Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Istakhr]

That's cause Obama isn't fucking stupid.

The worst thing you can do for a revolution in Iran is say "The US supports it".

Well, he could give them major support without declaring it if he wanted to. (satellite internet, sanction exemptions or US subsidized for communication software and hardware for communication and media)

But on the one hand green movement was a reformist movement with no regime change agenda on the part of its leaders which would leave the nuclear issue almost unresolved even victorious.

On the other hand he probably mistakenly thought that a threatened and divided islamic republic would be more amenable to American rapprochement.

[NoneofYourBiz]

Nicely done, but the small font is a bit of a PITA.

But, why would you apologize for Beck if none of the Lefties will apologize for Rachel Madcow?

Now, support for Obama going all O'bomber on Syria is about 9% in the US according to one poll, International support has dried up and it looks like the only people that still favor this are in the White House, and their most fervent worshipers here and there. And the Syrians have dispersed their assets already.

But what odds would you give that Barak Hussien decides to us the US military to give air-cover to Al Queda in Syria anyway?

Ha the small font IS a PITA. Sorry about that.

I haven't really ever listened to Beck so I wouldn't know what to apologize for in the first place. However, your point on Rachel Maddow is spot on, and you could throw Chris Matthews onto that pile too. I have had the misfortune of listening to both of them.

I would put Obama at highly likely to provide air-cover for Al-Qaeda. As you pointed out, Assad will have dispersed any assets anyway so I'm not sure what Obama intends for his "strike over the bow" to achieve, other than possibly some loud guffaws from Putin.

[Shryke]

Well, he could give them major support without declaring it if he wanted to. (satellite internet, sanction exemptions or US subsidized for communication software and hardware for communication and media)

But on the one hand green movement was a reformist movement with no regime change agenda on the part of its leaders which would leave the nuclear issue almost unresolved even victorious.

On the other hand he probably mistakenly thought that a threatened and divided islamic republic would be more amenable to American rapprochement.

I imagine he mostly realised that US interference in Iranian affairs like this had no upsides at all. That's the conclusion everyone with half a brain watching it unfold came to.

Like, everyone at the time was calling it a smart move on his part and they weren't wrong.

[Shryke]

Nicely done, but the small font is a bit of a PITA.

But, why would you apologize for Beck if none of the Lefties will apologize for Rachel Madcow?

Why would anyone apologize for a competant journalist like Maddow and what would that have to do with a scam artist playing a madman like Beck?

[Every]

For anyone who's still a bit confused about the current state of the Russian S-300s for Syria: http://en.ria.ru/world/20130831/183075695/Russia-Delays-Arms-Supplies-to-Syria-over-Money--Paper.html

[Istakhr]

I imagine he mostly realised that US interference in Iranian affairs like this had no upsides at all. That's the conclusion everyone with half a brain watching it unfold came to.

Like, everyone at the time was calling it a smart move on his part and they weren't wrong.

Don't get me wrong, declaring support by US for somebody in Iran is always stupid. But supporting somebody without making grand speeches about the support is not really a problem. In iran anyone who is not with the regime is declared as being supported by the US irrespective of the reality of the charge, real US support without grandstanding make no difference, only a US open declaration of support can make it worse.

[Horza]

For anyone who's still a bit confused about the current state of the Russian S-300s for Syria: http://en.ria.ru/wor...ney--Paper.html

Interesting, earlier reports said they were at least trying to pay for them.

[Shryke]

See... what puzzles me about the situation in Syria right now is motives. What motive could Assad's regime POSSIBLY have for using chemical weapons, when he knows full well that the US, France, and Brittain are all breathing down his neck? This question has been asked again and again here. I think most everyone who looks at this is skeptical at best- it just seems too much like a wild chance for an intelligent government to take. They already have a rebellion on their hands- why would they not only piss off their own people more by attacking innocents directly but also piss off the rest of the world by using chemical weapons?

Not to say that that is right- I personally think we have no business whatsoever getting involved in any capacity in Syria. If we do a "limited" drone strike, it will lead to another "limited" drone strike, then oops! We just killed the Syrian leader and oh, the rebels we seem to love so much suddenly won the civil war. Its miraculous! (heavy sarcasm intended)

But still the nagging question remains- why would a man as smart as Assad use a chemical weapon knowing that we would then attack? I don't buy it. To be honest? If I was the rebel leader, losing ground every day, and things looked really bad, I would WANT to do something terrible and blame the regime I am fighting, to get some help. This is the danger the president would put us in if he attacks- either the Assad regime still wins the civil war, in which case we are really screwed (because his regime would have every right to attack us based on just retaliation and fear for their own safety) or the rebels win and, it turns out, we helped a group which framed its old government for using chemical weapons.

