|
Sign the
Petition
Speakers
Bureau
Press Releases and Statements
Virtual Movement Archive
Teach-In
Teaching Resources
Civil Liberties and Academic Freedom
Links
Join our Listserv
Download HAW images
The Blog
About us / Contact us
|
[haw-info] HAW Notes 5/17/13, including links to recent articles of interest
To members and friends of Historians Against the War,
Here are some notes, plus a set of links to recent articles of interest.
1. Many of the talks from the HAW-sponsored April 5-7 conference on "The New Faces of War" are now on-line in one form or another. (Several are in video format, recorded and edited by the Baltimore-based Indypendent Reader.) Links to all the available video- and audiotapes and on-line papers are available at http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/conf2013/talks.html.
Links to Recent Articles of Interest
By Jeffrey Rosen, The New Republic, posted May 16
By David Vine, TomDispatch.com, posted May 15
By Penny Lewis, Chronicle of Higher Education, posted May 13
[haw-info] Iran War Weekly - May 12, 2013
Historians Against the War is posting Frank Brodhead's "Iran War Weekly,' as a helpful resource for our members and friends. Frank earned a PhD in history at Princeton University and has co-authored several books on US foreign policy. He is a scholar and political activist who has worked with peace and social justice movements for many years. In 2010-2011 he produced the "Afghanistan War Weekly," which was widely used by antiwar groups across the country. Iran War Weekly May 12, 2013 Hello All – While nuclear negotiators will meet Wednesday in Istanbul, little progress is expected in the diplomatic standoff about Iran's nuclear program before Iran's presidential election, which will take place on June 14th. With Iran's reform movement still not recovered from its crushing defeat in 2009, until now the presidential election appeared to be a mere jockeying for power within conservative leadership circles, but it took on a more volatile character on Saturday, when both former president Rafsanjani and a protégé of current president Ahmadinejad registered their candidacies at the last minute. There are some very good articles about the election – both candidates and electoral procedures – linked below. Whether Iran's election will take place in greatly altered circumstances as a result of the escalation of the war in Syria is another question. The consequences of Israel's two bombing attacks on Syria a week ago are still unfolding. The US- and Russian-sponsored "international conference" on Syria scheduled for sometime in late May or June appears to have been poorly thought out (or poorly reported). Among other questions, Who is invited? Iran? Israel? Lebanon (Hezbollah)? Or just the US/NATO plus Russia? And who among the warring parties? Armed Islamist groups, or just those included in the US-sponsored coalition? Already the US-supported Free Syrian Army has announced it will not negotiate with the Assad people, which of course is the point of the conference. Or is it? Is the conference merely a theatrical ploy, with its anticipated failure leading inexorably to military escalation and deeper US intervention? Given the relative dearth of news and analysis about the diplomacy and theatrics re: Iran's nuclear program this week, I have included far too much information about the many flash points crystallizing in Syria. It's hard to believe that near-term events will not draw Iran more deeply into Syria's widening war, and this widening war could easily spill over into military engagement with Iran itself. Once again I would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or linked it on your sites. This "issue" and previous issues of the Iran War Weekly are posted at http://warisacrime.org/blog/46383. If you would like to receive the IWW mailings, please send me an email at fbrodhead@aol.com Best wishes, Frank Brodhead OVERVIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES Consequences of western intransigence in nuclear diplomacy with Iran By Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett, Aljazeera [May 10, 2013] ---- To maintain the illusion of some prospect for progress in nuclear diplomacy with Tehran, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton will meet with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Istanbul next week - on May 15. Purportedly, Ashton will see if the P5+1 dialogue with Iran can be put back on track after yet another round of nuclear talks with Iran failed last month. Publicly, Western officials blame the failure either on the Islamic Republic's upcoming presidential election or on that old fallback, Iranian "intransigence". In reality, talks failed because America and its Western partners remain unwilling to recognise Iran's right to enrich uranium under international safeguards. … But the real reason for US obstinacy is that recognising Iran's nuclear rights would mean accepting the Islamic Republic as a legitimate entity representing legitimate national interests. No American president since the Iranian Revolution - not even Barack Obama - has been willing to do this. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013589151459212.html The Failed Neocon Attempt to Destroy an American Anti-war Organization By M. J. Rosenberg, Washington Spectator [May 5, 2013] ---- So at the end of this five-year process, no evidence was found to substantiate the accusation that NIAC was lobbying for the Iranian regime; the objective of "destroying NIAC" has completely failed as the organization continues to be one of the most prominent voices on Iran policy in Washington; and the vast majority of the cost of the discovery process remains with the defendant and his neo-conservative backers. Not a good day for the pro-war lobby, but a very good one for Americans who find the idea of being embroiled in a third Middle East war – so soon after Iraq and with our troops still in Afghanistan – utterly appalling. http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/BREAKING-VIEWS/epic-fail-the-neocon-attempt-to-destroy-an-american-antiwar-organization.html US POLICIES AND PERSPECITIVES Obama's Duplicitous Iran Policy By Muhammad Sahimi, Antiwar.com [May 5, 2013] ---- One of President Obama's greatest "accomplishments" has been creating fissures within the antiwar/progressive community in the United States by talking like a progressive politician, but acting in most cases as a conservative one. … But it is the President's foreign policy that has created the deepest fissures in the antiwar/progressive community, because he has been able to create the illusion for some that he is truly an antiwar president and a proponent of a progressive foreign policy. … To demonstrate how the President talks as a peace president, but acts as a war president, I focus on one example, Iran. His Iran policy has been a completely duplicitous one – talking about diplomacy, while waging economic war on the Iranian people, preparing for military attacks, and emphasizing countless number of times that "all options are on the table." In fact, what the President has done is channeling Bush fever in Iran. http://original.antiwar.com/muhammad-sahimi/2013/05/05/obamas-duplicitous-iran-policy/ IRAN'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Iran Surprises Again! By Farideh Farhi, Lobe Log [May 12, 2013] ---- There are now more than 35 relatively well