Brit Newspaper Sez Iran to Send 4,000 Troops to Aid Assad in Syria

______________________________

On Sunday, The Independent reported that Iran would send 4,000 Revolutionary Guard troops to Syria to fight alongside Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s forces. Iran took the decision to send soldiers to Syria last week, prior to Friday’s Iranian presidential election, which saw cleric Hassan Rouhani defeat a number of more conservative candidates. The report comes after the USA announced on Thursday that it would begin to arm the Syrian opposition in the face of evidence (sic) that Assad used chemical weapons against rebels on multiple occasions.

16 June 2013

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_06_16/Iran-sends-4000-troops-to-aid-Assad-in-Syria-report-7276/

Editor’s Note:

There’s much rot written about Hassan Rouhani in the West. He isn’t a Western rightwing neoliberal (“libertarian”, “conservative”)… he was close to Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He’s no Rafsanjani… who’s probably the most pro-Western and pro-libertarian figure in Iran. If anything, he’s an interesting mixture of Khomeini and Shariatmadari, who both, don’t forget, were Grand Ayatollahs and down n’ dirty Twelver Shias. Alawis in Syria regard themselves as Twelvers, so, this report shouldn’t surprise anyone. Given Rouhani’s mainstream position in Twelver theology (mainly, he believes that the government should listen to criticisms emanating from the souk… but not in bowing down to the West), don’t expect any monkeying with the basic structures of the Islamic Republic. Remember, there’s a two-fold reason for the Western criticism of Iran. Firstly, Iran kicked out American military and economic interests. Secondly, Iran took a moderate socialist course, becoming part of the anti-crapitalist bloc. To speak plainly, Iran isn’t going to rejoin the American bloc or totally reject socialism, ergo, expect great disappointment in Western circles later. “The more things change, the more they stay the same” (by the way, Russia and China hailed Rouhani’s election).

BMD

Russia and the USA Want Talks Between Syrian Régime and Opposition

______________________________

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that Russia and the USA would set up an international conference on Syria by the end of this month. He’s optimistic that it’d involve both the Syrian government and opposition forces. At a meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Kerry said that the conference would aim at facilitating a solution to the Syrian crisis through political dialogue. Lavrov added that the Syrian government assured Russia that it’s ready to participate in the conference, saying, “But, of course, so far, these are just words that have yet to be transformed into actions”. He went to say that the Syrian opposition hasn’t commented on the proposal. So far, opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have refused to sit down for talks with the régime in the past, saying that Assad’s removal is a non-negotiable issue. Lavrov pointed up that the conference would be a follow-up to last year’s international meeting in Genève that drafted a peace roadmap for Syria.

The communiqué passed in Genève by the UN Action Group on Syria, which includes Syria’s neighbours and the permanent members of the UN Security Council, proposed to start with the creation of a transitional government drawn both from the opposition and Assad’s administration. Both Kerry and Lavrov stressed that Russia and the USA support the Genève roadmap, seeing political dialogue as the only solution for Syria. Kerry said that the alternative is increasing violence, a humanitarian crisis, and the country’s disintegration.

Moscow and Washington have clashed over Syria in the past; the USA put the responsibility for the civil war on Assad’s régime, whilst Russia insisted that the opposition should share the blame for the conflict. Russia blocked several UN Security Council resolutions on Syria, saying that they were biased in favour of the opposition. The USA supported the Syrian opposition, providing the motley coalition of forces (which includes many radical Islamists) with non-lethal military equipment. Recently, a bill filed with the US Senate proposed the supply of weapons to the Syrian insurgents. Kerry said the bill’s fate depended on the American inquiry in progress into reports that the rebels used chemical weapons, but added the matter may become a moot point if the government and the opposition begin dialogue. More than 70,000 have died in the two-year-long present conflict in Syria, according to the latest UN estimates.

