, and gauge the "mood" of the general population. Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with Baath Party members before being elected chairman of its Regional Command in 2000 Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer at first. Children were indoctrinated with the party's ideology at school, Baathists controlled trade unions, and the Military Committee monitored the armed forces.

Many posts in the public sector, the military and government were generally reserved for Baathists, which helped boost party membership. By 1981, some 375,000 people had joined the party. By 2010, this number had reportedly risen to 1.2 million - nearly 10% of the population. The only other legal parties were from the National Progressive Front (NPF) - an alliance of nationalist and left-wing supporters of the government who accepted the Baath Party's "leading role".

Baathist officials were, however, targeted during an armed insurrection by Sunni Islamist groups in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which culminated in a rebellion in Hama in February 1982 that was brutally crushed, leaving between 10,000 and 25,000 people dead. Over the next two decades, the Baath Party remained hugely influential, but real power was increasingly collected in the hands of President Assad, his family, close advisers, the military and security services. Despite this, in the eyes of many Syrians the party embodied the corruption, nepotism and stagnation that became so widespread. When he was elected president and chairman of the Baath Party's Regional Command in 2000, Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer.
Bashar al-Assad addresses the Baath Party conference (2005) Many Syrians were disappointed by the lack of change after the 2005 Baath Party conference

Ahead of a rare Baath Party regional conference in 2005, state media talked of an opportunity for the party's "revitalisation". But expectations that the constitution would be amended to remove the article making it the leader of state and society were never met. The political party law was also not changed to permit the existence of groups outside the National Progressive Front. In fact, it was only in February 2012, after nearly a year of anti-government protests and bloodshed that threatened the dominance of the Assad family and the Baath Party, that the constitution and the political party law were changed. They did not, however, have much of an impact at the subsequent parliamentary elections in May, which were boycotted by the opposition and saw pro-government parties win almost all the seats.

Holding on

At the start of the uprising, a large number of officials publicly left the party in protest at the government's suppression of dissent. And in March 2012 the then Deputy Oil Minister, Abdo Hussameddin, announced his defection to the opposition.
Anti-government demonstrators at a rally in Idlib, Syria The Baath Party has been a target of anti-government demonstrations across Syria

Such incidents gained a great deal of coverage in the world's media, but the Baath Party officials involved were appeared to be relatively minor. The party's main leadership bodies, the Regional Command and the National Command, have remained steadfastly loyal to Bashar al-Assad. Analysts say top officials in the Baath Party lead a privileged life, and stand to lose the most from a change of government. Many also belong to Syria's minority groups, including the president's own Alawite sect, and see the uprising as a struggle for survival.

It therefore seems unlikely that Baath Party leaders will abandoned the president in the near future, regardless of the increasing international pressure and rising death toll.

Source: BBC News

It's Time to Engage Iran, Russia on Syria

The battle for Syria is best understood as the epicenter and early stages of a regional sectarian conflict, rather than the last days of President Bashar al-Assad.

The civil war in Syria should give pause to those who are fixated on a timeline for Assad's fall. The Syrian president has taken some hits in the past week but has settled in for a no-holds-barred fight to hold onto power. Absent a substantial military intervention by the US or others, the military balance remains with Assad, including in Aleppo, where anti-regime militias have made a major push to seize control. The security officials named to replace those killed last week are familiar hard liners and Assad loyalists. Assad's forces appear to have beaten back the rebels in Damascus. Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi acknowledged Syria's possession of chemical weapons this week, described by experts as "probably the largest and most advanced" program in the Arab world, adding that that they will not be used "unless Syria is exposed to external aggression." This threat earned a rebuke from Russia but signaled that Assad has no plans to abdicate.

Another reason reports of Assad's demise may be premature is because of the regional power struggle that is playing out in Syria. The US has until now subcontracted the armed insurgency to the patronage of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Many in the Gulf Cooperation Council states consider Syria a sectarian battlefield to check Iranian and Shiite power and influence. Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shiism, as well as a key ally of Iran. Alawites represents approximately 12%, or 2.6 million, of Syria's 22 million people. The so-called Shia arc of Iranian influence also includes Lebanon, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and Iraq. Iran is not likely to give up the fight with the stakes so high. Assad also has a backer in Russia, which is unwilling for now to cede its influence in Syria. Moscow may believe that the worse things get, the more its influence grows, as only it holds the key to negotiations with the Syrian government.

