Turkey shuts Syria crossing following raid by militants
20 September, 2013 – Arab News

ANKARA/BEIRUT: Turkey closed a border crossing to Syria after an Al-Qaeda-linked group stormed a nearby town and expelled opposition fighters from an Arab and Western-backed unit, officials said on Thursday.

Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on Wednesday killed at least five members of the Northern Storm Brigade, a rebel unit that controls the border, highlighting the deep opposition divisions.

The confrontation in the town of Azaz was one of the most serious clashes between the Al-Qaeda affiliate, made up mostly of foreign fighters, and the more ideologically moderate home-grown rebels trying to topple President Bashar Assad.
Their struggle, however, is less about ideology and more about a fight for territory, resources and the spoils of war — with armed ISIL fighters positioned to defend the town and a nearby rebel brigade trying to broker a cease-fire.

A Turkish official told Reuters the Oncupinar border gate — about 5 km (3 miles) from Azaz and opposite the Syrian Bab Al-Salameh gate — had been closed for “security reasons.”

“There is still confusion about what is happening on the Syrian side. All humanitarian assistance that normally goes through the gate has ceased,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Crossings such as Azaz have been a lifeline for rebel-held territories in Syria’s north, allowing in humanitarian aid, building materials and food as well as giving refugees a route out of Syria.

While Turkey says it normally operates an open door policy, from time to time it temporarily closes its border crossings following clashes near the frontier.

The crossing fell into opposition hands last year when rebels launched an offensive to take the northern business hub of Aleppo.

Ankara has been one of the strongest backers of the rebels in the 2-1/2-year uprising against Assad. While it denies arming them, fighters including militants have been able to cross its volatile border into Syria.

At the same time, many activists and Kurdish forces accuse Turkey of allowing radical groups to go through its territory to launch attacks on its other foe — Kurdish militias, who are now operating on the frontier in northeastern Syria. Turkey denies those charges.

Syrian activists said the fighting in Azaz had subsided by Thursday and there were no rebel preparations under way to take the town back from ISIL by force.

ISIL fighters were now spread throughout Azaz and had positioned snipers on rooftops, activists said.

Northern Storm fighters were stationed at the border crossing, where they were joined by fighters from the powerful Tawheed Brigade who came from Aleppo to try to broker a truce. Tawheed has a large presence in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, about 30 km south of Azaz.

“Reinforcements from the Tawheed Brigade were sent to impose a cease-fire on the two sides,” said Abu Obeida, a Tawheed spokesman. “There is still no cease-fire yet … There are negotiations under way.”

The clashes were a stark illustration of the relative strength of the Al-Qaeda-linked fighters compared to Syria’s larger but less experienced moderate forces. It also highlights the divisions that have plagued the opposition.

Both dilemmas have left Western powers hesitant to supply the rebels with advanced weapons.

ISIL declared an offensive last week against two other rebel factions, accusing them of attacking its forces and suggesting they may have collaborated with the government.

“What is worrying are the clashes themselves,” a second Turkish official said, referring to rebel infighting generally.

“What we want is to see the various coalition groups put their house in order and focus on the struggle with the regime, because that is the real issue — the violence inflicted by the regime on the Syrian people.”

An activist from Azaz who identified himself as Mohamed Al-Azizi said he expected more violence before the confrontation was over.
“These people are very dangerous for Syria,” he said via Skype, referring to the ISIL fighters. “They say they’re Islamists but they have nothing to do with religion.” …source

One year to destroy Syria’s chemical arms: Assad
19 September, 2013 – Agence France Presse

DAMASCUS/BEIRUT: President Bashar Al-Assad has said it will take at least a year and $1 billion for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, as Al-Qaeda-linked fighters tightened their grip Thursday on a border town.

In a confident interview with US network Fox News, Assad insisted Syria was not gripped by civil war but was the victim of infiltration by foreign-backed Al-Qaeda fighters.

His latest appearance came as UN envoys debated a draft resolution that would enshrine a joint US-Russian plan to secure and neutralise his banned weapons in international law.

The plan is to be discussed at a meeting in The Hague on Friday by the world’s chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Assad insisted in the television interview that his forces had not been behind an August 21 gas attack on the Damascus suburbs that killed hundreds of civilians, but vowed nevertheless to hand over his deadly arsenal.

It was his second interview this month with US television, and one of a series of meetings with Western journalists to counter mounting political pressure from Western capitals.

After last month’s barrage of sarin-loaded rockets, which the West says was clearly launched by the regime, US President Barack Obama called for US-led punitive military strikes.

But with US lawmakers and the Western public not sold on the virtues of another Middle East military adventure, Assad’s ally Russia seized the opportunity to propose a diplomatic solution.

Pushed by President Vladimir Putin, the White House agreed to hold fire while Russia and the international community — with Assad’s agreement — draws up a disarmament plan.

Assad reiterated his pledge to cooperate, but insisted he had not been forced to do so by US threats of US action.

“I think it’s a very complicated operation, technically. And it needs a lot of money, about a billion,” he told Fox.

“So it depends, you have to ask the experts what they mean by quickly. It has a certain schedule. It needs a year, or maybe a little bit more.”

Asked why he had used force to repress a popular uprising and triggered a two-and-a-half year war that has claimed 110,000 lives, Assad insisted Syria was a victim of terrorism.

“What we have is not civil war. What we have is war. It’s a new kind of war,” he said, alleging that Islamist guerrillas from more than 80 countries had joined the fight.

“We know that we have tens of thousands of jihadists… we are on the ground, we live in this country,” he said, disputing an expert report that suggested 30,000 out of around 100,000 rebels were hardliners.

“What I can tell you is that… 80 to 90 percent of the underground terrorists are Al-Qaeda and their offshoots.”

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground became still more complex and dangerous, when — according to residents — an Al-Qaeda front group overran a Syrian border town on Wednesday.

“The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has seized complete control of Azaz. They are in control of the town’s entrances,” said Abu Ahmad, an activist inside the town.

The fighting in Azaz began when ISIS fighters tried to kidnap a German doctor working there, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which also said he is now in a safe location.

“The situation in Azaz is unchanged (Thursday),” Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

“There are attempts to mediate between the factions. Azaz is home to many people who fled (the nearby city of) Aleppo,” he added.

“They want to live in a safe place, not one where anything that moves gets sniped.”

Elsewhere, roadside bombs targeting a convoy of minibuses in the central province of Homs killed at least 14 members of Assad’s Alawite minority, Abdel Rahman said.

The blast targeted two buses near the Alawite village of Jabourin, 13 km north of Homs city, he said.

While Assad pursued his media counterattack, the five UN Security Council powers held new talks on a resolution backing the Russia-US plan to destroy the chemical weapons.

Western nations, which said they are not looking for an immediate threat of force against Assad, could seek a Security Council vote this weekend if Russia agrees.

UN envoys from the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China held two hours of talks at the US mission.

“There is no accord yet, there will be more negotiations,” said one UN diplomat.

The disarmament plan will face its first big test on Saturday, the one-week deadline announced by Moscow and the United States for Assad to provide a list of his chemical facilities.

Assad said in his interview that he could provide a list “tomorrow”, and Moscow said it had received assurances that he would cooperate.

…source

Western lies, criminality unraveling in Syria

19 September, 2013 – By Finian Cunningham – PressTV

What is clear is that Western governments are shamelessly contriving partial and unsubstantiated data to fit political objectives.”

The US has accused Russia of “swimming against the tide” in persisting with its claims that foreign-backed militants in Syria committed the chemical weapons attacks, not the Syrian armed forces, as the Western governments have asserted.

In a sense, the US is correct. Russia is indeed swimming against a tide – a powerful tide of fabrication and propaganda promulgated by Washington, its Western allies and their dutiful news media.

But that tide is now subsiding, by the day, as more facts emerge about what really happened in Syria with regard to the use of chemical weapons. If Russia was swimming against a tide, the position of the US and its allies is now sinking from lies and criminality.

As each day passes, it becomes clear that Western states tried to railroad a guilty verdict on the Syrian government and thereby trigger a desired military aggression.

The Western propaganda operation went into full speed on Monday following the release of the report by the United Nations chemical weapons team, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom. No sooner had that report been published than the US, British and French governments were crowing that it provided “conclusive proof” of their allegations that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had committed the mass killings on 21 August near the capital, Damascus.

The UN team did not actually state who perpetrated the chemical gas attack, but its inferences allowed others to point the finger of accusation at the Syrian army. So too did the tone of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who called for sanctions against those who commit such crimes “against your own people”.

