Fri. 19 Aug. 2011SPOKESMAN REVIEW

Syria, U.S. not that different ……..………………………….1ORIENTAL REVIEW

Syria: the Cost of Crisis ……………………………………..3REUTERS

Markets prepared to handle Syrian oil loss …………….……5INDEPENDENT

Robert Fisk: It's his fast-disappearing billions that will worry Assad, not words from Washington………………………....6

FINANCIAL TIMES US and EU call for Assad to resign ……………………….…8

GUARDIAN Can western sanctions touch Bashar al-Assad? ....................11 Syria: Assad at bay ………………………………………....14 Why the WikiLeaks cable about Syrian regime is spot on ...16

NYTIMES Truth About Syria ……………………….…………………17

LATIMES Getting tough with Syria …………...………………………19

WASHINGTON POST U.S. and allies turn up heat on Bashar al-Assad …………...20 An uncertain Arab transition …………………………….…22

HINDUSTAN TIMES Clinton speaks to Krishna and other world leaders on Syria …..24

WALL st. JOURNAL Assad and the Palestinians …………………………...…….27

YEDIOTH AHRONOTH Syria Bloodbath: A festival of hypocrisy ………….……….28

GLOBAL RESEARCH A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? ..........................................30

1

HOME PAGESyria, U.S. not that different Amy Goodman Spokesman Review (125-year-old daily newspaper in Spokane, Wash),19 Aug. 2011,

What does the police killing of a homeless man in San Francisco have to do with the Arab Spring uprisings from Tunisia to Syria? The attempt to suppress the protests that followed.

In our digitally networked world, the ability to communicate is increasingly viewed as a basic right. Open communication fuels revolutions – it can take down dictators. When governments fear the power of their people, they repress, intimidate and try to silence them, whether in Tahrir Square or downtown San Francisco.

Charles Blair Hill was shot and killed on the Bay Area Rapid Transit system’s Civic Center platform on July 3, by BART police Officer James Crowell. BART police reportedly responded to calls about a man drinking on the underground subway platform. According to police, Hill threw a vodka bottle at the two officers and then threatened them with a knife, at which point Crowell shot him. Hill was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Hill’s killing sparked immediate and vigorous protests against the BART police, similar to those that followed the BART police killing of Oscar Grant on New Year’s Day 2009. Grant was handcuffed, facedown on a subway platform, and restrained by one officer when another officer shot and killed him with a point-blank shot to the back. The execution was caught on at least two cellphone videos. The shooter, BART Officer Johannes Mehserle, served just over seven months in jail for the killing.

On July 11, major protests shut down the Civic Center BART station. As another planned protest neared on Aug. 11, BART officials took a measure unprecedented in U.S. history: They shut down cellphone towers in the subway system.

1

2

“It’s the first known incident that we’ve heard of where the government has shut down a cellphone network in order to prevent people from engaging in political protest,” Catherine Crump of the ACLU told me. “Cellphone networks are something we’ve all come to rely on. People use them for all sorts of communication that have nothing to do with protest. And this is really a sweeping and overbroad reaction by the police.”

The cellular-service shutdown, which was defended by BART authorities who claimed it was done to protect public safety, immediately drew fire from free-speech activists around the globe. On Twitter, those opposed to BART’s censorship started using the hashtag #muBARTak to make the link to Egypt.

When the embattled Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak shut down cell service and the Internet, those in Tahrir Square innovated workarounds to get the word out. An activist group called Telecomix, a volunteer organization that supports free speech and an open Internet, organized 300 dial-up phone accounts that allowed Egyptian activists and journalists to access the Internet to post tweets, photos and videos of the revolution in progress.

“We were very active – Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria – trying to keep the Internet running in these countries in the face of really almost overwhelming efforts by governments to shut them down,” Telecomix activist Peter Fein told me. “Telecomix believes that the best way to support free speech and free communication is by building, by building tools that we can use to provide ourselves with those rights, rather than relying on governments to respect them.”

Expect hacktivist groups to support revolutions abroad, but also to assist protest movements here at home. In retaliation for BART’s cellphone shutdown, a decentralized hacker collective called Anonymous shut down BART’s website. In a controversial move, Anonymous also released the information of more than 2,000

2

3

BART passengers, to expose the shoddy computer security standards maintained by BART.

The BART police said the FBI is investigating Anonymous’ attack. I interviewed an Anonymous member who calls himself “Commander X” on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. His voice disguised to protect his anonymity, he told me over the phone: “We’re filled with indignation, when a little organization like BART … kills innocent people, two or three of them in the last few years, and then has the nerve to also cut off the cellphone service and act exactly like a dictator in the Mideast. How dare they do this in the United States of America.”