8 May 2013

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20130508/181018883/Russia-US-Want-Talks-Between-Syrian-Govt-Opposition.html

Editor’s Note:

Let’s not put too fine a face on this. The USA has woken up to the fact that Islamist radicals would benefit from the toppling of Assad. Besides that, Russia and China are adamant… NO MORE BOMBS! To put the kybosh on the idea of “intervention”, it’s unaffordable (there ain’t nuttin’ in Motha Hubbard’s cupboard, kids… Bush wasted it all on the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan) and it’d destabilise the entire region (the Gulf States are most jittery on that score, and they’re American allies). Look carefully at:

Recently, a bill filed with the US Senate proposed the supply of weapons to the Syrian insurgents. Kerry said the bill’s fate depended on the American inquiry in progress into reports that the rebels used chemical weapons, but added the matter may become a moot point if the government and the opposition begin dialogue.

That is, Kerry’s given the US government a face-saving fig-leaf. The opposition will refuse to sit down with Assad… then, the USA will piously (and hypocritically) withdraw its former offer of arms. “They won’t sit down for peace talks… they’re terrorists intent on mayhem”. Let’s not be coy, the Boston bombing incident makes it politically impossible for any American régime to cooperate with any group that even looks like it might have Islamic militants within it. Any road, most of Obama’s rhetoric on Syria was election-year hogwash, not meant to be taken seriously by mature adults. Reflect on this… Wet Willy would’ve gotten the USA involved in a very sticky wicket just to placate the Religious Right troglodytes in the GOP. God IS in His Heaven… the Old Master does it again (just like when he defused the claptrap over Iran)… hey, anybody who still chain-smokes, backs Spartak, plays the guitar, goes white-water rafting, and cusses when he wants to can’t be all bad.

BMD

UN Chief Says No Military Solution to Syrian Crisis

______________________________

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that there’s no military solution to the Syrian crisis. The BBC quoted Ban as saying in a press conference to mark the UN General Assembly’s new session, “Government and opposition forces seem to be determined to seek an end by military means. I think military means won’t bring an answer. That should be resolved through political dialogue”.

Fighting continued in the Syrian capital of Damascus and the northern city of Aleppo. The Syrian conflict has claimed up to 20,000 lives according to estimates by various Syrian opposition groups. The UN estimates the death toll at over 18,000 people. The Syrian authorities say 8,000 were killed. The West is pushing for President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, whilst Russia and China are trying to prevent outside interference in Syria, saying that the Assad régime and the opposition are both to blame for the bloodshed.

20 September 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120920/176076157.html

Syria: What Next?

______________________________

The latest aggravation of the Syrian crisis and the failure of Kofi Annan’s mission pose new challenges for Russia’s foreign policy. Russia confirmed its status as a key player in the Middle East and, so far, prevented (along with China) the development of a “Libyan scenario” in Syria. Now, Moscow faces another serious dilemma… what next? It’s clear that continuing the current policy (adherence to the Annan Plan and diplomatic support for Damascus), which made sense six months ago, is no longer a valid option.

It’s obvious that the Syrian crisis entered a new stage this summer. Judging by how well the double attack on Damascus and Aleppo and the 18 July terror attack were organised, we can say that the once-scattered groups of militants now appear to have a unified command. The opposition managed to acquire weapons and recruit new supporters. For that reason, the Syrian opposition, which has escalated combat actions in recent months, has little incentive to negotiate with the authorities. With the UN split over Syria… between Russia and China on the one hand, and the USA, Britain, and France on the other… the Syrian opposition is feeling pretty confident. The Western powers condemn the violence committed by Assad’s forces; yet, at the same time, they regard violence committed by the rebels as an unpleasant but unavoidable part of the fight against dictatorship.