So, they all lined up in familiar choreography to denounce the Syrian government. The US, British and French said they were justified in calling for military strikes and that they intended incorporating such action in the recent chemical decommissioning deal worked out by Washington and Moscow. For a day or two, it seemed that the Western governments had gained the psychological upper hand.

But it is increasingly clear that the Western “certainty” over Syrian chemical weapons is an edifice built on sand. The initial Western claims were never supported by verifiable evidence, only “secret intelligence”. Now it turns out that the UN inspectors’ report upon which the Western governments have rested their case is fatally flawed.

By its own admission, the UN study was carried out hurriedly under duress and in circumstances tampered with by the Western-backed anti-government militants. In a word, its putative evidence is unreliable.

More damning is the new disclosure by the Syrian government purporting to show that the culpable party for the gas attack near Damascus is the insurgents. Syria shared this “factual evidence” with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who was in Damascus this week. Syria and Russia are to submit this information to the UN.

What is disturbing is that this latest evidence, which includes ballistic charts and chemical analysis data, was already presented to the UN team led by Sellstrom. Russia has also said that other evidence and information presented to the UN team during the investigation was ignored in its final report. That suggests that the UN team was compromised to accommodate Western political interests.

Another disclosure this week is that Moscow confirmed that it never supplied Syria with sarin gas, not even during the years of the former Soviet Union. The significance of this is that Western governments flagged up the finding in the Sellstrom report that the inspectors had recovered remains of unusual rockets with Cyrillic (Russian) lettering. The inference was that Russia supplied Syria with chemical weapons, which the Syrian army had used.

But the Kremlin denied that it has ever delivered such munitions to Syria. It said that Soviet-era rockets with Cyrillic markings of the type cited in the Sellstrom report were supplied in the past to Libya. Given that Libya is a major arms supply conduit to the Western-backed so-called rebels in Syria, this again lends credibility to the Russian and Syrian claims that the chemical gas attacks near Damascus were carried out by these groups in a provocation to elicit Western military intervention.

There are many other unanswered perturbing questions about the chemical weapons attack near Damascus last month. Who were those dead children in the videos that the West has based so much of its emotive claims on? Why were they dressed in day clothes if they were supposedly killed in the middle of the night when they should have been in their beds? Why were their corpses arranged in such an orderly way, suggesting the scene was organized for an anticipated video recording? Why are there so few adult female victims in the apparent gas attack? Where are the grieving mothers and fathers of the little ones whose bodies are stacked up in death shrouds?

More chilling is a study led by Syrian Christian figure, Mother Agnes Mariam, which cites relatives of the dead who claim that the children were abducted by militants during earlier attacks in the northwest Latakia area. In that case, the children may have been poisoned, not by rockets filled with sarin, but by premeditated murder, with the purpose of fabricating a chemical gas attack.

What this demonstrates is that the exact circumstances of the atrocity near Damascus are far from known. But what is clear is that Western governments are shamelessly contriving partial and unsubstantiated data to fit political objectives.

The rush to railroad a guilty verdict on the Syrian government shows once again that the Western objective is regime change. That objective is criminal and the means to achieve it – fabricating lies and fomenting acts of war – gravely compound the criminality. …source

Attempts to blame Assad for chemical attack are baseless, Russia says
18 September, 2013 – Shia Post

Russia says certain Western states are making baseless efforts to blame the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack that allegedly killed hundreds of people in the suburbs of Damascus last month.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich made the remarks in a statement on Tuesday, a day after the United Nations issued a report by UN investigators which said sarin nerve agent was used in the Damascus suburbs attack, without indicating who launched the attack.

Lukashevich said that the Western attempts to blame the Assad government for the attack are “simplistic and groundless”.

Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the report on the August 21 chemical weapons attack had produced no evidence that Syrian troops carried out the attack and that Russia believed foreign-backed militants were behind it.

Lavrov made the statement during a joint news conference with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Moscow.

The Russian foreign minister stated that the UN report proved that chemical weapons had been used, but it failed to answer a number of questions Moscow had asked such as whether the weapons were produced in a factory or they were homemade.

“We have very serious grounds to believe that this was a provocation,” Lavrov said.

He said that there had been “many provocations” by the militants fighting against the Syrian government and people. “They were all aimed, over the last two years, at provoking foreign intervention.”

Lavrov added, “We want the events of August 21 to be investigated dispassionately, objectively and professionally.”

The United States, France, Britain and the foreign-sponsored militants blamed the Syrian government for the attack near Damascus.

The Assad government has vehemently denied the accusations, saying the attack was carried out by the militants themselves as a false-flag operation.

On September 10, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said Damascus is ready to implement a Russian proposal to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control.

The Russian government proposed the initiative during a meeting between Lavrov and Muallem in Moscow on September 9.

“We want to join the convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We are ready to observe our obligations in accordance with that convention, including providing all information about these weapons,” Muallem said.

In response, US President Barack Obama asked Congress to delay a vote on authorizing military action against Syria in order to give the Russian proposal a chance to play out. …source

Russia Blasts UN Inspectors for Ignoring Evidence on Syria Chemical Attacks
19 September, 2013 – FARS

TEHRAN (FNA)- UN inspectors ignored evidence on chemical weapons use in Syria secretly passed to them by Damascus, said Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister.

That is why the UN report is biased and needs reinvestigation, he said in an exclusive interview to RT.

“The Syrian authorities have conducted their own sampling and investigation, analysis in terms of possible evidence of the rebels being responsible for the tragic episodes both on August 21, but beyond that also on August 22, 23 and 24,” Sergey Ryabkov told RT’s Maria Finoshina, who caught up with him during his visit to Damascus to discuss these allegations.

Ryabkov revealed that there were actually several chemical attacks in Syria in August and that the UN inspectors, headed by Swedish scientist Dr Ake Salstrom, were informed about this, but ignored the information in their report.

“This material was discreetly handed over to Ake Salstrom, the head of the UN mission of experts here (in Syria) which came to investigate the Ghouta incidents. Salstrom was asked to look into it and eventually factor this new evidence into the final report. It never happened in fact,” Ryabkov said. “This is one of the reasons why we criticize the speed with which the report was released… and also an incomplete content of this report,” he said.

Moscow wants the UN inspectors to return to Syria and continue investigating in order to determine who was responsible for the chemical attack.

“We expect the UN Secretariat to both send Salstrom and his people back to Syria to continue investigation of the three remaining incidents, and also to write a full and comprehensive report against the background of all information they have received,” Ryabkov stressed.

He warned against the evidence provided by the Syrian and Russian sides being “simply nullified and disregarded”.

So far, Rybkov said, “one of the few areas” where the UN mission “kept its word” is that it only announced that chemical weapons were used without specifying who deployed them.

Ryabkov called on the UN inspectors to follow the approach of the Russian expert analysis of the chemical attack that took place in Syria on March 19, which was professional and contained chemical, biological and medical analysis of the incident.

The Russian deputy FM maintained that during his two-day visit to Damascus a great job has been done as Syrian authorities are firmly set to fully fulfill all the obligations, and first of all to provide information about the complete list of chemical weapons they possess by the end of this week. …more

IHS Jane’s report: Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or hardline Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country’s civil war.

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists
By Ben Farmer, Ruth Sherlock – UK Telegraph – 15 September, 2013

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists – who would include foreign fighters – fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are “palatable” to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.

Fears that the rebellion against the Assad regime is being increasingly dominated by extremists has fuelled concerns in the West over supplying weaponry that will fall into hostile hands. These fears contributed to unease in the US and elsewhere over military intervention in Syria.

Charles Lister, author of the analysis, said: “The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out.”

The study is based on intelligence estimates and interviews with activists and militants. The lengthy fighting has seen the emergence of hundreds of separate rebel bands, each operating in small pockets of the country, which are usually loyal to larger factions.

Rebels from Jabhat al-Nusra at Taftanaz air base, Idlib, in 2011 (AP)

Two factions linked to al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – also know as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) – have come to dominate among the more extremist fighters, Mr Lister said. Their influence has risen significantly in the past year.

“Because of the Islamist make up of such a large proportion of the opposition, the fear is that if the West doesn’t play its cards right, it will end up pushing these people away from the people we are backing,” he said. “If the West looks as though it is not interested in removing Assad, moderate Islamists are also likely to be pushed further towards extremists.”

Though still a minority in number, ISIL has become more prominent in rebel-held parts of Syria in recent months. Members in northern Syria have sought to assert their dominance over the local population and over the more moderate rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The aim of moderate rebel fighters is the overthrow of their country’s authoritarian dictator, but jihadist groups want to transform Syria into a hard-line Islamic state within a regional Islamic “caliphate”.