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column. Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!”

HOME PAGE

Syria: the Cost of Crisis Chaosistan, Middle East, Strategic DeterrenceVladislav Gulevich (Ukraine)Oriental Review (an independent Moscow-based Internet journal),Wed, Aug 17, 2011

Syria has entered the sixth month of anti-government riots, orchestrated from abroad. Protesters no longer seek moderate reforms, they aggressively demand Bashar Assad`s resignation. Western media accuse Damascus of ‘opposing democratic changes’. The former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Craig Roberts, had earlier explained what these changes were about: “We need to topple Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria because we want to oust China and Russia from the Mediterranean” (‘US risks war with China and Russia’).

Russia has a naval base in Syria`s Tartus, the only place in the Mediterranean where the Russian fleet has its warships stationed. In 1991 Russia reformed its Mediterranean squadron, and since

3

4

then has sailed to the area only several times. Meanwhile, the US and NATO presence there is not decreasing.

The base in Tartus was established to replace one in Sevastopol if Ukraine bans Russia from having its navy there. There is an alternative port in Novorossiysk but it can`t accommodate as many ships as the one in Sevastopol. On ousting Russian sailors from Syria, Americans will fulfill their goal. That is why Washington is being so persistent in trying to topple Bashar Assad, who is Russia`s ally. The day Assad leaves, Russian sailors will be asked to quit, too. The next step for Washington will be to oust Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from Crimea to Novorossiysk. After that Russia will no longer remain in the list of countries enjoying naval presence in the west.

However, Turkey may affect these plans. Ankara has been and remained Syria`s ally. They had friendly cooperation even when ‘western democrats’ urged Syria to use force while dealing with protesters. With time Turkey`s attitude to the Syrian issue changed. Now they call the Syrian crisis ‘a struggle for freedom’ and have hosted two conferences chaired by Syrian opposition supporters who said Assad`s rule should be ended. The number of Syrian refugees has increased, more than 11,000 have already reached Turkey by now. Now Ankara urges Damascus to use force against demonstrators. The Turkish government is trying to regain its positions in Syria – in case the US ousts Assad.

Strategically, Syria is a very important country. Located between Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and Jordan, Syria cooperates with Hizballah and HAMAS, – and this fact could not be ignored by Washington: Syria was placed on the list of states comprising ‘axis of evil’. The fact that Damascus has friendly ties with neighboring Tehran can neither be ignored. Though it had never been manifested clearly enough, the Tehran-Damascus alliance has always been a matter of concern for Washington and Tel-Aviv. Syria can influence Lebanon`s policy and balance of power in post-Saddam Iraq. Attempts made by Israel and US to isolate Damascus by means of diplomacy have brought no results.

4

5

Syrians have established contacts with Russia, China, South America.

Turkey views Syria as an excellent opportunity to affect the situation in Iraq`s Kurdistan. Syria is home to over 1,5 million Kurds, and the Kurdish issues is one of the thorniest in Turkish-American relations. The fact that Washington was focusing on this issue while playing its game against Turkey resulted in Ankara trying to be more independent in terms of international policy. Turkey has also been trying to become a mediator in Syria-Israel dialogue. Ankara was left puzzled at the Syrian unrest: long-term geopolitical plans make Turkish authorities remain closer to Bashar Assad, which creates just new difficulties in Turkey-Washington relations and with pro-American regimes in the Arab world.

To conclude, I would like to say the following:

- in case riots in Syria end in Assad`s resignation, Syria will be controlled by the US

- Turkey, Russia and Iran will have its positions in the Middle East weakened

- Russia will be ousted form the Mediterranean and locked inside the Black Sea basin, where it will have to deal with Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia – US allies and anti-Russian foreign policies

- the Kurdish issue will become even a greater threat for Turkey, especially in view of the fact that a pro-American Assad`s successor won`t be opposing what Kurdish rebels are going to implement on Syrian territories

- Al-Qaida has already voiced its support to Syrian rioters, and it appears that they are going to strengthen their position in post-Assad Syria, the fact which Ankara cannot favor; but this will allow Washington justify its military presence in the region

5

6

- If Assad steps down, Turkey will face huge economic losses (in 2010 bilateral trade between Syria and Turkey stood at $2.5bln, and the sides agreed to reach the $5bln level)

- If this all happens, Turkey will have no alternative but to abandon its ambitious plans to create a free trade zone with Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

HOME PAGE

Robert Fisk: It's his fast-disappearing billions that will worry Assad, not words from WashingtonNearly 10 per cent of Syria's deposits went in the first four months of 2011, some ending up in Lebanese banksIndependent,Friday, 19 August 2011

Obama roars. World trembles. If only.