The implications of Syria for Iraq cannot be understated. The New York Times reports today (July 25) that "The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days, in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country's long border in Iraq." Iraq, which endured a brutal sectarian civil war after Saddam Hussein was deposed by US forces in 2003, has suffered a resurgence of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists with both ideological and operational ties to a growing jihadist presence in Syria. The civil war in Syria also has consequences for Lebanon, which has already seen violence at its borders, as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

The Obama Administration should be mindful of steps that might accentuate, rather than resolve, the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, July 24, that "we have to work closely with the opposition because more and more territory is being taken, and it will eventually result in a safe haven inside Syria, which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition."

The introduction of safe havens would open a new chapter in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, safe havens would provide a base for humanitarian and refugee assistance, as well as for opposition activities. But there is a catch. Safe havens can also prolong rather than end the violence, creating a de facto partition and potentially increasing the prospects of the division or collapse of the state. A safe haven can also be a catalyst for mission creep, an enticement for further military intervention by the US and others, and facilitate an increase in the presence of foreign fighters, including terrorists.

If the US seeks to prevent Syria's collapse, reduce the prospects for further bloodshed and facilitate as stable a transition as possible, then Washington needs to open an urgent new diplomatic front with Russia and Iran, the two countries which retain the most leverage with Assad.

Only Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has the clout with Assad to initiate a conversation about a transition. The US is frustrated that Russia has thwarted initiatives at the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Syria. The sanctions effort at the Security Council, it should be said, has mostly been a waste of American diplomatic energy and capital because of Russia's position and because of the likely ineffectiveness of these sanctions on Assad, who is preoccupied with crushing the insurgency.

Iran has offered to be part of international discussions on Syria, but this has so far been nixed by the United States. Washington may, like its Gulf allies, see Iran as on defense because of the pressure of international sanctions and the conflict in Syria, and therefore want to keep Iran on the defense. While Iran may be down, it is far from out, especially in Syria and given the stalled nuclear negotiations. Better to have Iran engaged in Syria through diplomacy than via subterfuge and proxies, such as Hezbollah.

The US has no easy options or answers in Syria. It begins with do no harm. As Syria's civil war is inseparable from the broader regional conflict, the US must have its own strategy that assures that Syria does not deteriorate and go the way of 2003 Iraq, and in the process take Iraq of 2012 and others along with it.

Source: IISS

Russia: Protecting expats and more in Syria

Russia is preparing to send two warships plus marines to Syria, as the civil war in that country shows no sign of letting up. Russia has for months supported the government of Bashar al-Assad at the UN Security Council, blocking resolutions authored by Western and Arab League states to sanction Damascus and pressure Assad to step down.

Most of Russia’s motivations for doing so are well known. Firstly, it is determined to ensure there is no Security Council cover for any external effort to topple a sovereign government, whether by military or other means. The principle of non-intervention is one that Moscow is desperate to defend. Secondly, the government of Vladimir Putin has no wish to see another president – in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union – ousted by the mob, for fear the virus could spread further. Thirdly, it fears the regional destabilisation that could accompany Assad’s downfall. And fourthly, Russia has commercial, diplomatic and military ties with the Assad government that would be in jeopardy if the opposition came to power. These interests include arms sales, use of the Tartous naval base, energy-sector investment opportunities and a close diplomatic alignment with Damascus.

The latest dispatch of naval vessels to Syria is on one level a further statement of support for the Assad government and the interests that Russia wishes to defend. So too is the delivery of reconditioned military helicopters to Syria. Yet sending ships and marines to the coast of Syria also points to an interest that sets Russia aside from all other permanent members of the UN Security Council – it has people on the ground. Rather a lot of people, in fact.

In the first instance, these are the Russian armed services personnel working in Tartous and supporting the use of Russian military equipment by the Syrian armed forces.

Secondly, there are perhaps 30,000 Russians who are married to Syrian citizens and are resident in the country. This is a consequence of decades of close relations between Soviet Russia and Syria under the current president’s father. In Moscow’s calculation, their best chance for a peaceful existence is for Assad to secure a victory over his opponents as quickly as possible. If the opposition were to win power, the nationals of a country which had backed Assad to the hilt, over many years, would face an uncertain future.

Thirdly, Syria is home to between 50,000 and 100,000 Circassians who originally hail from Russian lands around the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The Syrian Circassians were relocated to modern-day Syria in the second half of the nineteenth century, as tsarist Russia expanded. They are one of a number of Syrian minorities who support the Assad government, and most reside in and around Homs, Damascus and Aleppo. Most of those in Homs and the villages surrounding it are now refugees. As members of a community regarded as pro-Assad, they fear the Sunni opposition; yet because they are not part of Assad’s Alawite core, some parts of the Syrian security services also regard them with suspicion.