These competing visions have caused rancour which last week erupted into fighting between ISIL and two of the larger moderate rebel factions.

A statement posted online by Islamists announced the launch of an ISIL military offensive in the eastern district of Aleppo which it called “Cleansing Evil”. “We will target regime collaborators, shabiha [pro-Assad militias], and those who blatantly attacked the Islamic state,” it added, naming the Farouq and Nasr factions.

Al-Qaeda has assassinated several FSA rebel commanders in northern Latakia province in recent weeks, and locals say they fear this is part of a jihadist campaign to gain complete control of the territory.

As well as being better armed and tougher fighters, ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken control of much of the income-generating resources in the north of the country, including oil, gas and grain.

This has given them significant economic clout, allowing them to “win hearts and minds” by providing food for the local population in a way that other rebel groups cannot.

ISIS has also begun a programme of “indoctrination” of civilians in rebel-held areas, trying to educate Syria’s traditionally moderate Sunni Muslims into a more hard-line interpretation of Islam.

In early September, the group distributed black backpacks with the words “Islamic State of Iraq” stamped on them. They also now control schools in Aleppo where young boys are reportedly taught to sing jihadist anthems.

“It seems it is some sort of a long-term plan to brainwash the children and recruit potential fighters,” said Elie Wehbe, a Lebanese journalists who is conducting research into these activities. …source

Extremists in Syria admit killing 30 Alawites
16 September, 2013 – Shia Post

Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists in Syria say they are targeting members of the Alawite community in the country, adding that they massacred dozens of Alawites in three Homs villages last week.

On Sunday, terrorist group Al-Nusra Front claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s attacks in which at least 30 Alawites, including several women, children and elderly men, were shot dead in cold blood.

Al-Nusra said in an internet statement that its militants entered the villages of Massudiyeh, Maksar al-Hissan and Jab al-Jerah in Homs province and carried out the massacre.

The group said one of its jurists asked them to slay Alawites whom he called “enemies of God”.

“… this was the first time these villages were entered and such a high number was killed,” it added.

Last month, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, a commander of al-Nusra, threatened to target Alawites with rockets.

“On top of that we will prepare a thousand rockets that will be fired on their towns in revenge for the Damascus Ghouta massacre,” he said in an audio recording posted on YouTube on August 25.

Al-Nusra and other militant groups fighting against the Syrian government and people accuse Damascus of launching the August 21 chemical weapons attack which they claimed killed about 1400 people.

The government has rejected the accusation, saying it has proof that the militants were behind the attack.

On August 24, the Syrian forces found chemical agents in tunnels dug by the militants in Jobar, near Damascus. A number of soldiers suffocated as they entered the area.

Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since March 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies — especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.

According to the UN, more than 100,000 people have been killed and a total of 7.8 million of others displaced due to the violence. …source

The chemical weapons of Ghouta came from the Turkish Army
Voltaire Network – 17 September, 2013

The TV channel Al-Ikbariya broadcasted, on Sunday the 15th of September 2013, a long interview of a prisoner reporting the way that he had transported chemical weapons from a Turkish military base to Damascus.

According to this report, the Turkish army was aiming to provoke an international intervention against Syria.

This limited bombing would have been accompanied by a vast communication initiative.

This broadcast was followed by a debate between general Ali Maksoud and the political specialist, Thierry Meyssan, regarding the Turkish implication in the conflict and the Russian proposition of Syrian signing of the Convention forbidding the use of chemical weapons.
…source

Syria security official says rebels have missiles, sarin gas
17 September 17, 2013 – Agence France Presse

DAMASCUS: Syria rebels possess ground-to-ground missiles and sarin, and a UN report on chemical weapons use shows they carried out attacks near Damascus, a high-ranking Syrian security source said Tuesday.

“I categorically deny that we have used sarin gas, for the reason that we had no interest in doing so. We were winning in the battlefield,” the official said a day after a UN report on an August 21 attack was published.

“It is generally the losers who adopt such a suicidal attitude. On the contrary, the army was winning,” he told AFP.

The UN investigation team said in its report that it had “clear and convincing” evidence that sarin gas was used in an August 21 attack on rebel areas near Damascus, and that chemical weapons have been used on a “relatively large-scale” in the 30-month-old Syrian conflict.

The UN report does not say who used the weapons, though the opposition and its allies have blamed Assad’s troops.

According to the Syrian security source, “the terrorists locally manufacture ground-to-ground missiles, and it is highly likely that they used them to transport” the toxic chemical sarin.

President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has systematically referred to opponents and rebels fighting its loyalists as “terrorists”.

“Of course the rebels know how to load missiles with sarin. They have been trained by the US, French and British secret services, which are active on the ground,” said the source.

Asked why the Syrian army stocked chemical arms, he said: “At a particular time in history, there was the desire to have this kind of weapon to create a strategic balance with Israel.

“It was nothing more than a way to dissuade the Zionist enemy, which has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.”
…source

Tuesday Sep 17, 201303:48 PM GMT
Russia steps up naval presence in Mediterranean amid US threats
EmailPrint

Home
>
Iran
>
Majlis

[Increase] [Normal] [Decrease]
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey must turn in chemical arms: Iran MP
US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov address a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2013, after agreeing on a deal on Syrian chemical weapons.
US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov address a press conference in Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2013, after agreeing on a deal on Syrian chemical weapons.
Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:10AM GMT
0
67

33

Following three days of intense talks in Geneva, Switzerland, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed on the details of a plan that would identify and purge Syrian chemical weapons.”
Related Interviews:

‘Not a word said about US, Israel CWs’
Israel nuclear arsenal destabilizing

Related Viewpoints:

UN report fuels anti-Assad push at UN

An Iranian lawmaker says the Israeli regime, Saudi Arabia and Turkey must also turn over their chemical weapons, as Syria has agreed to, if a US-Russia deal on Syrian chemical arms is to be implemented.

Spokesman for Iran’s Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy Hossein Naqavi Hosseini made the remark on Monday, adding that the US demand from the Syrian government to hand over its chemical arms while also intending to take military action against the Middle Eastern country is illogical and contrary to international norms.

US President Barack Obama had said in 2012 that Washington’s “red line” on Syria would be the use of chemical weapons or their transfer to other parties.

One year later, on August 21, the militants operating inside Syria and its foreign-backed opposition claimed that the Syrian government had carried out a chemical attack on suburban Damascus, killing over a thousand people.

Damascus categorically rejected the accusation.

Nevertheless, the unsubstantiated claim prompted the US to start repositioning military assets in the Mediterranean Sea near Syria. Repeated threats were also issued by the US against the crisis-hit country, alarming the world that a new US war could be just around the corner.

However, events seemed to take a different course when Syria nodded to a Russian proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control.

Later, following three days of intense talks in Geneva, Switzerland, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed on the details of a plan that would identify and purge Syrian chemical weapons. Syria had earlier announced its readiness to join the international convention that bans chemical weapons.

Naqavi Hosseini called for a US pledge of not attacking Syria, describing such a guarantee as key to the implementation of the plan for the Syrian chemical weapons to be put under international supervision.

This plan should not be implemented unless the US guarantees that it will not engage in an attack against the people and government of Syria, Naqavi Hosseini said.

The United States will experience a worse situation than what it went through in Vietnam in case it does engage in a military offensive against Syria, he added.

Syria’s Ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Ja’afari said on September 12 that the “main danger of WMD is the Israeli nuclear arsenal.”

The Tel Aviv regime also possesses chemical weapons but “nobody is speaking about that,” the Syrian envoy added.

Ja’afari said Syria’s chemical weapons served as “a mere deterrence against the Israeli nuclear arsenal” and other WMDs, referring to a declassified CIA report on Israel’s chemical weapons program.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also said that the Syrian chemical arms were intended for deterrence purposes against Israeli nukes.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since 2011.

Syria deal needs to face down US terror
13 September, 2013 – PressTV

Russia’s diplomatic efforts to avert a potential international conflagration over Syria are to be lauded. But it would be preferable if Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and others in Moscow refrained from referring to US officials as “our American partners.”

Washington is not a “partner” or “colleague” to anyone who is serious about upholding international law and peace. Its behavior is that of an outlaw state that needs to be faced down, not pandered to.

Ironically, Washington says that the world needs to take a tough stance towards President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, otherwise other alleged tyrants will be emboldened. The truth is that the world needs to take a tough stand on Washington to curb its predatory aggression that seems to know no bounds.

Lavrov and his American counterpart John Kerry are currently holding talks in Geneva in a bid to come up with a credible formula by which the Syrian government can hand over its stockpile of chemical weapons.

The proposal that Syria submits these weapons to international control was formally announced at the start of the week by Russia’s top diplomat.