known candidates and over 600 unknown candidates, including 30 women. The Guardian Council will have five days to go through these applications and disqualify almost all of them. Given the high number of well-known candidates, the Council may eventually extend its examination period for another five days in order to figure out what to do. But that's all the law allows. Campaigning in full force among the very few who get past the Guardian Council for the June 14 election will begin no later than ten days from now. …. No matter what the reason, both Hashemi Rafsanjani's and Mashaie's candidacy pose a couple of challenges for the political system as well as for the conservative political players. http://www.lobelog.com/iran-surprises-again/ Rafsanjani Registers For High-Stakes Iranian Election By Mohammad Ali Shabani, Al-Monitor [May 11, 2013] ---- The situation is that there are now figures from across the political spectrum in the fray. The 2+1 coalition, which also features former parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, is widely seen as enjoying the backing of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. There is a separate so-called 'principlist' coalition led by former Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Moreover, several members of the camp of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, chief among them his right-hand man Mashaei, have registered. Lastly, in addition to the centrists/reformists, led by Rafsanjani, there are some independent figures. In other words, after years of increasingly factional infighting, all the ingredients for a vicious campaign season are at hand. There are two filters which will likely act to stabilize the playing field for the June 14 election. The Guardian Council will weed out most political players and likely limit the number of hopefuls allowed to run to less than a dozen. In parallel, as witnessed in the past months, the process of coalition-building is likely to continue and accelerate. This will act as a separate filter coalescing the various political figures at play. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/iran-election-velayati-rafsanjani-mashaei-register.html MILITARY ISSUES Good-bye Dubai? Bombing Iran's Nuclear Facilities would leave the Entire Gulf States Region virtually Uninhabitable By Wade Stone, Global Research, [May 11, 2013] ---- Unlike the Fukushima Daiichi reactors which suffered only partial meltdowns with much of the fuel rods and spent fuel storages remaining mostly intact, "all" of Iran's nuclear fuel would be exploded into the atmosphere. And let us not forget that the US-Israeli military ordinances employed to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would certainly be tipped with depleted uranium, and very likely would include some mini-nukes. Indeed, in regards nuclear disasters and environmental catastrophes, Fukushima would absolutely pale in comparison to that caused by the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. The nuclear fallout from such an event would be extreme, to put it mildly. http://www.globalresearch.ca/good-bye-dubai-bombing-irans-nuclear-facilities-would-leave-the-entire-gulf-states-region-virtually-uninhabitable/5334737 SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN Muck & Meir: Prolific Analyst Botches Facts to Vindicate Failed Iran Sanctions Policy By Nima Shirazi, Wide Asleep in America [May 8, 2013] U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Those Aiding Iran By Rick Gladstone, New York Times [May 9, 2013] ---- The United States on Thursday expanded its roster of those violating Iran sanctions, blacklisting four Iranian companies and one individual suspected of helping the country enrich nuclear fuel. It also singled out two other companies, including a Venezuelan-Iranian bank, accused of helping Iran evade other Western-imposed prohibitions on oil sales and financial dealings. … Any assets that blacklisted companies or individuals may have under American jurisdiction can be frozen, and they are prohibited from doing business with American citizens or businesses. Other individuals or business that engage with those under sanctions are themselves subject to penalties. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/world/middleeast/us-imposes-sanctions-on-those-aiding-iran.html?ref=world Senate Bill Would Halt Iran's Access to an Estimated $100 Billion in Cash By Rick Gladstone, New York Times [May 8, 2013] ---- Seeking to escalate pressure on Iran, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation on Wednesday that would deny the Iranian government access to its foreign exchange reserves parked in the banks of other countries, estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion, mostly in euros. The legislation, which has strong support, would be the first major new sanction confronting Iran since its inconclusive round of negotiations with the big powers last month on its disputed nuclear program. It would impose severe penalties on any foreign financial institution that conducts foreign exchange transactions on behalf of Iran's central bank or other Iranian entity that is already blacklisted by other sanctions. It would also be retroactive to Thursday, regardless of the passage date. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/world/middleeast/bill-would-deny-iran-access-to-foreign-exchange-reserves.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print SYRIA: THE WIDENING WAR The truth is that after Israel's air strikes on Syria, we are involved By Robert Fisk, The Independent [May 5, 2013] ---- If the Syrian air force can use their MiGs so devastatingly – and at such civilian cost – against their enemies inside Syria, why couldn't they have sent their jets to protect Damascus and attack the Israeli aircraft? Isn't the Syrian air force supposed to be guarding Syria from Israel? Or are the MiGs just not technically able to take on Israel's state-of-the-art (American) hardware? Or would that just be a step too far? Much more important, however, is the salient fact that Israel has now intervened in the Syrian war. It may say it was only aiming at weapons destined for the Hezbollah – but these were weapons also being used against rebel forces in Syria. By diminishing the regime's supply of these weapons, it is therefore helping the rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad. And since Israel regards itself as a Western nation – best friend and best US military ally in the Middle East, etc, etc – this means that "we" are now involved in the war, directly and from the air. http://warincontext.org/2013/05/05/the-truth-is-that-after-israel%E2%80%99s-air-strikes-on-syria-we-are-involved/ Further Involvement in Syria Would Be an Unmitigated Disaster By John Glaser, Antiwar.com [May 6, 2013] ---- The pressure on the Obama administration to take military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad has eased somewhat with news today that preliminary findings from a U.N. investigating team indicate that the rebels, not the government, used chemical weapons…. But even without this latest news from U.N. investigators, further involvement in Syria's intractable conflict would be an unmitigated disaster. The U.S. lacks feasible military options in Syria, has no legal authority to intervene, and would in all likelihood worsen the humanitarian situation on the ground while embroiling the United States in a costly, protracted Middle Eastern war. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-glaser/further-involvement-in-sy_b_3224186.html The Israeli Bombing and Its Consequences Attacks reframe the Syrian crisis