Obama says Assad must "step aside". Do we really think Damascus trembles? Or is going to? Indeed, the titan of the White House only dared to go this far after condemnation of Bashar al-Assad by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, the EU and Uncle Tom Cobley and all (except, of course, Israel – another story). The terrible triplets – Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel – did their mimicking act a few minutes later.

But truly, are new sanctions against Assad "and his cronies" – I enjoyed the "cronies" bit, a good old 1665 word as I'm sure Madame Clinton realised, although she was principally referring to Bashar's businessman cousin Rami Makhlouf – anything more than the usual Obama hogwash? If "strong economic sanctions" mean a mere freeze on petroleum products of Syrian origin, the fact remains that Syria can scarcely produce enough oil for itself, let alone for export. A Swedish government agency recently concluded that Syria was largely unaffected by the world economic crisis – because it didn't really have an economy.

6

7

Of course, in the fantasy of Damascus – where Bashar appears to live in the same "sea of quietness" in which the Egyptian writer Mohamed Heikel believes all dictators breathe – the world goes on as usual. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon – another earth-trembler if ever there was one – no sooner demands an "immediate" end to "all military operations and mass arrests", than dear old Bashar tells him that "military and police action" has stopped.

Well, blow me down, as the Syrian population must now be saying. So what were all those reports coming in yesterday from Syria, of widespread gunfire in Latakia, of troops looting private property in the city, of a man arrested in his hospital bed in Zabadani, of snipers still on the rooftops of government buildings in Deir el-Zour? Crimes against humanity? Needless to say, the Syrian government knows nothing about this.

Besides, hasn't Gaddafi been accused of "crimes against humanity"? Wasn't he supposed to have "stepped aside" six months ago? And isn't Gaddafi – a little more fragile now, of course – still in Tripoli? And this is after months of Nato bombardment, something that Bashar has nothing to worry about. Well, well, well.

Bashar will also have noticed a weird mantra adopted by the Great Roarer of Washington. Repeatedly, Assad was told by Obama to "step aside" – never "step down" – and to "get out of the way", whatever that means. Intriguingly, Madame Clinton used the phrase "step down" yesterday afternoon – and then immediately corrected herself to "step aside".

The Great and the Good don't use these phrases by chance. The implication still seems to be that "step aside" might allow Bashar to stay in Syria but let others take over, rather go on the run with a war crimes tribunal hanging over his head. Which is what, I suspect, yesterday's roaring was all about.

7

8

The real fear for Bashar is not oil sanctions but banks – especially the £12bn in foreign reserves that existed in Syria's Central Bank in February, a sum which is now being depleted by around £50m a week. In May, Syria's foreign minister – the mighty (physically) Walid Moallem – asked Baghdad for cheap Iraqi oil. Nearly 10 per cent of Syria's banking deposits disappeared in the first four months of 2011; £1.8bn was withdrawn, some of it ending up in Lebanese banks.

All in all, then, a nasty economic climate in which to go on bashing your own people. So who cares what Obama says? Certainly not the Syrians, which is why they are now trying to set up a "High Commission for Leading the Revolution" to co-ordinate protesters in the country's provinces.

This will indeed also worry Assad, who will have to send his spooks out to identify members of this "high commission" (which sounds unhappily like a colonial name) so they can spend some rest-and-recreation in the Latakia sports stadium under friendly interrogation from the state security police.

HOME PAGE

US and EU call for Assad to resign Anna Fifield in Washington and an FT reporter in DamascusFinancial Times,August 19, 2011,

Western countries have united in calling for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to step down, taking the international pressure on his regime to end the violence against pro-democracy protesters to a new level.

To drive home their condemnation, the US slapped punitive sanctions on the country’s oil sector on Thursday and the European Union said it would meet on Friday to discuss extending its measures against the regime.

8

9

Meanwhile, the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights said it had found a pattern of violations in Syria that could amount to crimes against humanity.

Navi Pillay, the high commissioner, described to the UN Security Council how 26 men had been blindfolded and shot at a football stadium in the southern city of Deraa following house-to-house searches, and also how the regime had tried to cover up killings, including with the use of mass graves.

She asked the council to consider referring Mr Assad to the International Criminal Court.

Leading the international chorus against Mr Assad, President Barack Obama said that the Syrian leader’s promises to reform had rung hollow while he was “slaughtering” his own citizens.