It was greeted enthusiastically by the Syrian government, which within days signed up to the international Chemical Weapons Convention banning such munitions. US President Barack Obama also made a surprise swerve from his war agenda, disclosing in a televised nation-wide address that he would explore the Russian initiative.

This development appears to provide a welcome diplomatic alternative to the drive for war that the United States has been pushing. The US threat of military action against Syria escalated dramatically since 21 August following an alleged chemical weapons attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, in which it appears that several hundred people were killed.

With US warships toting more than 200 cruise missiles mobilized in the East Mediterranean and plans to deploy long-range B-52, B-1 and B-2 fighter bombers, the world was watching the makings of a catastrophic collision, given that any such attack on Syria would inevitably draw in other antagonists, including nuclear-powered Israel and Russia, as well as Iran and America’s allies Britain, France and the Persian Gulf monarchies.

Hence, there was palpable international relief when Russia proffered the gambit for Syria to decommission its arsenal of chemical weapons.

The plan, in principle, has been endorsed by European governments, China and Iran, and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

However, the chemical solution, so to speak, is being framed in a manner that does not bode well. It is incumbent on Russia and others to ensure that the US and its allies do not abuse the initiative to create just another lever for their criminal agenda of regime change against the Syrian government.

At the opening of the Geneva meeting on Thursday between Lavrov and Kerry, the American diplomat displayed his usual arrogance by asserting in the joint press conference that “the Syrian regime” was guilty of using chemical weapons. Kerry also said that the US reserved the right to use military force if Damascus does not deliver on commitments to disarm these munitions.

This high-handed attitude from Kerry flies in the face of the facts that the perpetrators of the latest chemical weapon attack near Damascus were the Western-backed militants. Russia’s Lavrov should have abruptly struck down this American arrogance and calumny.

Disturbingly, the Russian diplomat showed too much humor and camaraderie in the face of outrageous American criminality.

The Americans and their Western allies have not presented a scintilla of credible evidence to support provocative claims that the Assad government used chemical weapons. Western claims are negated by Syrian government denials, and by official Russian reports that it was the so-called rebels who committed this and previous chemical weapons crimes, in a blatant effort to trigger the very kind of military intervention that Washington is threatening.

Several other sources refute Western assertions, such as admission by the militant groups themselves, and testimony from recently released European journalists who say their militant captives acknowledged responsibility for the attack.

The release of classified US army files also show that Washington knew that the mercenary groups were in possession of the deadly nerve agent sarin. The latter disclosure supports other evidence that the US and its allies colluded in the atrocity on 21 August, which they have audaciously blamed on the Syrian government.

On the basis of fabrication and lies, Washington dispatched an armada of warships in order to point a gun at the head of the Syrian people.

Moreover, the Obama White House threatened that it would attack Syria unilaterally regardless of the United Nations Security Council. As Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, noted, such action amounts to the crime of aggression. Even without firing a single cruise missile, the mere threats that Washington has issued and continues to issue constitute a crime of aggression.

Syrian President Assad is entirely correct therefore to insist that his country’s disarmament of chemical weapons must be on condition that the US drops its unlawful military threat immediately.

Furthermore, any proposal to remove Syrian government chemical munitions must be part of a multi-lateral process.

Some of the other urgent factors that need to be addressed include Western stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that are threatening peace and stability in the Middle East, principally those of Israel, which is why Syria has historically acquired its arsenal.

Another essential part of a multilateral process is for the US and its allies to halt immediately the supply of weapons and mercenaries into Syria. This criminal covert destabilization has been going on for more than two and half years and is the primary reason why the country is ensnared in a conflict that has resulted in 100,000 deaths and up to seven million refugees out of a population of only 22 million.

Washington’s state terrorism is central to the problem in Syria, including the use of chemical weapons by foreign-backed mercenaries. The US is in no moral or legal position to lay down demands on the Syrian government over its compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Syria’s ally Russia needs to adopt a more militant attitude towards the US and its Western co-conspirators. The US is not a colleague or partner. It is a criminal party that should feel the full force of international law.

Pretending otherwise is only pandering to Washington’s state terrorism, and instead of finding a chemical solution to the Syrian crisis, the very real danger is that we are only postponing American aggression. …source

Obama bin Sultan and Bandar ibn Israel

By Steve Weissman – 12 September, 2013 -rsn

How much did Obama’s threat of a not-so-limited U.S. military strike push Russia and Syria to accept, at least in words, the international control and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons?

How much did the threat of losing a Congressional vote on military authorization push Obama to grab onto Putin’s offer with its lack of specifics and enormous difficulties in implementation?

Americans will debate both questions well into the next presidential election. But these are only the political atmospherics surrounding a much larger strategic question. Will the redline issue of chemical weapons end up escalating the war against Bashar al-Assad? Or will the long-term Russian cooperation Obama will need to control and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons end up slowing down the brutal momentum of the Syrian civil war?

The point man behind all this global intrigue is an old Washington favorite, the Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, who is pushing the U.S. to provide the military muscle for a Sunni takeover of Syria. Now, with Vladimir Putin’s masterful diplomacy, Bandar’s mission has become a whole lot trickier.

Appointed the director general of Saudi Intelligence this past July, Bandar took responsibility for installing a compliant Sunni regime in Damascus. As the Wall Street Journal reported, his appointment convinced officials inside the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that Saudi Arabia “was serious about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

Having previously served as Saudi ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005, Bandar pulled major strings under five U.S. presidents. He worked closely with the CIA to arm the anti-Soviet Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, which ended in the creation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He played a supporting role in the Iran-Contra scandal, and loudly urged the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As Craig Unger documented in “House of Bush, House of Saud,” he also grew so personally and financially close to the Bush family that George W nicknamed him Bandar Bush.

Slipping into the shadows in 2006, Prince Bandar encouraged Vice President Dick Cheney to join Sunni leaders in a new sectarian alliance against Iran and its Shia allies in Syria and Lebanon. Sy Hersh described this “redirection” of American policy in The New Yorker, and I showed the continuity in “How Obama Fans the Flames of Islam’s Holy Wars.” Far from doing nothing, as his hawkish detractors claim, Obama began using the CIA to help the gas-rich Qataris, and increasingly Bandar and the Saudis, fly in heavy arms to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Many of these Sunni rebels – like Jabhat-al-Nusrah – have links to al-Qaeda, an inconvenient truth that John Kerry and his new neocon allies are falling all over themselves to minimize.

The effort is embarrassing. Kerry’s chief source on the subject, Elizabeth O’Bagy, worked for the neocon Institute for the Study of War and was affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which supported the supposedly moderate rebels that she, Kerry, and Senator John McCain were boosting. According to Politico, she has since been fired for falsely claiming to have completed her Ph.D.

Prince Bandar, Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the die-hard neocons are all using the highly circumstantial evidence that Assad was behind the August chemical weapons attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. They are openly fanning the flames of a larger war all the way to Tehran. “Humanitarian interventionists” like Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice and U.N. ambassador Samantha Power also seem to favor more war.

The Israelis are also backing the escalation in Syria. They had earlier hesitated because they had found Assad easy to deal with over the Golan Heights, which they continue to occupy. Their major interest remains building an alliance against Iran, and – unlike the Saudis – they would like to see the war in Syria go on without either side winning, hoping to grind down the Iranians, Hezbollah, and their Sunni antagonists. The prince has nonetheless grown close to Tel Aviv, and his Arab enemies have dubbed him “Bandar ibn Israel.”

Where, then, does Obama stand? In his Tuesday night speech, Obama sounded far more hawk than dove, playing up the very real suffering of those who underwent the gassing while hypocritically ignoring America’s own use of white phosphorus and depleted Uranium and its support of the Israelis and Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons. He appealed to the chauvinistic nonsense of “American exceptionalism,” and went out of his way to sell military intervention in Syria as part of his opposition to Iran’s nuclear program.

At the same time, he has U.S. Special Forces in Jordan training Sunni rebels to fight in Syria as part of what Bandar and the Saudis call their “southern strategy” for strengthening the opposition south and east of Damascus. The White House is also setting Putin up to be the fall guy for delaying military escalation in Syria.

The problem with all this is that it hardly encourages the kind of cooperation Obama needs to control and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, a task that will take many years. It also ignores Putin’s own experience with Prince Bandar. According to the widely respected British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Bandar met with the Russian leader at Putin’s dacha outside Moscow early in August.

“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” Bandar said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the U.S. He also pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if Assad was toppled.