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asian Times [May 6, 2013]
---- Israel's latest air strike against a Syrian military facility, explicitly condoned by US President Barack Obama, has been called an "act of war" by Syrian officials and, as expected, drawn strong verbal condemnation by Iran, compared to the silent response of much of the Arab world. The strike, together with four rocket attacks on Damascus also blamed on Israel by the Syrian government, reflects a major escalation of the two-year old conflict that may result in direct Iranian military intervention in the near future. … Pushing the throttle on Syria is a risky proposition for Tel Aviv and has the potential to backfire in light of Iran's call on the Arab world to "take a united stand" against Israeli aggression. There are a good deal of questions about Israel's motives that are complex and rather murky, but such attacks shift the focus from the "civil war" in Syria to an inter-state conflict, thus re-mapping the entire trajectory of the conflict. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-060513.html The West and its Allies Cynically Bleed Syria to Weaken Iran By Seumas Milne, The Guardian [May 8, 2013] ---- If anyone had doubts that Syria's gruesome civil war is already spinning into a wider Middle East conflict, the events of the past few days should have laid them to rest. Most ominous was Israel's string of aerial attacks on Syrian military installations near Damascus, reportedly killing more than 100. The bombing raids, unprovoked and illegal, were of course immediately supported by the US and British governments. Since Israel has illegally occupied Syria's Golan Heights for 46 years, perhaps the legitimacy of a few more air raids hardly merited serious consideration. But it's only necessary to consider what the western reaction would have been if Syria, let alone Iran, had launched such an attack on Israel – or one of the Arab regimes currently arming the Syrian rebels – to realise how little these positions have to do with international legality, equity or rights of self-defence. … By bombing the Syrian army, which has recently made advances in some rebel-held areas, Israel is clearly intervening in the war. http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/13231 Israeli Bombing of Syria and Moral Relativism By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian [UK] [May 6, 2013] ---- Israeli defenders claim that its air attack targeted weapons provided by Iran that would have ended up in the hands of Hezbollah. Obama officials quickly told media outlets that "the administration is fully supportive of Israel's airstrikes". Indeed, Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy noted: "Keep in mind the Israelis are using weapons supplied by us." There is, needless to say, virtually no condemnation of the Israeli assault in US media or political circles. At this point, the only question is how many minutes will elapse before Congress reflexively adopts a near-unanimous or unanimous resolution effusively praising Israel for the attack and unqualifiedly endorsing all past and future attacks as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/syria-israel-bombing-moral-relativism (Video) Israeli aircraft bomb Syrian capital Damascus From Russia Today [May 6, 2013] – 6 minu8tes Other aspects of the bombing and its aftermath – David Sanger, "Attacks Fuel Debate Over U.S.-Led Effort," New York Times [May 5, 2013] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/world/middleeast/attacks-on-syria-fuel-debate-over-us-led-airstrikes.html?hp&pagewanted=print; Tabassum Zakaria and Deborah Charles, "No early warning for U.S. on Israeli strikes in Syria," Reuters [May 5, 2013] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-strikes-idUSBRE9440E920130505; Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner, "Airstrikes Tied to Israel May Be Message to Iranians," New York Times [May 5, 2013] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/world/middleeast/strikes-in-syria-linked-to-israel-may-be-a-signal-to-iran.html?hp&pagewanted=print; Anne Barnard, "Hezbollah Threatens Israel Over Syria Strikes," New York Times [May 9, 2013] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/world/middleeast/hezbollah-syria-israel.html?ref=world; and Mitch Ginsburg, "Israel's perilous calculus in Syria," Times of Israel [May 5, 2013] http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-perilous-calculus-in-syria/ The US-Russia Conference A Second Chance for Diplomacy From Aljazeera [Inside Syria] [May 12, 2013] ---- The Syrian government says it will consider any proposal to end the conflict through negotiations, but it needs more details and wants to retain its right to fight the "terrorists" - a term it uses to describe various rebel groups. But this may be a tough condition since ending the violence is a prerequisite for any settlement. The Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the main opposition group, said it welcomes the idea but it stuck to its earlier condition, that President Bashar al-Assad and his regime must go. Both conditions remain stumbling blocks to any real chance of peace. Has the Obama Administration Given into Russia on Syria? By Juan Cole, Informed Comment [May 10, 2013] ---- The joint communique issued by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov earlier this week regarding Syria has in retrospect raised eyebrows in the world press because it seems to adopt Russian, not American, rhetoric on the issue. The document called for an international conference on the crisis jointly sponsored by the US and Russia, and for a negotiated solution. The Russian insistence that there be no precondition of President Bashar al-Assad stepping down is implied. The abandonment of this precondition is a deal breaker for the Syrian opposition, who considers him a mass murderer for his brutal military assault on largely peaceful protesters, which pushed them into armed resistance. http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/administration-russia-syria.html Were Chemical Weapons Used? 'This Madman Must Be Stopped' - Syrian Chemical Weapons By David Edwards, Media Lens [May 9, 2013] ---- Last August, Barack Obama told reporters at the White House: 'We have been very clear to the Assad regime... that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. 