“For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” Mr Obama said in a statement, the first explicit call for his departure.

To deepen Syria’s international isolation, Mr Obama imposed sweeping sanctions on any US investment in Syria’s crucial energy sector, banning US companies from buying Syrian oil and freezing Syrian government assets in the US.

A senior Washington official said the administration considered the balance to have shifted in Syria and Mr Assad was now “on his way out”.

In a co-ordinated move, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany also urged Mr Assad to go.

“Our three countries believe that President Assad . . . has lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead the country,” David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel said in a joint statement.

9

10

“We call on him to face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people and to step aside,” they said.

The European Union reiterated the call and said it would meet on Friday to discuss further sanctions on the Syrian regime, possibly including the energy sector, although agreement among the 27-member bloc could prove difficult.

The co-ordinated move was “unprecedented”, said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “This is going to strike a severe blow to the Assad regime.”

However, Turkey was notable for its silence. Ankara did not join the calls for Mr Assad’s departure, although it has done little to conceal its own growing frustration with Damascus.

Washington has tried to persuade Ankara, as one of Syria’s most influential neighbours, to increase pressure on Damascus, but Turkish officials have been sceptical about calls for Mr Assad to depart.

There has been no official reaction from the Syrian government to the US and European statements, but on Wednesday at a ruling Ba’ath party meeting Mr Assad was keen to stress that his plans for political reform were “not a response to foreign pressure”.

Activists broadly welcomed the increased pressure on the regime. “We expected this position, but it should have come sooner,” said one protester in Hama, where hundreds are believed to have died as a result of the violence.

“We see this as the result of our peaceful protest. We will continue with or without [international support], but it gives us hope that we are closer to the end of this regime.”

10

11

However, few believed that the latest moves would end the repression, saying that the regime had no other answer to the protests.

“The US telling Assad to go is going to make no difference on the streets,” said one Damascus protester. “They have always tried to portray the West as the enemy and this just fits into that narrative. They can keep calling it a foreign conspiracy.”

He said that Arab countries following the US and Europe’s lead might put some real pressure on the regime.

The UN plans to send a team to Syria on Saturday to assess the humanitarian situation, the first time the Assad regime has allowed human rights monitors into the country.

In recent weeks banners written in English have sprung up across the capital thanking Russia and China for their support. Both countries have voiced their opposition to any UN security council resolution against Syria.

HOME PAGE

Can western sanctions touch Bashar al-Assad? The killing campaign will continue, but sanctions would suck the economic and political oxygen out of the Syrian regimeIslam Qasem,Guardian,18 Aug. 2011,

Western countries are at loss about how to pressure Bashar al-Assad to end the brutal crackdown on protesters. They do not know whether or not to sanction Syria's oil and gas industry. They often ask first whether sanctions will end up harming civilians, and second, will they actually work? These questions have relevance but they demonstrate poor understanding of sanctions as a foreign policy instrument.

11

12

Sanctions, defined as an economic instrument used to influence the political behaviour of an opponent state, are premised on the logic that the legitimacy and survival of the regime rest on its economic strength. For the sanctions to have their supposed coercive effects, economic hardships inflicted on citizens are inevitable; otherwise the regime remains unaffected and is therefore unlikely to alter its behaviour. In other words, by design, sanctions target society at large in order to indirectly put pressure on the regime.

Generally speaking, the impact of the measure depends on several circumstances: the intensity of trade between the parties, the economic structure of the parties and the ability of the target country to countermeasure or bypass the restrictions.

Syria has important energy ties with western countries. Much of Syrian oil, 155,000 bbl/day out of total production of 400,400 bbl/day, is currently exported to the west, mainly to France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Western oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, the UK's Gulfsands Petroleum and France's Total own large stakes in Syria's energy sector.

From the perspective of importing countries, Syrian oil can be easily replaced. Moreover, since Syrian oil exports add up to a mere drop in the ocean within the larger international oil market, boycotting Syrian oil can hardly impact on international oil prices. And if western oil companies were forced to divest, sure, they will incur economic losses – but yet again their losses in Syria are easily compensated for by record high oil prices. Divesting from Syria will not undermine western economic interests even in the long term; given that the rate of decline in Syria's oil exports suggests that the country will soon be importing, rather than exporting oil.

For the Syrian regime, sanctions have different consequences. Oil and gas are critical for the Syrian economy. According to the 2009 Syria Report of the Oxford Business Group, the oil sector accounted for 23% of government revenues, 20% of exports and

12

13

22% of GDP in 2008. This means oil exports constitute about a third of the Syrian budget, accounting for an estimated $7m-$8m a day. To make matters worse for Syria's Assad, as the cycle of protests and government crackdown has dried up revenues from tourism – and given the government urgent need for extra cash to afford diesel subsidies, cut food taxes and meet rises in civil servant salaries – oil revenues have become essential for the survival of the regime.