Bandar made an interesting offer, with economic implications involving major Saudi arms purchases from Russia and global cooperation between OPEC and the Russians. But, reports Evans-Pritchard, Bandar also hinted at a Chechen terrorist attack on Russia’s Winter Olympics next year. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year,” he allegedly promised. “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

If Putin did not go along, Bandar implied that the Saudis might allow the Chechens to attack the Winter Olympics. With Mafia-like threats of that sort, I doubt that Putin will prove terribly cooperative if Obama continues to channel Prince Bandar al-Sultan al Saud. …source

Meet Saudi Arabia’s Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppetmaster Behind The Syrian War
by Tyler Durden – 27 August, 2013 – Zero Hedge

Yesterday the Telegraph’s Evans-Pritchard dug up a note that we had posted almost a month ago, relating to the “secret” meeting between Saudi Arabia and Russia, in which Saudi’s influential intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with Putin and regaled him with gifts, including a multi-billion arms deal and a promise that Saudi is “ready to help Moscow play a bigger role in the Middle East at a time when the United States is disengaging from the region”, if only Putin would agree to give up his alliance with Syria’s al-Assad and let Syria take over, ostensibly including control of the country’s all important natgas transit infrastructure. What was not emphasized by the Telegraph is that Putin laughed at the proposal and brushed aside the Saudi desperation by simply saying “nyet.” However, what neither the Telegraph, nor we three weeks ago, picked up on, is what happened after Putin put Syria in its place. We now know, and it’s a doozy.

Courtesy of As-Safir (translated here), we learn all the gritty details about what really happened at the meeting, instead of just the Syrian motives and the Russian conclusion, and most importantly what happened just as the meeting ended, unsuccessfully (at least to the Saudi). And by that we mean Saudi Arabia’s threats toward Russia and Syria.

First, some less well-known observations on who it was that was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even as US support was fading fast:

Bandar said that the matter is not limited to the kingdom and that some countries have overstepped the roles drawn for them, such as Qatar and Turkey. He added, “We said so directly to the Qataris and to the Turks. We rejected their unlimited support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Turks’ role today has become similar to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war. We do not favor extremist religious regimes, and we wish to establish moderate regimes in the region. It is worthwhile to pay attention to and to follow up on Egypt’s experience. We will continue to support the [Egyptian] army, and we will support Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he is keen on having good relations with us and with you. And we suggest to you to be in contact with him, to support him and to give all the conditions for the success of this experiment. We are ready to hold arms deals with you in exchange for supporting these regimes, especially Egypt.”

So while Saudi was openly supporting the Egyptian coup, which is well-known, it was Turkey and most importantly Qatar, the nation that is funding and arming the Syrian rebels, that were the supporters of the now failed regime. One wonders just how much Egypt will straing Saudi-Qatari relations, in light of their joined interests in Syria.

Second, some better-known observations by Putin on Russia’s relationship with Iran:

Regarding Iran, Putin said to Bandar that Iran is a neighbor, that Russia and Iran are bound by relations that go back centuries, and that there are common and tangled interests between them. Putin said, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”

Then, Putin’s position vis-a-vis Turkey, whom he implicitly warns that it is “not immune to Syria’s bloodbath.”

Regarding the Turkish issue, Putin spoke of his friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; “Turkey is also a neighboring country with which we have common interests. We are keen to develop our relations in various fields. During the Russian-Turkish meeting, we scrutinized the issues on which we agree and disagree. We found out that we have more converging than diverging views. I have already informed the Turks, and I will reiterate my stance before my friend Erdogan, that what is happening in Syria necessitates a different approach on their part. Turkey will not be immune to Syria’s bloodbath. The Turks ought to be more eager to find a political settlement to the Syrian crisis. We are certain that the political settlement in Syria is inevitable, and therefore they ought to reduce the extent of damage. Our disagreement with them on the Syrian issue does not undermine other understandings between us at the level of economic and investment cooperation. We have recently informed them that we are ready to cooperate with them to build two nuclear reactors. This issue will be on the agenda of the Turkish prime minister during his visit to Moscow in September.”

Of course, there is Syria:

Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.”

Alas, that has failed.

So what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis?

First this: Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Since we know all about this, it means no more talks, an implicit warning that the Chechens operating in proximity to Sochi may just become a loose cannon (with Saudi’s blessing of course), and that about a month ago “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate.” Four weeks later, we are on the edge of all out war, which may involve not only the US and Europe, but most certainly Saudi Arabia and Russia which automatically means China as well. Or, as some may call it, the world.

And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar.

P.S. Russia and Saudi Arabia account for 25% of global oil production. …more

Syrian Rebels Say Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Weapons Deliveries
By ANNE BARNARD, 12 September, 2013 – NYT

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Saudi Arabia, quietly cooperating with American and British intelligence and other Arab governments, has modestly increased deliveries of weapons to rebels fighting in southern Syria, the rebels say.

But the shipments have not been large enough to assuage rebel frustration that they are being abandoned, as the United States shifts its focus to a possible Russian-initiated deal to quarantine the Syrian government’s chemical weapons, or to ease anxieties among the Persian Gulf leaders who have been the rebels’ primary backers.

Publicly, the Saudis expressed patience, with pro-monarchy newspapers saying that the negotiations over Syrian chemical weapons would probably founder and that American military strikes would follow sooner or later. But behind the scenes, analysts say, leaders in Saudi Arabia and allies like Qatar chafed as rebel leaders fumed that their larger need — a way to shift the balance in the two-year-old civil war and end the army’s bombardment of towns and neighborhoods — was being ignored.

The greatest fear of gulf leaders, said Hassan Hassan, who analyzes the gulf role in the Syria conflict at The National, a newspaper based in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, is that talks over Syria’s chemical weapons will shift the American focus to “talking with the Iranians and the regime and Russia rather than with the gulf.”

The gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have positioned themselves as crucial players in Syria, working closely with the United States.

“Now all of a sudden the limelight has been taken away from them,” Mr. Hassan said. “They are afraid the situation can take another course.”

Since the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last month that American officials blame on the Syrian government, rebels and analysts say the Saudis have stepped up deliveries of light weapons and antitank guided missiles. The aim was initially to bolster the rebels’ ability to take advantage of any American strikes by storming damaged or undefended bases, analysts and rebels say — though the Saudis refrained from sending the antiaircraft missiles that the rebels covet most. The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the chemical attack.

Rebels in southern Syria who nominally answer to the loose-knit, Western-backed Free Syrian Army said Thursday that they had received new infusions of arms from Saudi Arabia, delivered through Jordan, and that the weapons had helped them gain ground near the border. …more

Thierry Meyssan analyses the contradictions and incoherences made by the US, British and French secret services about the so-called chemical massacre of Ghouta.

How the Western services fabricated the ’’chemical attack’’ of Ghouta
Voltaire Network, 13, September 2013, Thierry Meyssan

Introduction

Thierry Meyssan : The Western secret services are 100% sure of things that aren’t logical :

1. They think that combat gases can make the difference between men and women.

2. They observed while the concoction of combat gas was being made, but did not intervene to avoid it’s usage. On the other hand, they stepped forward to suggest punishing the ones who used it.

3. They explain that the children were killed on the 21st of August, while the video is dated from before that, and these children come from families that support the Syrian regime and Bashar el-Assad’s government.

4. They assure they possess telephone call recordings. But they are not the ones who made those telephone interceptions.

5. And, finally, the ’’red line’’ affair. According to the joint committee of the British Intelligence service, Jon Day, Syria would have supposedly used combat gas 14 times in the past. But this was never confirmed. Why 14 times before ? Because it is the number of times the US government had use of chemical weapons in Iraq, in 2003-2004. And, of course, it would only be the 15th time of use that would lead the punishment exerted by the great powers.
The Ghouta massacre
The contradictions of the Western secret services

TM : The US and French government assure that the Syrian Arab Army, the legitimate army of the Syria state, carried-out a chemical massacre in the Damascus suburbs, in the agricultural belt of Ghouta, which surrounds Damascus, on August 21st .

I I am going to show you that this affirmation is utterly fabricated and that is conforms in no way to reality. Therefore, I will first take support on official documents, published by the american government, as well as the british and French.

1- The number of victims varies from 1 to 5

TM : In the information note that was published by the american government, we can read that this attack caused the death of at least 1 429 people.

However, when we look at the French equivalent document, only 281 deaths are mentioned, that would have supposedly been counted by watching the internet videos. The same document states that a ’’non government related’’ organization – this has to be said with quotations marks -, Doctors without boarders, would have counted – for the French government – 355 deaths in the hospitals surrounding Damascus.

So, the difference of evaluation of the problem varies from 1 to 5, from source to source.

Then, the West leans solely on the videos to prove the veracity of the facts.