A few hundred Syrian Circassians have already emigrated to Russia but this trickle could become a stream if violence persists in Syria. Plenty of Circassians already live in Russia’s North Caucasus, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia and Adygea, and these are the most likely destination for the Syrian Circassians. Popular sympathy for their plight in those republics runs high, and this is not something that the federal government in Moscow can afford to ignore.

Yet if Russia threw open the door to the Syrian Circassians it would risk exacerbating instability in Kabardino-Balkaria and the other republics. Alongside that regional security problem, there would be a national political one. Putin would have to increase funding to the republics affected – but that would only exacerbate the ill feeling in the rest of Russia about the billions of dollars spent on Chechnya and its neighbours. ‘Stop feeding the Caucasus’ has been a rallying cry for nationalist opposition to Putin, and a rare issue on which the president is on the wrong side of working-class opinion.

The Circassian issue is also sensitive for Putin because it touches on one of his personal projects – the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The games will take place on land that was originally populated by Circassians, and diaspora groups – with the encouragement of the Georgian government – are hoping to use the Winter Olympics to draw attention towards the so-called ‘Circassian Genocide’. Helping the Syrian Circassians might win Moscow some points with the diaspora, but engagement would be risky too.

In light of all this, it is little wonder that Russia would prefer to see the Syrian opposition crushed and Assad continue to rule for many years to come. It has far more at stake than arms sales, a naval base and a desire to thumb its nose at the US.

Source: IISS

Russia Seeks to Exert More Influence Over Syria Conflict

Russia, the most powerful supporter of Syria’s embattled government, took new steps on Wednesday to exert its diplomatic influence over the violent conflict there, inviting both the Syrian foreign minister and representatives of the opposition to Moscow for talks this month and warning foreign sympathizers of armed rebels not to supply them with more weapons.

The Russian steps came as Syria’s state-run media asserted that the government had begun to comply with the terms of a cease-fire plan brokered by Kofi Annan, the special envoy of the United Nations and Arab League. It requires Syrian forces to pull back from major population centers by Tuesday. 

Activist Web sites reported the opposite picture, saying the Syrian military shelled and shot at targets mostly in and around the cities of Idlib, Homs and Dara’a, the chronic trouble areas in President Bashar al-Assad’s 13-month-old effort to crush the uprising against him. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based exile group with contacts in Syria, said at least 18 people were killed.

The United States, which has led the Western pressure on Mr. Assad to step down and has agreed to provide nonlethal equipment to the anti-Assad resistance, said it had seen no evidence that the Syrian government had begun to comply with the cease-fire plan. “What we’ve seen, frankly, is an intensification of artillery bombardments in major population centers like Homs and Idlib,” a State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, told reporters in Washington.

The Russian Foreign Ministry announced on its Twitter account that the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, would hold talks in Moscow with his counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday — the deadline for compliance with the initial phase of Mr. Annan’s cease-fire plan — and that representatives of the National Coordination Committee, an opposition group inside Syria, would visit the Kremlin for talks April 17-18.

Mr. Lavrov, who has strongly defended Russia’s support for Syria’s government but has been increasingly critical of Mr. Assad’s behavior, said during a visit to Azerbaijan on Wednesday that he must comply with the cease-fire plan. But he also admonished the so-called “Friends of Syria” group of anti-Assad countries, which met in Turkey with exile Syrian opposition groups this past weekend, not to provide weapons to rebel combatants, as some of those countries have suggested.

“Even if the Syrian opposition were armed to the teeth, it would not be able to beat the government’s forces,” Mr. Lavrov said in remarks carried by Russian news agencies.

There was anecdotal evidence on Tuesday that Syrian security forces had reduced their presence in some hotspots in the suburbs of Damascus. In Saqba, a district 15 minutes east of the Syrian capital where frequent clashes and protests have taken place, a reporter did not see any tanks or armored vehicles. But military checkpoints dotted the approach to the district center and security officers checked all cars and demanded identification of all young men. Cinderblock shelters and tents had been erected for the soldiers, suggesting the government foresaw an indefinite crisis. Most shops were open, and people were cleaning and fixing them up. Shopkeepers said they had kept them closed ever since in a general strike after a government crackdown two months ago, but were now reopening as part of a coordinated decision by local protest leaders. People spoke openly against the government in the shops and streets, despite the heavy security presence. Abu Fahad, 30, a protest organizer who declined to give his full name for safety reasons, said in his upscale furniture store in Saqba that protesters would keep demonstrating until 2014, the end of Mr. Assad’s term, if necessary.

“Every Friday Prayer means a demonstration for us in Saqba,” he said. “The regime tries to close all mosques and prevent prayers on Fridays, but they cannot.”