Still, a western-imposed oil and gas sanction capable of impacting on Assad's regime is not certain to succeed. It hinges on conditions that may well be beyond the reach of western countries. To begin with, non-western countries, especially China and India, hungry for energy and with refineries to process heavy oil, are more than likely to increase their share of Syrian oil. It is equally likely that their national oil companies would be happy to take over western oil company operations in Syria. Already, China National Petroleum Corp and India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp run several exploration and development operations in Syria.

But assuming that domestic or international pressure curtails Chinese and Indian (and even Russian) energy ties with Syria, the Assad regime is secured by mammoth reserves of $18bn held by the Syrian Central Bank and Commercial Bank of Syria. This kind of money will keep the regime afloat for a while but cannot keep the country running for long. With domestic banks' limited capital and international borrowing out of the question, Syria has no option but to turn to friends with deep pockets. Iran is the only country ready and willing to volunteer assistance. Tehran is reportedly considering a package of $5.8bn in financial aid to Syria, and even oil shipments. No doubt this will reaffirm the Syrian-Iranian axis, but at a huge cost for Syria – total isolation in the Arab world.

In the final analysis, sanctions are unlikely to produce the desired effect in time. Assad's killing machine will continue to target civilians, but sanctions will suck the economic and political oxygen out of the regime. Most important of all, sanctions will

13

14

demonstrate that western countries are serious about ending the brutal crackdown on the protests.

HOME PAGE

Syria: Assad at bay The hope behind western calls for Syria's leader to go is that some in the regime will realise his departure is the only way forwardEditorial,Guardian,18 Aug. 2011,

Yesterday was the day when the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad finally exhausted whatever shreds of international legitimacy he had up to now managed to retain in western countries, with the United States and its principal European allies declaring that he must step down and the United Nations thought likely to refer Syria to the international criminal court. The previous position in western capitals had been that Assad must either reform or resign. The new line is that he is too sullied and compromised to be part of any solution in Syria, a formulation which leaves open the possibility that other figures in the regime, the Ba'ath party, or the armed forces, might be acceptable as agents of transition once he is gone.

Indeed the policy has almost certainly been designed to encourage such an outcome, particularly if, as Washington must hope, it is soon followed by similar declarations from Syria's neighbours. Syria in Ramadan, the month when the faithful are supposed to reflect in peace on the virtues of humility and obedience to God, is indeed a landscape marked by violence, suffering and despair. In city after city the tanks have gone in more ruthlessly than before, followed by the government's paramilitary forces, and protesters have had to retreat or take refuge. Assad yesterday told UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon that military action against protesters had "stopped". There is no reason to suppose that the government in Damascus would not resort to it again if they thought it necessary, but Assad's words may reflect his belief that

14

15

the five-month-old protest movement has been to some extent contained, as well as his response to international pressure. But the irony of the Syrian president's position is that each successive military step he has taken to bring the cities under control has undermined his credentials as a leader.

It is hard to imagine an Assad government, whatever it might now offer in the shape of reforms, gaining from the majority of the population anything more than, at best, sullen acquiescence. Reform requires a partnership of sorts between regime and opposition. With at least 2,000 dead since the protests began in March, and thousands jailed, too much blood has been shed for that to be a serious possibility. Assad's stance, which was that protest must be extinguished before reform could begin, was evident from the start. His early "reform speech" to the Syrian parliament was lacking in real content, and he never repaired that omission.

Crackdown first, top-down reform later was never a viable proposition, and has become a more and more insuperable handicap. This is not a view confined to western countries. Several Arab states have withdrawn their ambassadors, while the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has tried hard to be the broker of a settlement in Syria, this week compared Assad to Gaddafi. What Syria's neighbours fear most is a collapse of the Syrian polity, but a dismal standoff in which the regime maintains control almost entirely on the basis of its readiness to use force, a standoff which in any case would always threaten to elide into chaos and civil war, would be only marginally better.

The new American and European position may seem strong, but in fact the international community has precious few instruments at its disposal with which to influence the situation in Syria. There is no possibility of military intervention and Syria is comparatively immune to economic sanctions, although Europe, with its stronger trade links, will presumably now bring more leverage to bear. The hope must be that some elements in the regime will have the common sense to realise that the only way out of the impasse, and

15

16

the only chance of even a qualified fresh start, is to shed the leader identified with policies which may have achieved momentary physical control but have irrevocably alienated large parts of the population.