Russia has a number of possible options, each with its own positive and negative sides. One option is for Moscow to stick to the existing course that, as noted previously, has proved to be fruitless. Moscow could, without any redirection of effort, continue its diplomatic support for the Assad government and block possible UN sanctions against Syria. This tactic saved Damascus from armed intervention last year. However, under the new conditions, it’ll only prolong the conflict, as the balance of forces in the civil war gradually tilts in favour of the opposition (due to arms and finances supplied from abroad and the engagement of mercenaries), ultimately leading to the fall of the Assad government. Another alternative is to pressure the Syrian president to resign in favour of someone close to him. That’d give Russian diplomacy an argument… “Assad’s gone; let’s negotiate”. However, the resignation of the head of the state would certainly be perceived by the opposition as evidence that anything can be achieved through violence, making it even less willing to begin a dialogue with the authorities. Finally, Moscow could try to shift the active engagement in the Syrian crisis onto the shoulders of other states, i.e. China and Iran, and step out of the limelight. Tehran is keen to stabilise the situation in Syria and maintain a friendly régime there, to avoid geopolitical isolation as it faces the threat of foreign incursions. However, China, whose main interests are in the Asia-Pacific region, would most likely follow Russia’s example. That might open up the possibility of a wider war in the Middle East entailing the violent destruction of the Syrian government and military action against Tehran.

Then again, Moscow can try to play a more active role. In addition to diplomatic support to Assad’s government, Moscow can supply the régime with the needed weapons and equipment (to compensate for the support of the opposition by the Western powers and the regional oil monarchies). With the help of intelligence agencies, it could organise the collection and transmission of information on armed opposition groups to the Syrian government. It could organise patrols of the Syrian coast by the Russian Navy to intercept vessels supplying arms to the opposition. It could put pressure on the major sponsors of the militant opposition… Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. The latter option would lead, inevitably, to greater Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict. On the other hand, it’ll show the irreconcilable opposition that it’ll face serious difficulties if it continues to prosecute the war, but it would carry diplomatic costs for Russia’s relations with the Western powers that, unlike Syria, remain Moscow’s key economic partners.

Of course, all these scenarios are purely theoretical. The choice of one or the other of them depends on the Kremlin’s assessment of all potential risks and benefits. Probably, the key role will be played by President Vladimir Putin’s stated allegiance to the principle that foreign interventions shouldn’t interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. Now, we can only hope that the Kremlin’s choice will also reflect Russia’s national interests… and be beneficial for the people of Syria.

27 August 2012

Aleksei Pilko

Senior Research Fellow, Moscow State University (MGU)

Faculty of History

RIA-Novosti

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120827/175465119.html

Russia Slams West Over Syria Allegations

______________________________

On Friday, Russia hit out at Western powers over what it said was an “unacceptable” attempt to blame Moscow for the worsening violence in Syria. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich told journalists, “Attempts by certain Western countries to hold Russia responsible for an escalation in the violence in Syria over its refusal to back a resolution containing threats of sanctions against the Syrian authorities are totally unacceptable”. The MID’s comments came after the rebel Free Syrian Army said it took control of Syrian border crossing points with Turkey and Iraq. Fierce fighting raged in Damascus overnight, with over 300 deaths, according to London-based Syrian rights activists.

On Wednesday, Russia and China vetoed a Western-backed UN resolution on Syria over fears that it’d lead to foreign military intervention there, a stance that American UN envoy Susan Rice called “paranoid, if not disingenuous”. The resolution was tied to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force to put an end to rapidly escalating conflicts. White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Russia and China were “on the wrong side of the Syrian people, the wrong side of hope for peace and stability in the region”. British Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the Russian and Chinese veto as “inexcusable and indefensible”, and said the two countries had “turned their backs on the people of Syria in their darkest hour”. However, Russian UN envoy Vitaly Churkin accused the West of thinking only of “its own geopolitical interests, which have nothing in common with those of the Syrian people”.