I think you are going to hurt yourself trying to find some sort of obvious rational reason for the CW attack. We don't know enough about what the Syrian government is doing/thinking/etc and you can't even assume an obvious what-you-would-call-rational explanation exists.

That said, this is a good summation of what the US has:

In his statement Kerry gave the most detailed assessment yet of what happened on 21 August. He said Assad's forces had the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East and had used them several times this year. The regime wanted to clear problematic Damascus suburbs of opposition forces and had grown "frustrated", he said.

"We know that three days before the attack the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations," Kerry said.

He claimed Syrian forces took precautions such as putting on gas masks before the attacks.

"We know that these were specific instructions. We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time; we know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighbourhoods." Thirty minutes later "all hell broke loose" on social media, Kerry said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/john-kerry-syria-attack-clear-evidence

More here:

The four-page intelligence assessment did not include raw data, such as transcripts of intercepted communications, which U.S. officials said must stay classified to protect sources and methods.

The document rejects allegations - made by the Syrian government and its ally Russia, among others - that anti-Assad rebels staged the attack. The rebels have neither the type of rockets and artillery used in the attack, nor the capability to fabricate videos seen on social media or symptoms verified by medical personnel, it said.

The intercepted communications showed the involvement of high-level Syrian government officials, U.S. officials said.

"We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were being used by the regime on August 21st and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence," a senior administration official said.

The officials also pointed to intelligence showing that, in the run-up to the attack, personnel from the Syrian government agency that conducts non-conventional weapons development and the Defense Ministry chain of command were involved in preparations. At some point, intelligence information also indicated that the Syrian chain of command ordered chemical weapons attacks to stop, they said.

Those events "implicate different individuals who have a connection to the Syrian regime and, specifically, its chemical weapons program," said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"It wasn't just the preparations that we detected in those three days in advance of Wednesday - it was also the people that were involved. They were the people that are responsible for his program. There is a chain of command from Assad to them," an official added.

U.S. security sources said one Syrian official whose activities were under examination was Maher Assad, younger brother of the president and commander of Syria's Republican Guard and an elite armored division. What role, if any, he played in the attack is still unclear, they said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130830

The report said the rockets that carried chemical weapons in the attack last week were launched from Syrian government-controlled areas and landed in neighborhoods that are contested or controlled by rebels.

The report said that intercepted communications indicated that Syrian government personnel were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking other precautions normally associated with chemical weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130830

Which seems at the very least fairly good evidence that the government, at some level, was responsible. Why seems unclear, although the US offers reasoning above.

We need to STAY OUT OF THIS CONFLICT. We have no business in Syria. I know that some chemical weapons attack clearly happened... but honestly? I dont care. that sounds horrible. But the way I see it any military action on our part could easily lead to a world war- we attack, the Syrians strike back, the Israeli's get involved, and then We go help them, and pull brittain and france in, and russia, china, japan, korea... I can see this situation balooning out of control very, very quickly. If our option is take that risk, or dont take action? I say don;t take action.

Even if tomorrow we got absolute evidence that Assad ordered this attack, I would still say this. I dont think we need to get involved any more than we are already in the already fragile middle east, not when both Egypt and Syria are currently in turmoil, the Iranians are waiting for an excuse to strike at Israel, and all of them hate us. That's the other puzzling thing here- I honestly dont see what Obama thinks he will gain by striking at Syria. Credibility? No, he'll look like an idiot- I am almost certain that an attack on syria will have far-reaching consequences for us. A rebel victory? At the risk of igniting the entire region into a war? That doesn't seem intelligent.

I don't know. But this whole situation makes me very, very nervous, because I see nothing good at all whatsoever coming out of a US strike on Syrian soil.

The changes of this turning into any sort of WW-like situation are basically non-existant. It's just not gonna happen. The US isn't even interested in putting boots on the ground here. There won't be many far reaching consequences here of the sort you are implying.

As to what Obama will gain by this? What has already been said a million times: stopping the use of chemical weapons.

[Shryke]

Don't get me wrong, declaring support by US for somebody in Iran is always stupid. But supporting somebody without making grand speeches about the support is not really a problem. In iran anyone who is not with the regime is declared as being supported by the US irrespective of the reality of the charge, real US support without grandstanding make no difference, only a US open declaration of support can make it worse.