HOME PAGE

Why the WikiLeaks cable about Syrian regime is spot on US diplomats describe the Assad government as institutionally dishonest, brutal and defiantNour Ali,Guardian,18 Aug. 2011,

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's apparently disingenuous statement to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, that military operations have ended comes as no surprise to diplomats with experience of working in Damascus.

Deceit is high on the list of qualities marking Syrian diplomatic relations, according to a frank US diplomatic cable from 2009 published by WikiLeaks this month.

"SARG [Syrian government] officials lie at every level," wrote the US charge d'affaires in Damascus, Maura Connelly, as the US was beginning to re-engage with Syria after withdrawing its ambassador in 2005. "They persist in a lie even in the face of evidence to the contrary. They are not embarrassed to be caught in a lie."

The portrait painted here fits with the behaviour of the regime towards its own people and the international community during the last five months: brutal and defiant.

In the cable the Syrian regime is described as willing to be "nasty" and using a style "at best abrasive and, at its worst, brutal" to achieve its aims.

16

17

This could involve anything from "harsh verbal attacks to intimidate and rattle foreign diplomats" to allegations made by Syrians abroad about harrassment by their own diplomatic staff. Other undesirable rules of engagement besides deceit are provided in the guide: "vanity and self-preservation" and the use of "non-sequitur" and "antagonism" as key strategies by officials, who are described as sticklers for protocol.

"The Syrians are not troubled by discord; they seek an upper hand in any relationship by relying on foreign diplomats' instinctive desire to resolve problems," Connelly wrote.

The cable suggests flattery may help lubricate meetings with Assad, whose weaknesses are described as vanity and abstraction – two hallmarks of his speeches during the current crisis.

The embattled president is described as less shrewd than his father, with a self-image as "a sort of philosopher king, the Pericles of Damascus" that influences policy to a "disproportionate" degree.

According to diplomats little has changed in the two years since the cable was written. "Syrian diplomats are a source of exasperation to all," said one non-US western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity. "The security state runs the show, officials are hard to get hold of and when you do, they repeat the latest regime line ad nauseum."

The cable also exemplifies why the regime has been caught short by a generation of young people who use social media to disseminate information about the crackdown. At the time of writing the Syrian ministry of foreign affairs had no internal email system, relying solely on phone and fax.

The cable does note, however, that a few talented individuals allow the Syrian government to punch above its weight.

Nour Ali is a pseudonym for a journalist based in Damascus

17

18

HOME PAGE

Truth About Syria Editorial,NYTIMES,18 Aug. 2011,

It took too long, but President Obama has finally — and unequivocally — called for the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step down and end his murderous war against the Syrian people. In another belated but welcome move, Mr. Obama also ordered a stiff new array of sanctions, including freezing all Syrian government assets in the United States and banning American citizens and corporations from doing business with the Syrian government.

Washington has limited economic and diplomatic leverage with Damascus. But if there ever was a time to use it, it is surely now. In a fresh show of desperate cruelty, Mr. Assad this week ordered Syrian naval warships to fire on civilians in the port city of Latakia. That came on top of bloody army assaults on many other centers of opposition.

The United Nations estimates that at least 2,000 Syrians have been killed in the uprising since mid-March. A report by the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights cited summary executions and gross violations of human rights that “may amount to crimes against humanity.”

In an effort to bring coordinated pressure, leaders of Germany, France, Britain and the European Union also called on Mr. Assad to depart, and Europe announced that it would be imposing new sanctions. These should include a ban on imports of Syrian oil. That would have minimal effect on world oil prices but a big one on Damascus.

Turkey and neighboring Arab countries should also tighten the screws. Any fantasies that Mr. Assad is a guarantor of Syrian

18

19

stability or could lead a peaceful transition have been rightly jettisoned. His killing spree has become too much even for the absolute rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to stomach. They, along with the somewhat more enlightened Kuwaiti government, withdrew their ambassadors. Such gestures are welcome but not enough. These and other Arab governments should impose sanctions.

Syria’s most influential neighbor is Turkey, with $2.5 billion in annual trade. Once an Assad ally, then a would-be mediator, Turkey now declares that it, too, is out of patience. It could make a decisive difference if it followed that overdue judgment with its own economic sanctions.