He said it was the government that was frightened, not the protesters. “On every corner and street there is a security checkpoint,” he said. “Not to frighten us, but because the regime is afraid.” 

Source: New York Times

Syria

The wave of Arab unrest that began with the Tunisian revolution reached Syria on March 15, 2011, when residents of a small southern city took to the streets to protest the torture of students who had put up anti-government graffiti. The government responded with heavy-handed force, and demonstrations quickly spread across much of the country.

President Bashar al-Assad, a British-trained doctor who inherited Syria’s harsh dictatorship from his father, Hafez al-Assad, at first wavered between force and hints of reform. But in April 2011, just days after lifting the country’s decades-old state of emergency, he set off the first of what became a series of withering crackdowns, sending tanks into restive cities as security forces opened fire on demonstrators.

Neither the violence nor Mr. Assad’s offers of political reform — rejected as shams by protest leaders — brought an end to the unrest. Similarly, the protesters have not been able to withstand direct assault by the military’s armed forces.

As the crackdown dragged on, thousands of soldiers defected and began launching attacks against the government, bringing the country to what the United Nations in December called the verge of civil war.  An opposition government in exile was formed, the Syrian National Council, but the council’s internal divisions have kept Western and Arab governments from recognizing it as such. The opposition remains a fractious collection of political groups, longtime exiles, grass-roots organizers and armed militants, divided along ideological, ethnic or sectarian lines.

The conflict is complicated by Syria’s ethnic divisions. The Assads and much of the nation’s elite, especially the military, belong to the Alawite sect, a minority in a mostly Sunni country. While the Assad government has the advantage of crushing firepower and units of loyal, elite troops, the insurgents should not be underestimated. They are highly motivated and, over time, demographics should tip in their favor. Alawites constitute about 12 percent of the 23 million Syrians. Sunni Muslims, the opposition’s backbone, make up about 75 percent of the population.

Diplomacy Falters, Sectarian Civil War Looms

The United States and countries around the world have condemned President Assad, who many had hoped would soften his father’s iron-handed regime. Criticism has come from unlikely quarters, like Syria’s neighbors, Jordan and Turkey, and the Arab League. Syria was expelled from the Arab League after it agreed to a peace plan only to step up attacks on protesters. In late 2011 and early 2012, Syria agreed to allow league observers into the country. But their presence did nothing to slow the violence.

In February, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution condemning President Assad’s unbridled crackdown on the uprising, but China and Russia, Syria’s traditional patron, have blocked all efforts for strong Security Council action.

Emboldened by faltering diplomacy and Russia’s pledge to keep supplying weapons, the Assad government seemed to be gaining more confidence. In March, Syria’s armed forces launched bloody assaults on insurgent strongholds, driving rebels from the cities of Homs and Idlib, and sweeping through the southern city of Dara’a — where the uprising started. According to estimates from the United Nations, the conflict has left more than 9,000 dead and thousands more displaced.

Now, a year after the uprising began, the country appears to be unraveling in what looks like a sectarian civil war. Sunni Muslims who have fled the country described a government crackdown that is more pervasive and more sectarian than previously understood, with civilians affiliated with Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect shooting at their onetime neighbors as the military presses what many Sunnis see as a campaign to force them to flee their homes and villages. The refugees’ firsthand accounts painted a picture of a section of western Syria that is more thoroughly under siege — and perhaps more widely in revolt — than has previously been depicted.


At the same time, Kofi Annan, the United Nations special envoy, reported that the Assad government had agreed to a six-point peace plan, which lays out a framework for a cease-fire that does not involve the president leaving power.

Locked in an Ominous Stalemate

With overwhelming firepower and a willingness to kill, President Assad could hold on to power for months or even years, keeping the opposition from controlling any territory and denying it breathing space to develop a coherent, effective leadership, according to analysts, diplomats and Syrians involved in the uprising. Insulated from all but his inner circle, Mr. Assad appears to believe that his strategy is succeeding.

But analysts say sheer force alone is unlikely to eradicate what has become a diffuse and unpredictable insurgency, one able to strike out even after the government has used crushing force against centers of resistance like Homs, Idlib and Dara’a. Broad areas of the country are hostile territory for government troops, and attackers have managed to hit centers of power, even in the capital, Damascus.

The conflict has become a war of attrition that grows more dangerous as it goes along. Tensions have spilled over borders into Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan and raised fears that radical Islamic militants will find a new cause for recruitment.

Protest Timeline

April 2 Syria’s government promised that its armed forces would withdraw from population centers by April 10 and stop shooting within 48 hours after that date if rebels also stop, Kofi Annan, the special emissary, told the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Annan also told the Security Council that his team had held constructive talks with anti-government forces. While the latest diplomatic scrambling provided a specific date for when the violence could abate, it was unclear whether that represented a meaningful breakthrough to halt the conflict.