Real US support makes all the difference.

There's a difference between everyone accusing you of being a US puppet (that makes it a tuesday in Iran) and the US actually confirming it.

And there's no way for the US to offer a nebulous movement any aid without it being really fucking obvious, so there's no "without grandstanding" option here.

[Phaing]

Obama is going to provide air cover for AQ now?

Who do you think is running half the Rebel gangs in Syria now?

[Istakhr]

Real US support makes all the difference.

There's a difference between everyone accusing you of being a US puppet (that makes it a tuesday in Iran) and the US actually confirming it.

And there's no way for the US to offer a nebulous movement any aid without it being really fucking obvious, so there's no "without grandstanding" option here.

That's why I gave those examples, they were not outright and clearly supporting the green movement, and islamic republic usually doesn't like whining about its censorship and propaganda system being undermined in its own media, so they basically couldn't do anything about any of my examples other than becoming more intransigent towards the US.

[Every]

So here's the US government's assessment, I haven't got time to read the whole thing right now: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

[Werthead]

I suspect that if it really a decision made by subordinates, Assad has since taken steps to prevent that from happening again.

If he is able to. Assad losing control of his own side, particularly the military, even if it wins has to be a concern in all of this as well.

As I said enmity towards the US is one of principals of the Islamic republic's ideology.

That may be true now, but in the past? If so, then Iran would not have offered that olive branch - however limited and tentative - in the aftermath of 9/11.

If we don't do anything about Syria, what's going to happen?

Syria will feel free to use the weapons again.

Is Iran going to test their first nuke next week now secure in the knowledge that we won't do anything about it?

If they had a nuke, that is entirely possible. However, whether the west would do anything about it is irrelevant, as Israel certainly would. Iran would not publicly confirm or announce the existence of a nuclear weapon until they are also in a position to make it clear they will retaliate against Israel with them if attacked, so they'd need to be able to make at least several of them. That capabilitity does not seem to be there yet and, due to the sanctions, may not be for years.

The same way Iran has been threatened with military consequences for their nuclear program. That have been taken seriously.

I don't think this is the case. What Iran has taken seriously is the absolutely punishingy sanctions that have wrecked the country's economy: making nuclear weapons is expensive and it is entirely possible that crippling the Iranian economy has extended the time taken to develop these weapons by quite a few years. Iran may be forced to the point several more years down the line where it has to cave in or face total economic ruin. These kind of sanctions towards Syria would be useless with regards to the current crisis, however, as they take quite a few years to have a serious impact (and not to mention that Russia would not endorse them).

The threat of military action seems to have been less effective: all it means is that Iran has dispersed the components of its nuclear programme amongst numerous different sites that would be difficult to hit in one go, several of them buried extremely far underground. In that sense, the Iranians have accepted the risk of military action and taken measures to defend against it. They can't defend against the sanctions regime.

But it was still a blown credibility issue, right?

Any military action against North Korea would almost certainly trigger a massive artillery bombardment of Seoul, potentially with thousands or tens of thousands of deaths. North Korea has - mostly - respected the ceasefire for 60 years and been internally stable (in its own crazy way) for that time and is kept under restraint - again mostly - by China, a much more rational actor. In this situation the risks taken in trying to destroy North Korea's nuclear capability would outweight the potential benefits. Nuclear weapons are also not helpful to North Korea in pursuing an invasion of the south: irradiating territory you want to take over is counter-productive.

On that basis, whilst no-one is happy about North Korea having nuclear weapons and arguments for military action could be made if the regime became more unstable and looked like it was going to break free of Chinese restraint (as they indeed looked for a few weeks earlier this year), the overall situation does not support military action due to the risks to our ally in the region.

Back then, fighting against communism anywhere was perceived by some to be in our national interest. That is not the same as the main humanitarian argument being advanced in support of Syrian intervention.

There's some very careful wording being chosen there. The humanitarian argument may not be in the USA's direct political interests, but preventing the spread or repeated use of chemical weapons in a country where anti-American forces are operating is not?

Though it appears now that they're not actually going to do anything whatsoever about the chemical weapons, they're just going to bomb some random Syrian military shit and go home, which I agree does seem somewhat pointless.

But I also concede I'm still confused a bit by why Assad would even do this if it were the surest way to get US involvement.