HOME PAGE

Getting tough with Syria The U.S. call for Bashar Assad to step down and the imposition of sanctions are responsible moves that increase pressure on Syria's regime.Editorial,LATimes,August 19, 2011

For the last month, Syrian security forces under the command of President Bashar Assad have pummeled the suburbs of Damascus and Homs and, most recently, shelled the port city of Latakia, rounding up thousands of its residents as they fled naval bombardment. Meanwhile, to the west and south, Libyan forces loyal to Moammar Kadafi battled rebels in Zawiya, where an earlier uprising had been brutally put down by the regime. In Libya, the United States is part of a NATO coalition aiding the rebels as they attempt to overthrow Kadafi; in Syria, the United States had, until Thursday, refrained even from saying that Assad should go.

The juxtaposition of the two conflicts in the Mediterranean frames the reach of American power in the region and serves as a useful

19

20

reminder that force, though it has its place, also has its limits. On Thursday, the Obama administration faced up to that tension in Syria by launching a pair of diplomatic actions, one late and the other timely. Both are responsible moves that increase the pressure on Assad while refraining from the commitment of U.S. military force.

The first of the administration's initiatives was to call for Assad to step down, a decision that had been urged for weeks by human rights organizations and others. The administration had moved cautiously on that front, saying it was drumming up support, especially from Turkey, so that any withdrawal of support for Assad would not be unilateral. Then, at last, it acted. Citing the "flagrant disrespect for the Syrian people" in recent weeks, President Obama announced, "The time has come for President Assad to step aside." His call was joined by similar statements from leading U.S. allies.

Without something behind it, that would not amount to much. But Obama went further. The administration's executive order also imposed sanctions, banning the import of Syrian oil and barring Americans from operating or investing in Syria. The combined effect is, as the administration hoped, to condemn and isolate the Assad regime and to nudge it toward the denouement it deserves.

There are those who will ask, appropriately: Why now? The Assad regime has been a deplorable human rights abuser for decades — and an ally of Iran to boot. The answer lies in the same subtlety that distinguishes Libya and Syria today: America acts, or should, when human rights, American interests or American principles are violated; when it can do so in conjunction with its allies; and when that action can make a difference. All of those elements are in place now in Syria. The Obama administration was right to act as it did.

HOME PAGE

U.S. and allies turn up heat on Bashar al-Assad

20

21

Editorial, Washington Post,Friday, August 19,

FOR MORE THAN five months, Syrians have been stepping out of their homes and mosques with unfathomable bravery in a quest for freedom and human rights.

Bashar al-Assad, the inheritor of a regime that has stifled this Arab country for four decades, has responded by killing thousands of his citizens and torturing and imprisoning many more. Yet, knowing the risks, Syrians refuse to cower.

President Obama and the leaders of Canada, France, Britain and Germany on Thursday called for Mr. Assad to step down. It’s damaging that it took Mr. Obama so long to make this call; odd that even now he wouldn’t speak the words (the White House issued a written statement and put Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton before the cameras); and unfortunate that two days before he issued the the statement, Ms. Clinton said, “It’s not going to be any news if the United States says Assad needs to go.”

But the Obama statement is news, and welcome news at that. The administration coordinated its call for Mr. Assad’s departure with allies. It paired the statement with a ratcheting-up of sanctions that will increase financial pressure on the Assad regime. Most of all, Thursday’s statements by Mr. Obama and fellow leaders will spur the Syrian opposition to intensify its planning for a post-Assad era and will assure ordinary Syrians that they have the world’s moral support.

Does Mr. Obama’s say-so guarantee that Mr. Assad is doomed? Of course not. We’ve seen in Libya that even with military action, which isn’t contemplated in Syria, the longevity of discredited regimes is impossible to predict. Ultimately, much depends on how long soldiers and security agents remain willing to shoot at their fellow citizens. In Egypt, that willingness lasted barely a

21

22

week. In Burma, it has endured for years. Outsiders aren’t very good at predicting the breaking point.

But Mr. Obama’s statement declared that the breaking point will come. “It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the past,” the statement said. “But he is wrong.” We think the U.S. president is correct in his assessment, and the newly strengthened U.S. position — clear language, strong sanctions, allied coordination — can only hasten the day.

HOME PAGE

An uncertain Arab transition David Ignatius,Washington Post,Friday, August 19,

American intelligence analysts, like most U.S. observers, have often referred to the process unfolding in the Middle East as the “Arab spring,” with its implicit message of democraticbirth and freedom. But some senior analysts are said to have argued for a more neutral term, such as “Arab transition” — which conveys the essential truth that nobody can predict just where this upheaval is heading.

The uncertain transition rumbled on last week in Syria: President Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power appeared to weaken, with his military stretched to the breaking point in an attempt to control the protests. President Obama, evidently sensing that the endgame is near, Thursday called on Assad to step down.