'That would change my calculus; that would change my equation.' This was a clear threat to repeat the 2011 Nato assault which resulted in the overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. So what is the evidence that Assad recently chose to do the one thing most likely to trigger a Western attack and similar fate? http://www.zcommunications.org/this-madman-must-be-stopped-syrian-chemical-weapons-by-david-edwards UN: Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons By John Glaser, Antiwar.com [May 6, 2013] ---- United Nations investigators looking into allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian conflict say early indications are that the rebel opposition, not the Assad regime, deployed the nerve agent sarin. The alleged use of chemical weapons drew international attention after President Obama declared it a "red line" for the Assad regime, beyond which would trigger unspecified military action. Advocates of intervention into Syria's civil war used the allegations to rally support for military action. But the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria "has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons," Reuters reported commission member Carla Del Ponte as saying. The Civil War (Video) Syria: Behind Rebel Lines From Aljazeera [People and Power] [May 9, 2013] ---- Yet those opposed to the Assad regime show no signs of faltering. Something keeps them at the front line - even though they are outgunned and often desperately short of everything from ammunition to medical supplies. To find out what drives them, earlier this year veteran journalist Rania Abouzeid and Canadian filmmaker Sylvene Gilchrist went to spend time with elements of the Free Syrian Army in Idlib province, a key battleground in the northwest of Syria. Their film tells the story of the rebels behind the scenes – why they fight, how they source their weapons and ammunition, how they function and live among and ruins and how often disparate armed groups - with different motivations and aims - interact with each other in a common cause. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/05/201358122719496896.html Struggling to Adapt: The Muslim Brotherhood in a New Syria By Aron Lund [May 7, 2013] ---- The Muslim Brotherhood was Syria's strongest opposition faction when the uprising against Bashar al-Assad erupted in March 2011, but it was entirely based in exile. Its aging, exiled leadership is now struggling to influence Syria's youthful revolt. Its efforts to exercise control are buoyed by the disorganized state of the opposition both abroad and in Syria, but the rise of militant Salafism has complicated its attempts to co-opt fighters on the ground. http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/07/struggling-to-adapt-muslim-brotherhood-in-new-syria/g2qm US Views and Strategies The Thin Red Line: Inside the White House debate over Syria By Dexter Filkins, New Yorkers [May 13, 2013] ---- In Syria, more than seventy thousand people have died, and three and a half million have been forced from their homes; the refugee camp across the border in Jordan is now that country's fifth-largest city. The Administration has given the Syrian opposition more than six hundred and fifty million dollars in nonmilitary aid, but Obama has consistently opposed arming the rebels or intervening militarily on their behalf. The United States has taken a tenuous position: not deep enough to please the rebels or its allies in Europe, or to topple the regime, or to claim leadership in the war's aftermath—but also, perhaps most important, not so deep that it can't get out. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/13/130513fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all Brzezinski: Syria Intervention Will Only Make it Worse By John Glaser, Antiwar.com [May 9, 2013] (Video) Obama under pressure to seek regime change in Syria and Iran From The Real News Network [May 8, 2013] – 6 minutes The Electric Kool-Aid Flashback Test: Should we arm the Syrian rebels? By Rosa Brooks, Foreign Policy [May 9, 2013] ---- It's impossible to look at the Syrian conflict without horrified outrage, usually accompanied by a strong conviction that Somebody Ought to Do Something. But since "somebody" apparently doesn't extend to U.S. troops on the ground, Congress and the White House have turned instead to the idea that the United States might arm the Syrian opposition. On the surface, it's an appealing idea. If a big, nasty dictator is crushing the plucky, outnumbered resistance fighters, let's give the little guys a hand! Arming the opposition would let us feel we're doing something "real" -- humanitarian assistance and diplomatic conferences being insufficiently dramatic -- without requiring us to risk deeper military entanglement in yet another Middle Eastern state. But tempting as it is, past experience suggests that arming the Syrian opposition could be every bit as hazardous, difficult and uncertain as putting U.S. boots on the ground. Here are five reasons why…. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/09/should_we_arm_the_syrian_rebels More on the :Great Debate" – Jim Lobe, "Decade After Iraq, Right-Wing and Liberal Hawks Reunite Over Syria," Inter Press Service [May 8, 2013] http://www.lobelog.com/decade-after-iraq-right-wing-and-liberal-hawks-reunite-over-syria/; Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt, "White House Holds Firm on Cautious Path in Syria Crisis," New York Times [May 7, 2013] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0; Katrina vanden Heuvel, "Diplomacy is better than military action in Syria," The Nation [May 7, 2013] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/diplomacy-is-better-than-military-action-in-syria/2013/05/07/9cb3fe34-b664-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html; and Andrew J. Bacevich, "The US can't remake Syria," The Boston Globe [May 8, 2013] http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/05/08/road-damascus/oYCHc6T67btNAVoSRyX3dJ/story.html; Jason Ditz, "Obama: Moral Obligation to End Syrian Civil War," Antiwar.com [May 7, 2013] http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/07/obama-moral-obligation-to-end-syrian-civil-war/; Majd Rafizadeh, "Syria: Military intervention by the U.S. would only exacerbate the conflict." Los Angeles Times [May 7, 2013] http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rafizadeh-no-intervention-in-syria-20130507,0,5381687.story; and Greg Mitchell, "'NYT' and Keller Promote a US Attack on Syria: Iraq WMD Revisited?" The Nation [May 6, 2013] http://www.thenation.com/blog/174182/nyt-and-keller-promote-us-attack-syria-iraq-wmd-revisited A Widening War: Israel Israel's Man in Damascus: Why Jerusalem Doesn't Want the Assad Regime to Fall By Efraim Halevy, Foreign Affairs [May 10, 2013]
[Efraim Halevy served as chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002.] ---- Israel's most significant strategic goal with respect to Syria has always been a stable peace, and that is not something that the current civil war has changed. Israel will intervene in Syria when it deems it necessary; last week's attacks testify to that resolve. But it is no accident that those strikes were focused solely on the destruction of weapons depots, and that Israel has given no indication of wanting to intervene any further. Jerusalem, ultimately, has little interest in actively hastening the fall of Bashar al-Assad. Israel knows one important thing about the Assads: for the past 40 years, they have managed to preserve some form of calm along the border. Technically, the two countries have always been at war -- Syria has yet to officially recognize Israel -- but Israel has been able to count on the governments of Hafez and Bashar Assad to enforce the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974, in which both sides agreed to a cease-fire in the Golan Heights, the disputed vantage point along their shared border. Indeed, even when Israeli and Syrian forces were briefly locked in fierce fighting in 1982 during Lebanon's civil war, the border remained quiet. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139373/efraim-halevy/israels-man-in-damascus?page=show Why Israel's Interceptors Can Stop Syrian Missiles — And Why It Attacked Anyway By Noah Shachtman, Wired [May 7, 2013] ---- Israel may have attacked targets in Syria — and risked a wider war — to stop ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. But current and former Israeli missile defense officials insist that if Hezbollah militants ever got the Fateh-110 weapons, Israel could shoot the missiles out of the sky…. Unless, of course, the extremists fired off a whole lot of the weapons at once. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/israel-syria-missile-defense/ A Widening War: Iran Iran Warns Syrian Rebels After Report of Shrine Desecration By Thomas Erdbrink and Hania Mourtada, New York Times [May 6, 2013] ---- Iran's Shiite leaders warned of regional sectarian conflict after reports that Syrian rebels raided a Shiite shrine in a suburb of Damascus last week, destroying the site and making off with the remains of the revered Shiite figure buried there. The Qaeda-inspired Al Nusra Front claimed responsibility for the abduction of the remains of Mr. Oday. The group's attack was followed by a stern warning from Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia, who on April 30 told Sunni rebels not to target the largest Shiite sanctuary in Syria, the golden-domed shrine of Sayida Zeinab, Muhammad's granddaughter. Mr. Nasrallah warned of "very serious repercussions" if Syrian rebels attacked the shrine, long a main pilgrimage destination for Shiites worldwide. Such an attack would unleash an uncontrollable conflict, Mr. Nasrallah said, invoking a fearsome precedent: the destruction of a Shiite shrine in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 2006 that contributed to years of sectarian bloodletting between Shiites and Sunni Muslims there. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/world/middleeast/iran-warns-syrian-rebels-after-report-of-shrine-desecration.html A Widening War: The UK How the BBC helps pave the road to war on Syria By The Editors, News Unspun [May 9, 2013] ---- This sentiment, that the West can put right the Syrian situation, is inherent to most reporting of the conflict. The BBC recently reported that 'the pressure to act has intensified in recent days after emerging evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons such as the nerve gas sarin'. This statement presents the existence of a 'pressure to act' as a given, though the source of such pressure is unidentified. From where is this pressure emerging? As a BBC report points out, public opinion in France, the UK, the US, and Germany is by majority opposed to the possibility of intervention in the conflict through sending arms and military supplies to the Syrian opposition. The BBC is not then speaking on behalf of the public majority. Pressure towards military intervention, to some extent considered a desirable option by the UK government (if it can 'achieve the result [they] want', as Cameron put it in an interview with Nick Robinson), is, however, increasingly mounting within the media itself. http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/13232 A Widening War: Turkey Turkish minister: Bombers had contacts with Syria's secret police By Tom Watkins and Gul Tuysuz, CNN [May 12, 2013] ---- A top Turkish official said Saturday that authorities believe those responsible for a pair of deadly car bombings earlier in the day had been in contact with the Syrian government's secret police force. In a news conference, Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay said the Syrian government was linked to the attack. "The investigation into the perpetrators is for the most part complete. It has been determined that the organization and its members who carried out the attack were in contact with pro-Syrian regime Al Muhabarat (Syrian Intelligence Services) organization in Syria," he said. "The organization is identified and for the most part the persons involved are identified." http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/11/world/meast/turkey-syria-violence/index.html Turkey may support U.S. to establish no-fly zone in Syria From Xinhua [China] [May 10, 2013] ---- Turkey might support the United States to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told U.S. media ahead of his visit to the United States on May 16. In an interview with NBC News channel, Erdogan said that if the United States takes a step toward a no-fly zone in Syria, Turkey might say "yes" to it. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-05/10/c_124695045.htm
[haw-info] Iran War Weekly - May 5, 2013
Historians Against the War is posting Frank Brodhead's "Iran War Weekly,' as a helpful resource for our members and friends. Frank earned a PhD in history at Princeton University and has co-authored several books on US foreign policy. He is a scholar and political activist who has worked with peace and social justice movements for many years. In 2010-2011 he produced the "Afghanistan War Weekly," which was widely used by antiwar groups across the country. Iran War Weekly May 5, 2013 Hello All – It is too soon to tell whether Israel's weekend bombing of Syria will irrevocably change the course of the war and engulf the region in death and fire. Israel has intimated that further attacks are on the way, and the Obama administration has stated that US strikes against Syria's air defenses and air fields are under discussion. Syria (via the Arab League) seems about to take the issue to the UN Security Council, where we can expect the United States to defend Israel by blocking discussion. What will Syria then do after further Israeli aggression? This newsletter, of course, attempts to track the war being waged – "low intensity" so far – against Iran. But from the outset most observers agreed that one of the forces motivating the United States and its allies to support the revolt against Syria's Assad was the hope that it would weaken the "main enemy," Iran. Now the tail is wagging the dog, and what was thought to be a means to an end has become an end in itself. Unless Israel disengages itself quickly, which seems unlikely, it is hard to see the Obama administration withstanding pressures from Israel, the neo-cons, and Congress to intervene militarily in Syria. What Iran will do then, of course, we don't know. Beyond the obvious insanity of military intervention, a significant problem for the Hawks is the strong popular opposition in the United States to such a war. Depending on the question asked, polls show popular opposition to US military intervention or involvement running about 2-1 or 3-1. Given the state of our democracy, public opposition to war is a weak reed; but we can expect sustained media attention to "WMD"-type non-issues such as the threat of chemical weapons, or Hezbollah's involvement, or Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program as reasons why the United States must go to war against Syria. US peace advocates have a role to play in trying to counter this war propaganda. Meanwhile, the US-Iranian stand-off over Iran's nuclear program continues to unfold. On May 15 Iran and the IAEA will hold another meeting in Istanbul to discuss unresolved issues, especially those related to "further military studies" and allegations that nuclear-related military tests were conducted at Iran's military base at Parchin. On the sidelines of this meeting the