In conclusion, about these videos, almost no one agrees on the number of victims. From what the US document says, their are more that 100, whereas the French one only claims 47.

2- Paris and Washington have validated the videos dated from before August 21st

TM : When we look at these videos, we can notice that some of them are previous to the massacre.

Indeed, if you look on YouTube , you will see that they were posted on august 20th, which could be on the eve of the massacre, but not necessarily when you take into account the time change of 9 hours between Syria and California, where the Youtube server is. However, you can clearly see that the outside scenes are filmed during the time where the sun is at it’s highest.

So, it was filmed around noon and can’t possibly have been recorded before that date.

And yet, these are the unproven facts that the US and French government are relying on.

3- A gas that spares women

TM : In these documents is explained that most of the victims are children.

Indeed, you can see in the videos that many children are in agony. They are all about the same age. There are also adults. But all the adults are men. And generally, are at the age where they can fight.

There are no woman. Aside from two exceptions, there were no women in the officially announced victims. On the 1 429 official victims, only 2 are women.

It would be the first time that a gas would discriminate individuals according to their gender. …more

Obama, Putin in battle over purported Syria chemical weapons evidence at G-20 summit in Russia
5 September, 2013 – CBS – AP

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia The Group of 20 summit kicking off Thursday on the Russian shores of the Baltic sea will bring the two men at the forefront of the geopolitical standoff over Syria’s civil war into the same room for meetings: President Obama and his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin.

Alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria

As they arrive in St. Petersburg for two days of meetings, Mr. Obama and French President Francois Hollande are preparing for possible military strikes over what they insist was a chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s army in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.

Both presidents are effectively waiting, however, for the U.S. Congress to weigh in first, so bombs are unlikely to fall on Syrian government targets during the gathering in Russia. President Obama’s objective of backing from Congress came one step closer to reality on Wednesday with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approving the use of U.S. military force in Syria.

In the meantime, Presidents Obama and Hollande are likely to continue lobbying other world leaders at the summit to accept their alleged evidence that Assad’s regime was behind the deadly attack on the eastern Ghouta suburbs, which the White House says killed more than 1,400 people.

G-20 host President Putin, however, is a staunch ally of President Assad’s regime, and he’ll be wielding his own evidence to convince the other heads of state in St. Petersburg that the U.S. and French governments are rushing into military action without solid proof of who was behind the chemical attack.

Putin issues warning to U.S. on going it alone in Syria

On his own turf and looking strong in the face of Western hesitancy to tangle militarily with Assad and his Russian backers, Putin said this week that any one-sided action would be rash. But he said he doesn’t exclude supporting U.N. action — if it’s proven that the Syrian government used poison gas on its own people.

President Obama said Wednesday during a one-day stopover in Sweden that armed groups fighting against Assad in Syria simply do “not have the capability” to have carried out the Ghouta attack.

“These weapons are in Assad’s possession, we have intercepts of people in the regime before and after the attack acknowledging it, we can show rockets going from Assad controlled areas into rebel territory with the weapons,” asserted Mr. Obama.

But if the White House has already shown that evidence to its partners in the United Nations Security Council — including, most crucially, the veto-wielding members Russia and China — it has failed to convince the vast majority of them of its veracity.

Heading into St. Petersburg, the only nation to say it will join in a military intervention not sanctioned by the Security Council is France.

Arguing over previous “evidence”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, has reportedly handed its own 100-page report to the United Nations on a previous alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. Russia said in July that tests conducted by Russian scientists on samples from the northern town of Khan al-Assal following an alleged March 19 chemical attack showed that rebel fighters were most likely to blame.

According to information posted this week to the Foreign Ministry’s website, tests carried out by the Russian scientists on samples from Khan al-Assal showed the missile used to deliver the chemical agent was “not a regular munition of the Syrian army,” but rather a “artisan-type” device which they concluded was likely built by the rebels. The report also says the explosives used in the projectile, and the chemical agents themselves, were not typical of the materials used by militaries in such weapons.

According to the Foreign ministry website, the nerve agents found in soil samples at Khan al-Assal, which it said named as sarin and diisopropyl fluorophosphate, did not appear to have been concocted in “an industrial environment.”

The March 19 attack in Khan al-Assal was one of two alleged chemical attacks that the Obama administration first furtively confirmed — and pinned “with some degree of varying confidence” on the Assad regime.

Shortly after letters from the White House to U.S. senators leveling that initial charge against the Syrian government were made public in April, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Capitol Hill that there were two instances of chemical weapons use — the one in Khan al-Assal and another near Damascus. …more

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want
By Robert H. Scales, 5 September, 2013 – Washington Post

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.

The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.

Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.

Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.

Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.

Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.

Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”

Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

Read more at PostOpinions: Dana Milbank: The White House’s Syria secrets Anne Applebaum: Obama’s mixed messages on Syria E.J. Dionne Jr: Syria and the return of dissent David Ignatius: Syria nears a turning point Greg Sargent: Why House Dems think Syria resolution could still pass Robert J. Samuelson: Syria and the myth that Americans are ‘war weary’ …source

An act of aggression is illegal in the International Criminal Court and is defined as the use of armed force by one State against another State without the justification of self-defense or authorization by the Security Council. The definition of the act of aggression, as well as the actions qualifying as acts of aggression include for example invasion by armed forces, bombardment and blockade.

Putin presses US Congress over Syria, says Kerry lied
4 September, 2013 – Reuters

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an “act of aggression”.

He said “anything that is outside the U.N. Security Council is aggression, except self-defense. Now what Congress and the U.S. Senate are doing in essence is legitimizing aggression. This is inadmissible in principle.”

In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian conflict.

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”

Putin did not give any more details.

In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect”.

In another sign of tension, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that since August 31, the U.S. State Department had repeatedly asked for a telephone call between Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov but Kerry had been unavailable and declined to set a time for the call. …source

Root-cause environmental and energy factors sparking violence will continue to destabilise Arab world without urgent reforms

Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict
by Nafeez Ahmed – 13 May, 2013 – The Guardian

The civil war in Syria has been devastating, generating a death toll fast approaching 100,000, while uprooting millions of civilians from their homes.

But as the US and Russia signed an unprecedented accord on Wednesday in search of a political solution to an increasingly intractable conflict, its underlying causes in a fatal convergence of energy, climate and economic factors remain little understood.

The UN high commissioner for human rights has offered a conservative under-estimate of the death toll at about 70,000 people – accompanied by over 1 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and more than 2 million people internally displaced. According to another independent study, about 79% of confirmed victims of violence in Syria have been civilians.

Although opposition fighters have been implicated in tremendous atrocities, international observers universally confirm the vast bulk of the increasingly sectarian violence to be the responsibility of Bashir al-Assad’s regime.

Yet the conflict is fast taking on international dimensions, with unconfirmed allegations that rebel forces might have used chemical weapons following hot on the heels of US-backed Israeli air strikes on Syrian military targets last weekend.

But the US, Israel and other external powers are hardly honest brokers. Behind the facade of humanitarian concern, familiar interests are at stake. Three months ago, Iraq gave the greenlight for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran’s South Pars field – which it shares with Qatar – across Iraq, to Syria.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the pipelines was signed in July last year – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – but the negotiations go back further to 2010. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and Europe, would potentially solidify Iran’s position as a formidable global player.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.

The difference is that the pipeline would bypass Russia.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have received covert support from Washington in the funneling of arms to the most virulent Islamist elements of the rebel movement, while Russia and Iran have supplied arms to Assad.

Israel also has a direct interest in countering the Iran-brokered pipeline. In 2003, just a month after the commencement of the Iraq War, US and Israeli government sources told The Guardian of plans to “build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel” bypassing Syria.

The basis for the plan, known as the Haifa project, goes back to a 1975 MoU signed by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “whereby the US would guarantee Israel’s oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis.” As late as 2007, US and Israeli government officials were in discussion on costs and contingencies for the Iraq-Israel pipeline project.

Syria’s dash for gas has been spurred by its rapidly declining oil revenues, driven by the peak of its conventional oil production in 1996. Even before the war, the country’s rate of oil production had plummeted by nearly half, from a peak of just under 610,000 barrels per day (bpd) to approximately 385,000 bpd in 2010.

Since the war, production has dropped further still, once again by about half, as the rebels have taken control of key oil producing areas.

Faced with dwindling profits from oil exports and a fiscal deficit, the government was forced to slash fuel subsidies in May 2008 – which at the time consumed 15% of GDP. The price of petrol tripled overnight, fueling pressure on food prices.

The crunch came in the context of an intensifying and increasingly regular drought cycle linked to climate change. Between 2002 and 2008, the country’s total water resources dropped by half through both overuse and waste.