April 1 The United States and dozens of other countries moved closer to direct intervention in the fighting in Syria, with Arab nations pledging $100 million to pay opposition fighters and the Obama administration agreeing to send communications equipment to help rebels organize and evade Syria’s military, according to participants at a “Friends of Syria” conference in Istanbul. There remains no agreement on arming the rebels, as countries like Saudi Arabia and some members of the United States Congress have called for, largely because of the uncertainty regarding who exactly would receive the arms.

March 31 Syrian forces will not pull out of towns and cities that have been centers of the uprising until “normal life” resumes there, a Syrian government spokesman told state news media. As Syria’s government crackdown continued unabated, the comments prompted signs of frustration from the United States and the six Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who were meeting in Saudi Arabia. The seven countries — the United States, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman — urged Kofi Annan, the joint envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League, “to determine a timeline for next steps if the killing continues.”

Also, a citizen journalist in Syria who has been instrumental in assisting those covering the conflict in Homs, Ali Mahmoud Othman, has been  seized and perhaps tortured by the Syrian government, an activist told CNN. Mr. Othman was thought to be at a secure military unit in Aleppo, added the activist, who requested anonymity for security reasons.

March 29 The Syrian government and opposition groups said that at least two senior military officers had been assassinated in two cities during the previous several days. The killings seemed to dim even the glimmer of hope that the government might reconcile with the opposition. Instead, they validated the claims of activists and fighters who have said in interviews that rebel fighters were increasingly embracing insurgency tactics, including plans to assassinate government and security officials.

March 28 The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, “strongly” urged President Assad to immediately put into effect a six-point peace plan he is said to have accepted that would rein in security forces in advance of negotiations to end a year of bloody revolt, but activist groups reported more assaults throughout the country.

March 27 Kofi Annan, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, reported that President Assad’s government had agreed to a six-point peace plan, even as heavy fighting broke out in this border region between Syrian government troops and rebels who have taken refuge in the area. Mr. Annan’s The announcement was greeted with some skepticism since Mr. Assad assented to various reforms and peace plans, notably a “road map” negotiated with the Arab League in November, but failed to implement them.

March 23 The European Union expanded sanctions on Syria and placed a travel ban on President Assad’s family, including his wife, as the United Nations envoy Kofi Annan headed to Moscow and Beijing to press proposals for an immediate halt to the violent conflict. The ban is aimed at tightening the economic squeeze on the government and forcing an end to its brutal crackdown.

March 21 Overcoming months of bitter division, the United Nations Security Council delivered a diplomatic setback to President Assad, unanimously embracing efforts by Kofi Annan, the former secretary general, to negotiate a cease-fire, funnel aid to victims and begin a political transition. The Security Council endorsed a plan that Mr. Annan presented to Mr. Assad as the special representative of both the United Nations and the Arab League. Russia and China agreed to the statement. The Syrian military’s struggle against insurgents erupted in violence as forces carried out a daylong bombardment in the city of Homs, where more than two-dozen people were killed, according to activists.

March 20 In an open letter to the Free Syrian Army, the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch accused opposition forces of abuse, including kidnapping, detention and torture. The group says that some armed attacks by insurgents were motivated by religious and sectarian sentiments arising from the association of some communities with government policies.

March 19 Armed Syrian defectors took their uprising into the heart of a wealthy district of Damascus, clashing with security forces in what activists and residents called the most intense fighting in such a strategic area since the protests began. An opposition group based in London said at least 18 members of the security forces were killed, but the official SANA news agency put the toll much lower. The clashes coincided with the arrival of a monitoring team sent by Kofi Annan, the special representative on Syria for the United Nations and the Arab League.

March 18 More than 150 protesters in Damascus took part in a peace march shouting “God, Syria and freedom only.” But when some started to chant “The people want the fall of the regime” — a slogan echoed in the Arab revolts — authorities beat them with sticks and began making arrests. On the same day, a car bomb exploded in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, fueling fears that the conflict was becoming increasingly violent, with attacks on relatively quiet cities.

March 17 Two large explosions, believed to be car bombs, struck Damascus, hitting intelligence and security buildings in busy sections of the city, killing at least 27 people and wounding at least 97, according to Syrian news media. The back-to-back bombings in President Assad’s seat of power shocked residents here who have enjoyed relative calm during the yearlong uprising.