P+5 representative Catherine Ashton will meet her Iranian counterpart Saeed Jalili to discuss further steps in the negotiations that might reduce economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iranian concessions or modifications of its nuclear enrichment program. The status of these negotiations, as well as further issues about Iran's nuclear program, US media coverage about Iran, sanctions against Iran, the recent US arms sale to Israel, Iran's presidential election, and much more are addressed in some good/useful readings linked below. Once again I would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or linked it on your sites. This "issue" and previous issues of the Iran War Weekly are posted at http://warisacrime.org/blog/46383. If you would like to receive the IWW mailings, please send me an email at fbrodhead@aol.com Best wishes, Frank Brodhead OVERVIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES The Iranian Nuclear Issue: What's at Stake for the BRICS By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Going to Tehran [April 30, 2013] ---- The controversy over Iran's nuclear activities has at least as much to do with the future of international order as it does with nonproliferation. For this reason, all of the BRICS have much at stake in how the Iranian nuclear issue is handled. Conflict over Iran's nuclear program is driven by two different approaches to interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); these approaches, in turn, are rooted in different conceptions of international order. Which interpretation of the NPT ultimately prevails on the Iranian nuclear issue will go a long way to determine whether a rules-based view of international order gains ascendancy over a policy-oriented approach in which the goals of international policy are defined mainly by America and its partners. And that will go a long way to determine whether rising non-Western states emerge as true power centers in a multipolar world, or whether they continue, in important ways, to be subordinated to hegemonic preferences of the West—and especially the United States. http://goingtotehran.com/whats-at-stake-for-non-western-powers-in-the-iranian-nuclear-issue New Study Examines Media Coverage of Iranian Nuclear Program By Nima Shirazi, Wide Asleep in America [May 3, 2013] ---- Late last month, The University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies (CISSM) released an extensive new report examining the mainstream media's coverage of the Iranian nuclear program and its attendant developments and implications over the past four years. The study, entitled "The Media & Iran's Nuclear Program: An analysis of U.S. and U.K. coverage, 2009-2012," … analyzes over 1,200 articles, editorials and opinion commentary pieces published in six leading, well-respected and influential English-language news outlets over the course of four three-week time periods between 2009 and 2012. Drawing direct parallels to the irresponsible, inadequate, inaccurate and dangerously ideological media malpractice during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CISSM report concludes that press coverage of the Iranian nuclear program has been – and continues to be – similarly distorted and dishonest, confusing and contradictory. http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2013/05/new-study-examines-media-coverage-of.html (Video) Fuelling geopolitics: The oil saga From Aljazeera [Empire] [April 29, 2013] ---- Thanks to the nationalisation of oil reserves around the world, the old Seven Sisters are no longer the only ones controlling the production, processing and distribution – they are competing with mega players such as the National Iranian Oil Company, China's CNPC, Russia's Gazprom and their counterparts in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. Further disrupting the old order is the ongoing financialisation of oil markets with oil speculations sending prices on a roller coaster ride, decoupled from the dictates of actual supply and demand. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2013/04/201342882137322376.html (Video) How to Become an Expert in Iran's Nuclear Program (in less than four minutes) By Scott Lucas, EA Worldview [April 30, 2013] NEGOTIATIONS ABOUT IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM P5+1 Package Seeks Transparency in Iran By Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association [May 2013] ---- The proposal six world powers brought to the April 5-6 talks with Iran over its controversial nuclear program contains transparency measures, including provisions that would require Iran to give inspectors increased access to facilities and provide information to address allegations of possible activities related to making a nuclear bomb, according to a former Iranian nuclear negotiator and two Western diplomats. In an April 17 e-mail, Seyed Hossein Mousavian said that the proposal presented by the six countries known as the P5+1 would require Iran to address International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands for transparency. The inclusion of these transparency elements in the P5+1 proposal has not previously been reported. Two officials from P5+1 countries who are familiar with the negotiations confirmed the accuracy of Mousavian's description. … Other provisions in the new proposal require Iran to stop producing 20 percent-enriched uranium, but would allow Iran to keep part of its stockpile of that material to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor. Iran may also be allowed to produce enriched uranium at its Fordow facility in the future, Mousavian and the two officials said. The previous P5+1 proposal from the 2012 talks required Iran to shut the Fordow enrichment plant permanently and ship its entire stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium out of the country. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_05/P5%201-Package%20Seeks-Transparency-in-Iran Ashton to meet Iran's Jalili in follow up nuclear talks By Laura Rozen, Al-Monitor [May 2, 2013] ---- Chief international negotiator Catherine Ashton will meet Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Istanbul on May 15th, the office of the European Union foreign policy chief said Thursday. The meeting is the "follow up to the last round of negotiations" between six world powers and Iran held in Almaty, Kazakhstan April 5-6, Ashton's spokesperson Michael Mann said in a two-line statement Thursday. … Iran is also due to have a meeting with the IAEA on May 15th. http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/05/5142/ashton-to-meet-irans-jalili-in-follow-up-nuclear-talks/ US POLICIES AND PERSPECTIVES Chorus grows against Obama administration's sanctions-heavy Iran policy By Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor [April 25, 2013] ---- The Obama administration has implemented a host of crippling sanctions on Iran targeting its central bank and lifeblood oil exports. The goal has been to pressure Iran into giving up its most sensitive nuclear work, which could be a pathway to an atomic bomb. But a year of high-profile talks between Iran and world powers has yielded little progress. Now a number of senior former US officials and analysts say a White House obsession with the pressure track may be backfiring, and are calling for a pivot toward the diplomatic track to reestablish balance.