Once self-sufficient in wheat, Syria has become increasingly dependent on increasingly costly grain imports, which rose by 1m tonnes in 2011-12, then rose again by nearly 30% to about 4m in 2012-13. The drought ravaged Syria’s farmlands, led to several crop failures, and drove hundreds of thousands of people from predominantly Sunni rural areas into coastal cities traditionally dominated by the Alawite minority.

The exodus inflamed sectarian tensions rooted in Assad’s longstanding favouritism of his Alawite sect – many members of which are relatives and tribal allies – over the Sunni majority.

Since 2001 in particular, Syrian politics was increasingly repressive even by regional standards, while Assad’s focus on IMF-backed market reform escalated unemployment and inequality. The new economic policies undermined the rural Sunni poor while expanding the regime-linked private sector through a web of corrupt, government-backed joint ventures that empowered the Alawite military elite and a parasitic business aristocracy.

Then from 2010 to 2011, the price of wheat doubled – fueled by a combination of extreme weather events linked to climate change, oil price spikes and intensified speculation on food commodities – impacting on Syrian wheat imports. Assad’s inability to maintain subsidies due to rapidly declining oil revenues worsened the situation. …more

“Saudi press agency breaks the news of chemical weapons usage in Syria. Israeli intelligence reports they have intercepted a phone call from a Syrian government official talking about chemical weapons. Now, all we need, is official reporting from the new Al Jazeera American (AJAM) here in the USA to confirm and verify the high confidence “facts”… And if only the new[Saudi funded] $100 million UN counterterrorism center to be built within the US were ready to confirm everything…” – Dr. Colin Cavell

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
3 September, 2013 – By Gareth Porter – Truthout

In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)

Secretary of State John Kerry assured the public that the Obama administration’s summary of the intelligence on which it is basing the case for military action to punish the Assad regime for an alleged use of chemical weapons was put together with an acute awareness of the fiasco of the 2002 Iraq WMD intelligence estimate.

Nevertheless, the unclassified summary of the intelligence assessment made public August 30, 2013, utilizes misleading language evocative of the infamous Iraq estimate’s deceptive phrasing. The summary cites signals, geospatial and human source intelligence that purportedly show that the Syrian government prepared, carried out and “confirmed” a chemical weapons attack on August 21. And it claims visual evidence “consistent with” a nerve gas attack.

But a careful examination of those claims reveals a series of convolutedly worded characterizations of the intelligence that don’t really mean what they appear to say at first glance.

The document displays multiple indications that the integrity of the assessment process was seriously compromised by using language that distorted the intelligence in ways that would justify an attack on Syria.

Spinning the Secret Intelligence

That pattern was particularly clear in the case of the intelligence gathered by covert means. The summary claims, “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”

That seems to indicate that U.S. intelligence intercepted such communiations. But former British Ambassador Craig Murray has pointed out on his blog August 31 that the Mount Troodos listening post in Cyprus is used by British and U.S. intelligence to monitor “all radio, satellite and microwave traffic across the Middle East … ” and that “almost all landline telephone communications in this region is routed through microwave links at some stage [and] picked up on Troodos.”

All intelligence picked by the Troodos listening post is shared between the U.S. and British intelligence, Murray wrote, but no commmunictions such as the ones described in the U.S. intelligence summary were shared with the British Joint Intelligence Organisation. Murray said a personal contact in U.S. intelligence had told him the reason was that the purported intercept came from the Israelis. The Israeli origin of the intelligence was reported in the U.S. press as well, because an Israeli source apparently leaked it to a German magazine.

The clumsy attempt to pass off intelligence claimed dubiously by the Israelis as a U.S. intercept raises a major question about the integrity of the entire document. The Israelis have an interest in promoting a U.S. attack on Syria, and the authenticity of the alleged intercept cannot be assumed. Murray believes that it is fraudulent. …more

The Syrian Conflict: The Lies of our Government and Corporate Media
By Richard Nogueira – Global Research – 31 August, 2013

The U.S.-Iraq War as precedent: The U.S.-Iraq War was an illegal invasion based on lies that killed over a million innocent Iraqi people.

The real purpose was to control Iraqi natural resources (both oil resources and strategic regional geography), for globalist exploitation – so that corporations like JPMorgan Chase, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell Oil Company, etc., etc., could enrich themselves to even greater heights.

This reality is both an egregiously immoral and unethical event as well as a violent horror that has destroyed millions of lives and left a country, Iraq, in shambles and at even greater mercy to the evil globalist forces that do not care about humanity, but base all their values on profit over people.

It is good to remember a little of the actual history here as well, since lack of this type of knowledge is part what makes the public at large so susceptible to government and corporate media lies, shaping what is politically viable by the establishment of disinformation.

Firstly, we need to remember that in general most of the Middle East as most of the rest of the developing world during the 20th century was under European and American colonization – essentially brutal standards that denied indigenous people their basic rights.

Part of that story is how Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. The CIA had hired him when he was in his early twenties to assassinate Qasim, a reformist leader that led a rebellion against the British puppet monarchy that was used to oppress the Iraqi people.

Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt failed and he was whisked to safely by back-up CIA forces to hide in Egypt for two years, until continued efforts to kill Qasim were finally successful.

Once returned to Iraq, Saddam Hussein was set-up, again by the CIA, as head of Iraqi Intelligence. During this time the CIA taught him everything he was to learn to become a brutal murderous dictator. During that time, under his command (under the tutelage of the CIA), Iraqi society was purged of many different types of Iraqi citizens (constitutionalists, socialists, communists, democrats, etc.), that wanted to create a fairer society that allowed for more democratic participation.

“Purged” is of course a euphemism for murdered. It is difficult to know exactly how many, but at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people Iraqis were “purged”.

Over time The CIA found other uses for Saddam Hussien. One recently confirmed project was to supply him with chemical weapons of mass destruct (Sarin Gas) to be used against our “enemies” – the Iranians.

Ironically The Iranians were unhappy with the U.S. because America had previously done the same thing to Iran (Operation Ajax) – deposing a democratically elected moderate reformist (Mohammad Mosaddegh) with the reinstated Shah of Iran. The Shah then went on to torture and kill his own citizens to make sure his country was open to globalist exploitation – for sure, he was personally well compensated.

In 1980 there was a revolution in Iran, a hostage taking at the American Embassy – the Iranians were ready to kill Americans because they felt just in wanting a society free of American colonial rule.

So, Iranian Revolution against U.S. oppression, Saddam Hussein was employed with the task of gassing the Iranian Army, and the U.S. was more than just passingly complicit. (Saddam also had the idea to gas Iraqi Kurds who were independently fighting his dictatorial rule on his domestic front.)

The problem was that even Saddam Hussein became tired of U.S. oppression. The war he had been instigated to press against Iran left Iraq bankrupt and he started to flex his military muscles to express that Iraq wanted to be free from the oppression of U.S. Empire.

Big mistake on his part. Once you join this criminal gang of globalists and do a lot of their dirty work you are not allowed to then just walk away from them. The result of his rebellion was that he went from being a “public darling” of the U.S. (doing all the globalists dirtiest work of political purging) to suddenly being a “terrorist” – he became a threat to corporate profit centers.

Back to center stage today; Iraq’s neighbor, Syria and its President Bashar Assad:

While Assad may not be someone you and I might vote for, the U.S. has no business, no right, deposing him just because he does not play ball with our murderous globalists.

Plus, as independent forces in the Middle East, Syria is understandably now aligned with Iran, which continues to be the perverse target of U.S. aggressions. As Prof. Chossudovsky has said, “the road to Teheran goes through Damascus.”

The current insurgents that make up the Syrian opposition are 95% non-Syrian, in fact many al Qaeda groups are present and fighting Assad. (The al Qaeda were themselves originally organized and funded by the CIA. They were Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan were brought together, fanaticized, militarized even further, and trained to be the terrorists we are supposed to be at war with today.

On Thursday evening, 29 August 2013, President Obama, addressed the latest conflict-flares in Syria, paving the road to military attacks on Syria, again based on lies and disinformation, but also, inadvertently, admitting to the total illogic of America’s desire for war with Syria to depose President Bashar Assad. …more

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria
Max Blumenthal – 1 September, 2013 Mondoweiss

President Barack Obama’s August 31 announcement that he would seek congressional authorization to strike Syria has complicated an aggressive Israeli campaign to render a US attack inevitable. While the Israelis are far from the only force in bringing the US to the brink of war – obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor – their dubious intelligence assessments have proven pivotal.