March 15 On the first anniversary of the conflict, thousands of Syrians gathered in Damascus, waving Syrian flags and pictures of President Assad in what the government billed as a “Global March for Syria” and against the uprising that it portrays as led by terrorists and foreigners. The state had ordered people to show up for work on a national holiday, threatening punishments for truants in what anti-Assad activists called a move to make it easier to bus in state employees and students to attend the rally.

March 14 The Syrian government launched its biggest raid in months on the southern city of Dara’a, opposition activists said. Dara’a is where the uprising against President Assad began a year ago. Activists said the Syrian army’s tanks and artillery units also shelled some areas in and around the cities of Idlib and Homs. The latest military moves came as Amnesty International claimed in a new report that Syrians detained in the crackdown had been “thrust into a nightmarish world of systemic torture,” the scale of which had not been witnessed for decades.


March 13 Bolstered by faltering diplomacy and a Russian pledge to keep supplying weapons, Syria’s armed forces assaulted insurgent enclaves in the north, invading the city of Idlib, a center of anti-Assad resistance and haven for the Free Syrian Army. Opposition activists reported heavy shelling by army tanks and artillery both in areas around Idlib and Homs.

Background to Protests

The country’s last serious stirrings of public discontent had come in 1982, when increasingly violent skirmishes with the Muslim Brotherhood prompted Hafez al-Assad to move against them, sending troops to kill at least 10,000 people and smashing the old city of Hama. Hundreds of fundamentalist leaders were jailed, many never seen alive again.

Syria has a liability not found in the successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt — it is a majority Sunni nation that is ruled by a religious minority, the Alawite sect of Shiite Islam. Hafez Assad forged his power base through fear, cooption and sect loyalty. He built an alliance with an elite Sunni business community, and created multiple security services staffed primarily by Alawites. Those security forces have a great deal to lose if the government falls, experts said, because they are part of a widely despised minority, and so have the incentive of self-preservation.

In July, the Obama administration, in a shift that was weeks in the making, turned against Mr. Assad but stopped short of demanding that he step down. By early August, the American ambassador was talking of a “post-Assad” Syria.

In October, Syrian dissidents formally established the Syrian National Council in what seemed to be the most serious attempt to bring together a fragmented opposition. The group’s stated goal was to overthrow President Assad’s government. Members said the council included representatives from the Damascus Declaration group, a pro-democracy network; the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamic political party; various Kurdish factions; the Local Coordination Committees, a group that helps organize and document protests; and other independent and tribal figures.

In the U.S.: Different Views on Intervention

The Obama administration has made a point of working through the Arab League and the United Nations rather than giving the appearance that the United States is trying to intervene in Syria. This is partly to avoid giving Iran any excuse to get involved on behalf of its regional ally, analysts say.
However, some politicians favor more direct intervention. On Feb. 19, two senior American senators spoke out strongly in favor of arming the Syrian opposition forces.

The senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans, laid out a series of diplomatic, humanitarian and military aid proposals that would put the United States squarely behind the effort to topple President Assad. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, both of whom are on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that rebel fighters deserved to be armed and that helping them take on the Syrian government would aid Washington’s effort to weaken Iran.
The next day, two Iranian warships docked in the Syrian port of Tartous as a senior Iranian lawmaker denounced the possibility that the Americans might arm the Syrian opposition. Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency called the ships “a serious warning” to the United States.

“The presence of Iran and Russia’s flotillas along the Syrian coast has a clear message against the United States’ possible adventurism,” said Hossein Ebrahimi, a vice chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, Fars reported.

Syria relies on Iran for financial and military support, and the governments in Damascus and Tehran have sectarian ties as well: Iran has strongly backed the Syrian Shiite minority and the offshoot Alawite sect that makes up Syria’s ruling class.

Arms Anchor the Relationship With Russia

As the violence has worsened throughout Syria, amateur video has shown government troops rolling through the besieged city of Homs in vintage Soviet battle tanks. Seemingly undeterred by an international outcry, Moscow has worked frantically to preserve its relationship with the increasingly isolated government of Mr. Assad, even as the Syrian leader turns his guns on his own citizens, and the death toll mounts.

Russia has praised Mr. Assad’s call for a constitutional referendum, a step that the United States and other governments have dismissed as meaningless. On Feb. 16, Russia was one of just a dozen countries, among them China, Iran and North Korea, to vote against a General Assembly resolution urging Mr. Assad to step down. And many analysts say that without Russia’s backing, including a steady supply of weapons, food, medical supplies and other aid, the Assad government will crumble within a matter of months if not sooner.

While Moscow has a number of reasons to guard its relations with Damascus, the most concrete, many analysts say, is the longstanding arms sales to Syria. Arms exports have long anchored the relationship between Moscow and Damascus, including sales over the years of MIG fighter jets, attack helicopters and high-tech air defense systems.