(Video) Dissecting America's Iran Debate By Flynt Leverett, Going to Tehran [May 5, 2013] The United States and Israel Hagel to Israel: Attacking Iran Will Be Considered After June Vote By Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com [May 3, 2013] ---- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has reportedly reassured Israel about the ongoing threats to attack Iran militarily, saying that they will start seriously considering it again after Iran's June 14 elections. The election will choose a replacement for outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the US and Israel have scheduled a "joint assessment" for after the result is announced to decide how it impacts the ongoing threats to attack them. Bizarre, to say the least, because Iran's president has limited power over the nation's civilian nuclear program, and even less on the P5+1 negotiations. Rather, while Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is often cited as an excuse for war, his actual ability to implement changes in Iranian policy is comparatively minimal. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/03/hagel-to-israel-attacking-iran-will-be-considered-after-june-vote/ US Arms Sale Sends Mixed Messages to Israel By Mitchell Plitnick, Lobe Log [April 2013] ----US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel may have insisted that the latest sale of US arms to Israel sent a strong message to Iran, but the actual message was a bit more restrained. Hagel made a point of emphasizing that the arms sale reaffirmed the close ties between the nations and repeated the Obama Administration's mantra that Israel has the right to defend itself. The actual sale, though, gave the US another lever of control over a potential Israeli attack. http://www.lobelog.com/us-arms-sale-sends-mixed-messages-to-israel/ IRANIAN POLICIES AND PERSPECTIVES Iran Mulls Over Many Presidential Candidates By Farideh Farhi, Lobe Log [May 2013] ---- Iran's June 14 presidential election, only about a month and a half away, will get ample attention — and more than a dose of speculation — from everyone interested in the big picture items: whether there will be an actual choice of candidates, whether the result will have an impact on the way the nuclear file will be approached, whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will go out quietly, and so on. But smaller, parallel events are fascinating because they reveal the kind of dilemmas the country's political class faces as it tries to manage the strange institutional hybrid that it oversees. Let's take the case of the Guardian Council, which is in charge of vetting candidates for the presidency. http://www.lobelog.com/iran-mulls-over-many-presidential-candidates/ Iran Softens Tune on Israel
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times [April 30, 2013]
---- With the Iranian presidential elections only two months away, foreign policy issues are hotly debated in the crowded field of candidates, and a chorus of prominent voices is aiming to lower the temperature with Israel. The rising softer tone may reflect a new elite consensus that a revised approach toward Israel is in the nation's interests, in light of Tel Aviv's powerful influence in Western capitals, Turkey's normalization of relations with Israel, and the Arab world's indifference toward the Palestinian problem, compared with Iran's traditional "overcommitment". http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-300413.html Another resource – I found some interesting articles at the eclectic website/blog Iran Opinion. Check it out at http://iranopinion.com/ ISRAELI POLICIES AND PERSPECTIVES Israel's 'Dove' and Hawk in its War against Iran By Muhammad Sahimi, Antiwar.com [April 22, 2013] SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN New Study Exposes Deterioration of Economic and Social Rights From the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran [April 29, 2013] ---- The international community should target sanctions more effectively to impose costs on the Iranian government and not its citizens, and the Iranian government should end its policies that worsen the crisis in access to medicines, foods, and other essential imports, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. According to a new study the Campaign released today, international sanctions and Iranian government policies are combining to bring about a severe deterioration in the ability of many Iranians to pursue their economic and social rights to healthcare, employment, and adequate nutrition. http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2013/04/growing_crisis/ Iran Parks Millions of Oil Barrels on Tankers From Reuters [April 24, 2013] ---- Iran is storing millions of barrels of oil on tankers in its territorial waters as Tehran struggles with tougher Western sanctions on its vital seaborne export trade, ship industry sources say. Iran's oil revenues have fallen by about 50 percent since tough EU and US measures were imposed last year, hurting business and cutting living standards for ordinary Iranians. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-parks-millions-of-oil-barrels-on-tankers-310937 CIVIL WAR/INTERVENTION IN SYRIA As can be seen by scanning the various articles linked below, discussions about US policy toward Syria underwent a significant change after Israel bombed Syria twice over the weekend. Earlier in the week, voices from the military and political Establishment counseling prudence seemed to be prevailing in the elite media discourse. With Israel's aggression against Syria, and with the likelihood of further attacks, the tabling of a UN Security Council resolution by the Arab League, and – possibly – an armed response by Syria against Israel, there is growing doubt that a terrible and widening war can be contained. The dilemmas for both those pressing for war and those working for peace can be separated into several not-quite-discrete arenas. Over the course of the last week, President Obama's apparent reluctance to arm the Syrian opposition appeared to be weakening. At the same time, as it became clear that the President had painted himself into a corner with his talk of chemical weapons as a "red line," his remarks seemed to be aimed at distancing himself from automatic retaliation against Syria if chemical weapons residue were found in a soil sample, for example. Yet in the wake of Israel's first attack on Syria, on Friday, anonymous White House spokespeople were talking about the possibility of US military strikes against Syria, aimed to take out missile defenses and cripple Assad's air power. Although these remarks were framed (absurdly) in terms of preventing Assad from flying his chemical weapons from point A to point B, the taking-out-the-air-defenses scenario is simply the textbook play preceding sustained aerial bombardment and perhaps an invasion. We have to assume that Israel's attacks on Syria were made with US approval/permission. Why would Israel do this, and why would the United States support them? As noted below, Israel claims that its only interest is in preventing Hezbollah from gaining advanced weapons, especially ground-to-ground missiles and anti-aircraft missiles. What exactly Israel bombed on Friday, as well as back on January 31, remains debatable. Friday's bombing, for example, was initially reported to be against a convoy of missiles to Hezbollah. Later reports say that it was against a warehouse at the Damascus airport, allegedly "under the control" of Hezbollah and/or Iran, which contained ground-to-ground missiles bound for Lebanon. But US sources pointed out that the missiles supposedly in the warehouse were also used by Syria; so it's not obvious that their end-user was intended to be Hezbollah. Similar doubts were raised by in February about what was bombed by Israel, and why? It is very difficult at this point to tell what Israel is doing, and therefore it is hard to tell what the United States hopes to gain by supporting it. An ominous thought is that Israel hopes to break the deadlock within the United States about armed intervention, and that Israel is collaborating with its allies in Congress and among the neo-cons. That is, a foreign policy "coup" against the waffling Obama. US Policy and Policy Dilemmas A Terrible Idea: Arming the Syrian Rebels By John Glaser, Antiwar.com [May 2, 2013] ---- There are rumors going around that President Obama "is preparing to send lethal weaponry to the Syrian opposition," although he has said no such thing publicly. Nevertheless, the