This was the third time that Russia and China had vetoed a UN resolution on Syria since the start of the now-almost 17-month revolt against President Bashar al-Assad. Russia said it has no interest in seeing Assad remain in power, but that “the Syrian people” should decide his fate. Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin vowed not to allow a repeat of the “Libya scenario”, which saw the ouster and murder of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after a NATO military campaign. On Friday, Syrian authorities denied reports that Assad was preparing to stand down. The denial came after the Russian ambassador to France, Aleksandr Orlov, told French radio that Assad was ready to leave office in “an orderly way”. In addition, MID spokesman Lukashevich said that a resolution by the US House of Representatives to cut the Pentagon’s contacts with the Russian state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport over its links with “the oppressive Syrian régime” was “revenge” for Moscow’s veto. He dismissed rumours that Assad’s wife fled to Moscow following the death of the Syrian defence minister in a suicide blast in Damascus on Wednesday.

20 July 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120720/174695219.html

Editor’s Note:

They’re much “nicer” and “slicker” about it, but one can see a disgusting and sickening case of Übermenschtum in the Western attitude towards Russia and China. Their stance reeks of racist condescension, “Only our standards have validity; your cultural imperatives are inferior to our superior Western values”. This is why the konvertsy are so acrid… their undisguised racial and cultural xenophobia has stymied efforts to bring unity and order to the Russian Orthodox diaspora. Well… indications are that they’re going to leave us, and in rather short order. Good… let them go, don’t argue with them (they’re so SUPERIOR to us unwashed ethnics, after all… all it’ll do is frustrate you to no good end). Then, all of we Russians (and the saner converts) can join hands and start the work of rebuilding what’s been put awry by a half-century of misdirection and neglect.

BMD

What’s Behind Russia’s Stance on Syria?

The so-called “rebels” are mainly Sunni fanatics who want to murder Alawis, Shias, and Christians… and Sunnis they brand insufficiently “observant”. In short, the USA is backing the radical Islamists again, just as it did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq. If you doubt my words, ask a Serb from Kosovo, a Christian from Damascus, an Assyrian from Baghdad, or an ordinary bloke from Kabul. The USA aids the most violent Islamists, every time, all the time (Republican or Democrat President, it doesn’t matter, the USA aids the bullies)…

______________________________

Amid grisly images of slaughter coming almost daily out of Syria, Russia’s continued refusal to sanction UN action against embattled President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has seen it face a barrage of Western criticism. On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in just the latest attack on Moscow’s stance, said, “[The Russians] are telling me they don’t want to see a civil war. I’ve been telling them their policy is going help to contribute to a civil war”. Earlier this year, both the USA and Britain accused Russia of having blood on its hands over its support for Assad. Twice, Russia has vetoed proposed UN resolutions against Syria and has made it abundantly clear that it’ll block any attempt to seek Security Council approval for a foreign military intervention in the troubled Middle Eastern country. This position showed no signs of significant change even after last Friday’s massacre of over 100 men, women, and children in the Syrian town of Houla, an atrocity the UN believes was at least partly the work of a shadowy militia group loyal to Assad.

Of course, Syria has long been one of Russia’s strongest allies in the Middle East, and a reliable purchaser of Russian weapons. The Syrian port of Tartus also hosts the Kremlin’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union. However, is this all that lies behind Russia’s apparent willingness to leave itself open to allegations that it is propping up a bloodthirsty dictator? Moscow-based radio Kommersant FM commentator Konstantin Eggert wrote in a column for RIA-Novosti earlier this week:

The Kremlin’s deeply held view of sovereignty as an unlimited right for political régimes to do as they please inside their states is one of the cornerstones of Russian foreign policy, and it’s been especially dominant since the war in Libya. Putin feels that the West duped Russia into de facto sanctioning international intervention in Libya, and seemingly vowed never to let it happen again.