While the ouster and death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya and the imposition of sanctions on Iran have sharply curtailed other formerly lucrative arms markets for Russia, Syria has increased its weapons purchases.

Regional political events have also played a part. The Arab Spring and the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dissipated Russia’s once-powerful influence in the region, transforming the relationship into one of critical importance to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who is running for president and wants to expand Russia’s role as a global powerbroker.

Conflict in Syria Poses Risk of a Wider Strife

For decades, Syria was the linchpin of the old security order in the Middle East. It allowed the Russians and Iranians to extend their influence even as successive Assad governments provided predictability for Washington and a stable border for Israel, despite support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

But the burgeoning civil war in Syria has upset that paradigm, placing the Russians and Americans and their respective allies on opposite sides. It is a conflict that has sharply escalated sectarian tensions between Shiites and Sunnis and between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf nations. And it has left Israel hopeful that an enemy will fall, but deeply concerned about who might take control of his arsenal.

Washington is keenly aware of the larger forces at play and of the dangers of another military intervention in an Arab country. For Russia, the fall of Mr. Assad, an ally and arms customer, would further diminish its influence in the region. If Mr. Assad goes, any new government will note Russia’s support for him, including a steady supply of weapons. Arabs across the region, who are demanding their rights and freedoms, may resent it, too. For the United States, the conflict is a bundle of risks and contradictions that has made Washington’s stance — frustrating those who favor a more robust intervention — far more cautious than it was in Libya.

For Washington, Europe and the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia and the gulf, the impact on Iran is as important as the fate of Mr. Assad. Syria is one of Iran’s closest allies. It was nearly alone in supporting Iran, not Iraq, in their war in the 1980s. Syria has been Iran’s main conduit to supply aid and weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The United States and Europe — with tenuous Russian and Chinese support — have isolated Iran economically and diplomatically to try to forestall Tehran from being able to build a nuclear weapon. The conflict in Syria complicates that delicate diplomacy, but a new Syrian government could be a greater blow to Iranian influence than any sanction the West has mustered so far. It could also revive democratic protests in Iran.

But the administration is ruling out direct military intervention in this conflict. After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a limited intervention in Libya that was harshly criticized by Republicans, President Obama wants no new military adventure in an election year. Nor does the Pentagon, especially given Syria’s integrated air defense system, supplied by Russia.

Not least, American officials point out the murky nature and incoherence of the armed opposition to Mr. Assad and note that the Free Syrian Army, formed by exiled Syrian Army officers, defectors and militias, does not control significant territory in Syria where arms could be supplied.

Aggravating Regional Sectarian Tensions

The insurrection in Syria, led by the country’s Sunni majority in opposition to a government dominated by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiism, is increasingly unpredictable and dangerous because it is aggravating sectarian tensions beyond its borders in a region already shaken by religious and ethnic divisions.

For many in the region, the fight in Syria is less about liberating a people under dictatorship than it is about power and self-interest. Syria is drawing in sectarian forces from its neighbors, and threatening to spill its conflict into a wider conflagration. There have already been sparks in neighboring Lebanon, where Sunnis and Alawites have skirmished.

And in Iraq, where Shiites are a majority, the events across the border have put the nation on edge while hardening a sectarian schism. Iraq’s Shiites are now lined up on the side of a Baathist dictatorship in Syria, less than a decade after the American invasion of Iraq toppled the rule of Saddam Hussein and his own Baath Party, which for decades had repressed and brutalized the Shiites.
The paradox, of Shiites supporting a Baathist dictator next door, has laid bare a tenet of the old power structure that for so long helped preserve the Middle East’s strongmen. Minorities often remained loyal and pliant and in exchange were given room to carve out communities, even if they were more broadly discriminated against.

As dictators have fallen in neighboring countries, religious and ethnic identities and alliances have only hardened, while notions of citizenship remain slow to take hold. Syria’s minorities have the example of Iraq in considering their own future, should the Assad government fall: Assyrian Christians, Yazidis and others were brutally persecuted by insurgents. In Egypt, where a similar paradigm was toppled with the long-serving dictator Hosni Mubarak, Christians have experienced more sectarian violence, increasing political marginalization and a growing link between Islamic identity and citizenship.

New Constitution Approved As Troops Pursue Rebels

On Feb. 27, the Syrian government announced that nearly 90 percent of voters in a referendum had approved a new Constitution. But Western leaders labeled the referendum a farce. In a bulletin across the bottom of the screen on state television, the ministry said 89 percent of the voters, or nearly 7.5 million of the 8.4 million people who cast ballots, had voted in favor of the Constitution — an offer of reform that critics dismissed as too little, too late.