It appears that the Syrian military wanted to achieve a (relatively) easy breakthrough in one of the districts of Damascus under rebel control. The important thing in a conflict like this is momentum and though the Syrian government has successfully stalled the rebels and achieved some victories in recent months, they looked like they were running out of steam (as said above, the government is fighting back much harder than expected but it is a very long way from winning the conflict). Pushing the rebels out of the capital altogether would be a major victory for the government.

So what's Assad going to do with the US alleged toothlessness now? Invade Lebanon? Claim the moon for Syria?

Use chemical weapons again. This is not exactly rocket sci...actually it is, kind of.

Option A might have had a fair chance of killing off the bulk of the rebel movement, maybe enough to put the regime back in full control.

Option B prolongs an already existing stalemate.

But this route gains them NOTHING.

It could be a compromise: someone says let's use everything, others say no because the Americans will attack, and they agree to a test run, perhaps thinking that either it won't be used amongst everything else, or it will and they can see the response. The situation in Kosovo, where Serbia was bombed for weeks and weeks on end whilst being able to continue its operations before it finally gave in, is probably being regarded as the worst-case scenario in Syria but from the sound of it nothing like this - the systematic dismantling of Syrian military and government forces and resources - is being contemplated. If the attack is hard and heavy, the use of chemical weapons in future may be discouraged.

why would a man as smart as Assad use a chemical weapon knowing that we would then attack?

Going by the response, because he knew there was very lukewarm support for such a move in the USA and other countries. He may have miscalculated about Obama's personal resolve, but he was correct in that there would only be limited support amongst the American people and even Congress.

It is entirely possible that Assad wants to take the focus off Syria alone by triggering a much wider regional conflict, bringing in Lebanon, Israel, possibly Iran, Jordan and Turkey and so on.

[Clueless Northman]

According to some reports, the AQ part of the rebels is already moving HQ and stuff, because they fear they will also be targetted by US strike - weakening both Assad and AQ being the only way the more moderate rebels would ever take power.

On a cynical level, there's one point that has barely been mentioned, but which would clearly explain why public opinion outside Syria is mostly against an intervention. Sure, chemicals were used, but that's inside the country, internally, in a civil war, and not against a foreign army of foreign civilians. Originally, treaties like Geneva conventions were mostly considered treaties between countries, not to use dirty tricks against another of the club. Therefore, Nazi Germany didn't use them against the Allies. The very few cases of use of chemical weapons in the last 50 years have been in internal conflicts, not in international ones - so now, even after this Syrian atrocity, the ban on chemicals being used against another country still stands.

That's pretty weak, but I can't help feeling that for many people - including political and military leaders -, internal mess isn't seen as as important a breach - I mean, there had been many cases of internal mass murders that were known and went unopposed, at least until the late 90s, while a war of aggression coupled with mass murders in the attacked country would've caused major outrage.

[Lummel]

I don't recall invention in the iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used...but then it was our proxy using them which makes all the difference I suppose.

[Istakhr]

That may be true now, but in the past? If so, then Iran would not have offered that olive branch - however limited and tentative - in the aftermath of 9/11.

You are not getting it. Not every Iranian government official believed or believes in keeping the ideological foundations of the islamic republic intact, and even being an ideologue doesn't mean being against helping the US against Taliban or talking to the US. Remember Taliban was also an enemy of Iran.

Reformists were mostly insiders who became disillusioned and tried to change the system from the inside.

As for the hardliners, Khomeini's ideology doesn't bar an ideologue from tactical short term expediency, see:

Khomeini boasting about lying to western journalists before the revolution, telling them he wants a liberal democracy and is going to go back to teach in Qom after deposing Shah.

Khomeini willfully ignoring the arms deals with israel as long as they were going on and then executing the low level diplomats who were part of setting it up.

The existence of the so called "Expediency Council" which can literally suspend any part of the islamic law and sharia for a limited period of time if it is necessary for the continuation of the islamic republic.

[Commodore]

Nigel Farage spot on as usual

[All-for-Joffrey]

I don't recall invention in the iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used...but then it was our proxy using them which makes all the difference I suppose.

Our proxy using them with the benefit of full knowledge of where to use them via US intelligence. So no, doesn't really make a difference.

[Maltaran]

The only person here who supports Farage is a foreigner. How ironic,

[NoneofYourBiz]

That's cause Obama isn't fucking stupid.

The worst thing you can do for a revolution in Iran is say "The US supports it".

How does this jibe with the protestors chanting "Obama, are you with them or us?".