Russia abstained from the March 2011 UN Security Council vote on the resolution that led to the use of force against forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but was later critical of the extent and severity of NATO airstrikes. Yevgeni Satanovsky, head of the Moscow-based Institute of the Middle East, said, “Russia saw what happened after the West’s military intervention in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan and so on. The Russian authorities might not be angels, but they’re very pragmatic and they understand that if you fail once, twice, three times, you’ve to be absolutely crazy to do it again a fourth time. Russia has some interests in Syria, but they aren’t particularly significant”. He dismissed with a laugh the strategic importance of the Tartus naval base.

Putin’s return to the Kremlin earlier this month saw fears in the West of a worsening of ties with Russia, apprehensions seemingly borne out by current tensions over Syria. Nevertheless, some analysts believe Putin’s reluctance to acquiesce UN action against Assad stems more from domestic concerns raised by recent unprecedented anti-Kremlin protests. Aleksandr Shumilin, head of Moscow’s Centre for Greater Middle East Conflicts, said, “Syria’s a vital part of Putin’s domestic policies. He promised to protect Syria from what he says is Western aggression during his presidential election campaign, and he doesn’t want to back down from that now, especially after the recent demonstrations”. Shumilin said that intense state control over national television channels meant there was little chance of public opinion turning against the Kremlin, even after massacres such as the one in Houla, noting, “Most people in Russia believe what state television tells them, that the massacre is Houla was carried out by terrorists and the West is trying to blame it all on Assad. Confrontation with the West over Syria is part of the strongman image Putin’s trying to project to a domestic audience”.

However, Russia’s objections might not protect Assad for long. On Wednesday, Washington’s envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, said that the most likely solution to the crisis was that the Western powers and their allies would intervene in Syria without UN approval. Rice didn’t specify what actions she meant, but with little scope left for sanctions, her words brought closer the prospect of unilateral military action against the Assad regime. By striking Syria, however, the USA and its allies would be going against the wishes of the Syrian-based opposition to Assad. Whilst the foreign-based Syrian opposition movement, the Syrian National Council, called for outside military intervention to end the bloodshed, the internal opposition is vehemently against the use of foreign troops or air forces to bring a halt to the more-than-year-long conflict.

Yusuf, a Syrian journalist working in Moscow who did not want to give his surname, said, “Many people in Syria don’t like Russia’s position at all, but that’s not to say they want to see foreign military intervention. We all saw how many people were killed by NATO bombs in Libya. Then again, a lot of people feel that Russia isn’t doing enough to pressure Assad and that the Kremlin’s support gives him carte blanche to do as he likes. Russia’s lost many friends in Syria. The Soviet Union helped build up infrastructure across the Middle East in the 1970s, when the West turned its back on Arabs. We were always taught that the Soviet Union was a friend to oppressed peoples. That’s why I was shocked when I saw crowds in Syria burning the Russian flag. This is a first. But Russia needs to pressure Assad more and to be seen doing so by the Arab world”. Yusuf also suggested despite growing calls for intervention, the West had no real appetite for war in Syria, observing, “Russia’s stance is actually very convenient for the West. They know how costly an invasion of Syria would be and can blame their inaction on Russia and China”.

Dr Imad, another Moscow-based Syrian professional, who hails from the region around Houla, backed Russia’s policy of non-intervention, saying, “I fully support Russia’s position on Syria. Foreign military intervention in Syria would lead to a catastrophic war in Syria that’d be dangerous not only for the entire Middle East region, but also for the whole world. It’s not important who’s president. What’s important is to bring all the sides to the negotiating table and stop the violence… and this is only possible without foreign military intervention”.

However, even if the West does ignore the UN and strike Syria, if may find it will wish it hadn’t, Eggert wrote in his RIA-Novosti column:

The Kremlin will never sanction a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. As a senior Russian diplomat told me a few weeks ago, “If the West wants to burden itself with Syria, well, we can’t prevent it from doing so. However, the Western countries will then be wholly responsible for the outcome”.

31 May 2012

Marc Bennetts

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120531/173776552.html