On April 25, the head of the Israeli army’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, delivered a high profile lecture at the military-linked Institute for National Security Studies. “To the best of our professional understanding, the [Syrian] regime has used lethal chemical weapons,” Brun declared, referring to March 19 attacks near Damascus and Aleppo.

“The very fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction,” Brun said, “is a very worrying development, because it might signal that this is legitimate.”

The stunning statement by the Israeli army’s top intelligence analyst was significantly stronger than suspicions expressed days before by the UK and France about the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. It was clearly aimed at Obama, who had declared in the summer of 2012 that chemical weapons attacks on civilian targets would transgress a “red line” and trigger US military action. But the White House pushed back against the Israeli ploy, dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry to demand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supply more conclusive evidence.

“I don’t know yet what the facts are,” Kerry said after a phone call with Netanyahu, “I don’t think anybody knows what they are.”

Specious intelligence brightens the red line

Flash forward to the August 21 Ghouta massacre, where over 1000 Syrian civilians died without any sign of external wounds in a series of attacks. As in April, Israel has come forward with intelligence supposedly proving that the victims of the attacks died from nerve gas deployed by units from Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

On August 24, Israel’s Channel 2 broadcast a report claiming that the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of Assad’s SAA fired the nerve gas shells on Ghouta. Channel 2 added that Israel was relaying its concerns to Washington, suggesting an urgent demand for US action. The report was echoed by an August 30 article in Germany’s Focus magazine claiming that Israeli army’s Unit 8200 — a cyber-warfare division that functions much like the American NSA — had intercepted communications of top Syrian officials ordering the chemical attack.

Oddly, neither outlet was able to reproduce audio or any quotes of the conversation between the Syrian officials. Channel 2 did not appear to cite any source at all – it referred only to “the assessment in Israel” – while Focus relied on an unnamed former Mossad official for its supposed bombshell. The definitive nature of the Israeli intelligence on Ghouta stood in stark contrast to the kind introduced by other US allies, which was entirely circumstantial in nature. At the same time, it relied on murky sources and consisted of vague assertions.

The Assad regime may indeed be responsible for the Ghouta massacre, but Israel’s military-intelligence apparatus does not exactly have a reputation for trustworthiness. (Consider, for example, the Israeli army’s shameless attempt to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to Al Qaeda by plastering Israeli media with crude and easily discredited propaganda, always sourced to anonymous national security officials.) Yet in his determination to see the US attack the country he recently referred to as “Iran’s testing ground,” Netanyahu appeared to be succeeding in his campaign to bring Obama’s red line back into focus.

The rush to war, interrupted

On August 26, an Israeli delegation containing Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror and a collection of Shin Bet and top army officials arrived in Washington for a series of meetings coordinated by US National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The agenda was to plan for the aftermath of a US strike on Syria that was already inevitable, at least from the perspective of the meeting’s participants.

The following day, Vice President Joseph Biden became the highest level US official to blame Assad for Ghouta, declaring, “There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime.” The Obama administration supported Biden’s claim by citing classified communications intercepted from Syrian officials – intelligence that appeared to have been supplied by the Israelis.

Giora Inbar, a former Israeli intelligence officer, told Channel 2 that the US was not only “aware of” Israel’s intelligence gathering efforts in Syria, it “relies upon it.”

With Kerry and Rice joining Biden in the spotlight to make the case for bombing Syria, the White House released an intelligence report “assess[ing] with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.”

The content of the report was extremely general in nature, containing a caveat that some intelligence had been omitted “to protect sources and methods.” One of the report’s strongest passages referred to “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.” Though no source was named, the language tracks almost exactly with the Israeli intelligence leaked to Channel 2 and Focus magazine.

It was August 30 when the report appeared. By this point, the question was not whether the US would bomb Syria, but how soon.

And then Obama blinked.

Iran blackmail, the coming campaign

Now that Obama has turned to Congress to authorize force against Syria, he is under relentless attack in Israel, with a chorus of pundits and politicians hammering him for his act of betrayal and cowardice in the face of evil. Amidst the din of condemnation, a talking point has emerged that will likely figure at the heart of Israel’s case to Congress and the American public this week.

The message was neatly summarized in the headline of a piece by the Likud-friendly correspondent Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post: “Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran.” Referring to Obama’s decision and the British’ parliament’s vote against participating in a strike on Syria, Keinon wrote, “That kind of international dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran.”

At Haaretz, Amos Harel reinforced the talking point in a piece of analysis that claimed “Arabs perceive Obama as weak” – but which cited absolutely zero Arabs. Running through a litany of examples of supposed American weakness, Harel concluded, “it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”

The threat of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran if the US does not act on Syria is slowly seeping into American media, and will almost certainly grow more pronounced this week as pro-Israel pundits and members of the Obama administration unite on their message. AIPAC may also join the push for congressional authorization, a move the night flower-style lobby managed to avoid during the run-up to invading Iraq. If the Israel lobby is forced into the open, it could hold the prospect of an attack on Iran like a gun to the heads of members of Congress, warning them that the price of inaction is a regional conflagration.

Though Congress will be under unrelenting pressure from powerful forces to authorize force, the vote provides an unprecedented opportunity for opponents of US military intervention in the Middle East to mobilize. Anti-war forces may not be able to match the financial muscle or public relations power of pro-war elements, but they have opinion firmly on their side. And a direct conflict with the American public may be the one fight Netanyahu does not want to pick. …source

Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists
6 June 2013 – Turkish Weekly

Russia has called on Turkey to share its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of nerve gas sarin.

Russia’s top foreign official Sergei Lavrov tolday said the Kremlin wanted to get clear on the issue of chemical weapons used in Syria, since the allegation had taken on the role of a trading card in the conflict, becoming a focus of constant provocations.

“I do not rule out that some force may want to use it [the rumour] to say that the “red line” has been crossed and a foreign intervention is needed,” the minister said.

“We are still waiting on a comprehensive report from our Turkish colleagues,” he added, citing the incident when a gang of terrorists carrying a canister with nerve gas sarin was arrested inside the Turkish territory about two weeks ago.

Moscow calls to pick side in Syria conflict

Russia’s chief of foreign affairs has urged the international community to finally take its pick and decide whether it is going to side with forces set to topple the Syrian regime or with the ones calling for a nationwide dialogue on Syrian peace.

Speaking at a press conference, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “We want that… the international community took off the blinders that make its focus on its immediate urge to overthrow one leader, then unseat another one, while turning a blind eye on the outcome of these actions.”

“Whatever has been happening during this ‘Arab Spring,’ it is clear now that these events are closely connected, so it is important to choose who you are siding with… with those who want to cut the knot without looking back at the suffering nation – or with those who want to solve this problem though dialogue,” Mr. Lavrov said.

Russia urges prompt inquiry into chemical arms use in Syria – Lavrov
All of the possible instances of chemical weapons use in Syria should be established as soon as possible, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

“I would like to support Guido [German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle] regarding the need to urgently establish all of the facts linked to reports about the possible use of chemical weapons by the sides,” Lavrov said at a press conference in the Kaliningrad region on Thursday.

A serious mistake was made when the Syrian government’s request to investigate the possible use of chemical toxic substances in the city of Aleppo on March 19 was left without any response, but unlimited and unhindered access to any facility on Syrian territory was demanded instead, the Russian minister said.

All opposition groups in Syria should be able to be involved in reaching compromise – Lavrov

Russia insists that all structures related to the settlement of the situation in Syria should take part in the international conference on Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

“All structures should be present at that conference. That applies not only to the national coalition, which has so far failed to take a constructive stance in the conference. That also applies to those opposition structures that do not want to be present at the Geneva conference if it is called under the ‘umbrella’ of the national coalition,” Lavrov told a press conference on Thursday.

Among the organization that want to take an independent part in the conference are the National Coordination Committee and the Syrian Kurds, he said.

“We believe all opposition structures in Syria should be given an opportunity to communicate their viewpoint and participate in the achievement of a compromise, which will ensure peace, stability, ad equal rights for all ethnic and religious groups in the country,” Lavrov said.

Russia vows to bring Iran to Syria parley amid Western criticism

Russia is set to push for Iranian presence at the planned Syria conference, dubbed Geneva II, in Switzerland, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.

Mr. Lavrov stressed Moscow was intent on bringing all countries who can influence the parley to the negotiating table. And one of those world powers is Tehran, he pointed out.

The West has met this motion with a great deal of resentment. “At the current stage our partners have been quite outspoken and critical about Iran’s participation,” Sergei Lavrov said at a briefing today. “We think they are mistaken,” he added.

The Russian foreign minister vowed that Russia “will keep pressing for including all influential parties in the conference.” …source