The new Constitution’s most important changes include ending the political monopoly of the Baath Party and introducing presidential term limits. Those changes come with enormous caveats, however. The president would be limited to two terms of seven years each, but the clock would start only when Mr. Assad’s current term expires in 2014. That would allow him to serve two more terms and potentially to remain in office until he is 62, a total of 28 years. His father, Hafez al-Assad, ruled for 30 years until his death in 2000 at age 69.

The document also includes provisions that appear to be intended to prevent the political opposition from entering politics or winning the presidency. It requires candidates to have lived in Syria for 10 successive years and to have a Syrian-born wife, and it prohibits parties that are based on religion or ethnicity, which would bar groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or representatives of the Kurdish minority from participating.

Before the Revolt: Syria’s Foreign Policy

Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Syria was once again vilified as a dangerous pariah. It was linked to the  2005 killing of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. In 2007, Israeli jets destroyed buildings in Syria that intelligence officials said might have been the first stage in a nuclear weapons program. And the United States and its Arab allies mounted a vigorous campaign to isolate Damascus, which they accused of sowing chaos and violence throughout the middle east through its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

President Obama came into office pledging to engage with Syria, arguing that the Bush administration’s efforts to isolate Syria had done nothing to wean it from Iran or encourage Middle East peace efforts. So far, however, the engagement has been limited. American diplomats have visited Damascus, but have reiterated the same priorities as the Bush administration: protesting Syria’s military support to Hezbollah and Hamas, and its strong ties with Iran.

Secret State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations show that arms transactions involving Syria and Hezbollah continue to greatly concern the Obama administration. Hezbollah’s arsenal now includes up to 50,000 rockets and missiles, including some 40 to 50 Fateh-110 missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and most of Israel, and 10 Scud-D missiles.

“Syria’s determined support of Hizballah’s military build-up, particularly the steady supply of longer-range rockets and the introduction of guided missiles could change the military balance and produce a scenario significantly more destructive than the July-August 2006 war,” said a November 2009 cable from the American chargé d’affaires in Damascus.

According to cables, Syrian leaders appeared to believe that the weapons shipments increased their political leverage with the Israelis. But they made Lebanon even more of a tinderbox and increased the prospect that a future conflict might include Syria.

The Hariri Case

Also looming is potential new trouble in Lebanon, where a United Nations-backed international tribunal is expected to indict members of Hezbollah in the death of Mr. Hariri. Hezbollah and its allies — including high-ranking Syrian officials — have warned that an indictment could set off civil conflict.

The United States withdrew its ambassador in 2005 after Mr. Hariri was killed in a car bombing in Beirut along with 22 others. Syria was widely accused of having orchestrated the killing, though it has vehemently denied involvement. The Bush administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria, as part of a broader effort to isolate the government of Mr. Assad.

The current chill is a significant change from the situation a few years ago, when Mr. Assad showed signs of wanting warmer relations with the West than his father, Hafez al-Assad, had ever pursued. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France led the way with a visit in September 2008. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was said to be furious at Mr. Assad, welcomed him warmly in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in March 2009. And Prime Minster Ehud Olmert of Israel hinted at a revival of talks on the Golan Heights — a prospect that faded when Mr. Olmert was succeeded by the more conservative Benjamin Netanyahu.

Turkish Opposition to Assad

Once one of Syria’s closest allies, Turkey is hosting an armed opposition group waging an insurgency against the government of President Assad, providing shelter to the commander and dozens of members of the group, the Free Syrian Army, and allowing them to orchestrate attacks across the border from inside a camp guarded by the Turkish military.

Turkish support for the insurgents comes amid a broader campaign to undermine Mr. Assad’s government. Turkey is expected to impose sanctions on Syria, and it has deepened its support for the Syrian National Council. But its harboring of leaders in the Free Syrian Army, a militia composed of defectors from the Syrian armed forces, may be its most striking challenge so far to Damascus.
On Oct. 26, 2011, the Free Syrian Army, living in a heavily guarded refugee camp in Turkey, claimed responsibility for killing nine Syrian soldiers, including one uniformed officer, in an attack in restive central Syria.

The group is too small to pose any real challenge to Mr. Assad’s government but support from Turkey underlines how combustible, and resilient, Syria’s uprising has proven. The country sits at the intersection of influences in the region — with Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel — and Turkey’s involvement will be closely watched by Syria’s friends and foes.

Turkish officials say that their government has not provided weapons or military support to the insurgent group, nor has the group directly requested such assistance.

Source: New York Times