rumors are sparking a new debate on the wisdom of directly arming the Syrian rebels. I say "directly" because Washington has been arming the rebels through proxies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar for a very long time as it is. In fact, just acknowledging this should pull the rug out from under those who think arming the rebels directly is even remotely a good idea. Simply increasing the amount of weapons the Syrian rebels receive will prolong the conflict and probably make things a lot worse before they get better. Indeed, foreign meddling is a big reason the conflict has gone on so long in the first place. http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/05/02/a-terrible-idea-arming-the-syrian-rebels/ Obama Seen Unlikely to Sharply Escalate Intervention in Syria By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service [May 4, 2013] ---- Despite renewed pressure by hawks in Congress and the media, U.S. President Barack Obama appears determined to avoid sharply escalating U.S. involvement in the ongoing civil war in Syria. While administration officials insist that all options for responding to the recent alleged use by the Syrian military of chemical weapons against anti-government strongholds remain on the table, insiders suggest that the likeliest choice will be, at most, to begin supplying selected groups of rebels with "lethal" defensive weapons, albeit nothing like the surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank rockets they have been calling for. http://truth-out.org/news/item/16162-obama-seen-unlikely-to-sharply-escalate-intervention-in-syria Syria: US Involvement Could Make Things Even Worse By Stephen Zunes, Santa Cruz Sentinel [May 5, 2013] ---- The worsening violence and repression in Syria has left policymakers scrambling to think of ways our governments could help end the bloodshed and support those seeking to dislodge the Assad regime. The desperate desire to "do something" has led to increasing calls for the United States to provide military aid to armed insurgents or even engage in direct military intervention, especially in light of the possible use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. The question on the mind of almost everyone who has followed the horror as it has unfolded over the past two years is, "What we can do?" The short answer, unfortunately, is not much. https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/05 (Video) U.S. Syria policy promotes endless civil war From The Real News Network [May 3, 2013] The Chemical Weapons "Red Line" Syria's Chemical Weapons...Iraq Redux? By Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies [May 3, 2013] ---- The allegations of chemical weapons being used in Syria have given rise to a whole escalating campaign for direct US military intervention. That's a very dangerous problem. First, even though this issue is usually relegated to secondary or even tertiary consideration, let's start with the "even if" argument. Use of chemical weapons is certainly a war crime; there are separate international laws prohibiting such weapons, and any use is undoubtedly illegal. But just what would be accomplished by escalating the rest of the war with more arms …? Second, we should note that even the US government officials themselves acknowledge they don't have solid evidence chemical weapons were used at all. Third, this is now a partisan issue. … So what should the US do? Should use of chemical weapons in Syria be a 'game changer?' By Dan Murphy, Christian Science Monitor [April 25, 2013] ---- Last month President Obama called chemical weapons use by Syria a 'game changer,' but why should the US commit itself to war with Syria on the basis of whether it used chemical weapons? There's an unspoken assumption that chemical weapons are a special horror that requires special responses, but the underpinnings for this are rarely explored. Both Obama's people and his more hawkish critics in congress appear to be in agreement that greater US action will be mandated by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. So what's the quality of evidence? http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0425/Should-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-be-a-game-changer Syria: The horrific chemical weapons attack that probably wasn't a chemical weapons attack By Tracey Shelton and Peter Gelling, Global Post [April 30, 2013] Also useful on chemical weapons – Stephen Zunes, "The US and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On," Foreign Policy in Focus [May 3, 2013] https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/03-0; Peter Baker, et al., "Off-the-Cuff Obama Line Put U.S. in Bind on Syria," New York Times [May 4, 2013] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html?hp; from Reuters, "Israel: Syrian chemical arms safe, Hezbollah does not want them," [May 4, 2013] http://news.yahoo.com/israel-syrian-chemical-arms-safe-hezbollah-does-not-172258199.html; and Gareth Smyth, "Iran's foreign minister fuels war of words over Syria," Tehran Bureau [May 1, 2013] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2013/may/01/iran-minister-syria Israel Bombs Syria: Why and What Next? Timeline: Israeli attacks on Syrian targets By Ben Piven, Aljazeera [May 5, 2013] Accusations and Escalation Fears After Syrian Strikes By Anne Barnard, et al., New York Times [May 5, 2013] ---- Israeli experts said that Israel had no interest in getting involved in the Syrian conflict beyond looking after Israel's own, immediate interests, and that the latest strikes appeared to have more to do with Israel's cardinal standoff against Iran. "This shouldn't be seen as Israel intervening on behalf of the rebels or against Bashar," said Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. "This is an escalation in a conflict we know about, and that is the conflict between Israel and Iran, the long shadow war, as people call it. This is an incident in that war." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/world/middleeast/after-strikes-in-syria-concerns-about-an-escalation-of-fighting.html?pagewanted=1&hp Syria, Israel, and Hezbollah Hezbollah Leader Defends Involvement in Syria By Jean Aziz, Al-Monitor [May 2, 2013] ---- Over the past two days, Beirut has been busy pondering a key question: Why did Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah choose to give a speech this week, after he had been scheduled to make a televised appearance to Hezbollah media, from an unknown location, on May 9? What recent developments made it necessary reschedule the speech to April 30? … Beirut circles familiar with Hezbollah's thinking said that Nasrallah addressed his supporters to assert that the war he is waging — in Sayyeda Zeinab's shrine, Qusayr, and of course in south Lebanon — is legitimate. That legitimacy rests on three grounds: First, that the war on Syria aims to liquidate the Palestinian cause and thus the war falls within Hezbollah's doctrine of fighting Israel. Second, that some Lebanese parties are directly involved in the Syrian conflict, as Nasrallah asserted. The third ground is purely religious: to defend Sayyeda Zeinab's shrine. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/hezbollah-nasrallah-speech-involvement-syria.html Gauging Hezbollah's role in Syria From Aljazeera [May 2, 2013] ---- Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, has promised not to let the government of neighbouring Syria fall, saying it has "real friends in the region". Nasrallah's televised address on Wednesday angered the Syrian opposition who have accused his group of supplying assistance to the forces of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. The Hezbollah leader's comments not only re-ignited a war of words in the Syrian conflict, it also raised renewed questions about the involvement of foreign groups on either side of the Syria issue The United States, Jordan, and Syria (Video) Jordan: Straddling Syria sensitivities From Aljazeera [Inside Syria] [May 5, 2013] More than 470,000 Syrian refugees have already crossed into Jordan but UN officials expect that number to pass the one million mark this year – a figure that is nearly a sixth of Jordan's total population. Chuck Hagel, US defence secretary, says Washington is deploying up to 200 troops to Jordan with the aim to contain the violence on the Syrian border. He also spoke of the possibility of setting up a buffer zone across the area. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2013/05/20135562034627900.html
|