Syria illustrates the paradox of the Arab transition. The courage of the Syrian people in defying Assad’s tanks is breathtaking. Yet this is a movement without clear leadership or an agenda beyond toppling Assad. It could bend toward the hard-line Sunni fundamentalists who have led the street-fighting in Daraa and Homs, or to the sophisticated pro-democracy activists of

22

23

Damascus. The truth is nobody can predict the face of a post-Assad Syria.

The Syrian confrontation is already devolving into a regional proxy war. Iran has been rushing assistance to Assad, who is Tehran’s key Arab ally and provides a lifeline to the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. To counter the Iranians, a newly emboldened Saudi Arabia has been pumping money to Sunni fighters in Syria. Damascus is the fault line — for Sunni-Shiite tensions, and for the confrontation between Iran and the United States and Israel.

Despite these uncertainties, Obama is right to demand that Assad must go. Some commentators have chided the White House’s hyper-caution. (Saudi Arabia, hardly a beacon of change, denounced Assad a week ago.) But I think Obama has been wise to move carefully — and avoid the facile embrace of a rebel movement whose trajectory is unknown. America’s goal should be an inclusive democracy that enfranchises the Sunni fighters in the streets, yes, but also protects Alawites, Christians and Druze who fear a bloodbath.

As the Arab transition moves through summer toward fall, it’s a good time to take stock — and to remind ourselves that there won’t be any automatic movement toward prosperity and rule of law. The citizen revolt that began in Tunisia is surely a positive trend — and it’s unstoppable, in any event. But analysts offer some important cautionary points:

●The Arab movements for change will probably retard the process of economic reform that was under way in nations such as Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak was an arrogant leader, but over the last decade he did encourage free-market policies that helped boost Egypt’s growth rate over 5 percent. Two architects of those pro-market policies were Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif and Trade Minister Rachid Mohamed Rachid. Both have now been charged with corruption. The populist anger is understandable, but it won’t help Egypt get much-needed international investment.

23

24

●Democracy is likely to disappoint the protesters. They went into the streets to demand a better life — jobs, freedom from secret police, personal dignity — and they want these rights now. Hopefully, citizens in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen and the rest will soon be able to vote for democratic governments. But struggling democracies often aren’t very good at meeting the basic demands that spawned the revolutions. Asia put economic reform first, with political reform gradually following. The Arabs have decided to go the other direction — with uncertain consequences.

●The Arab transition needs to embrace the tolerance of secular societies rather than the intolerance of theocracy. That’s one lesson this generation could learn from the “Arab Renaissance” movements of the last century. The Baath Party and the Nasserites are rightly rejected now, but in celebrating “Arab nationalism.” they gave an identity to citizens that was broader than religion, sect or tribe. That spirit of inclusive identity will be essential for a happy Arab future.

Viewing events in the Arab world, President Obama has talked often of being “on the right side of history.” But frankly, that’s an incoherent concept. History doesn’t have a side; it isn’t a straight line that moves inexorably toward progress. Movements that start off calling for liberation often produce the opposite.

What should guide U.S. policy in this time of transition is to be on the right side of America’s own interests and values. Sometimes those two will conflict, requiring difficult choices, but they coincide powerfully in the departure of Syrian President Assad.

HOME PAGE

Clinton speaks to Krishna and other world leaders on Syria Hindustan Times,19 Aug. 2011,

24

25

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has reached out to her counterparts of more than a dozen countries including Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna, as the Obama Administration stepped up its effort to increase pressure on the Syrian regime.

Besides Krishna, Clinton also reached out to her counterparts in Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Brazil, France, Germany, Britain, Norway, Canada, Japan, Jordan, South Korea, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, state department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters at her daily news conference.

These calls were made over the past few weeks, she said.

"This has really been a preoccupation of this spring and summer period, and I think we see the results, but also in large measure because despite the growing pressure from the international community, they have been on the phone constantly. So despite this growing pressure, despite the calls around the region, the fact that the violence hasn't stopped has also encouraged more voices," she said.

Indian Permanent Representative to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri, on Thursday said that the Security Council will take "appropriate decisions" on Syria after it hears a briefing from the world body's human rights chief on the crisis in the strife-torn country.

India holds the rotating presidency of the 15-member UN Security Council this month.

Last week, an IBSA delegation comprising Additional Secretary for International Organisations at the Indian foreign ministry Dilip Sinha, deputy minister of international relations and cooperation of South Africa Ebrahim Ebrahim and Brazil's under secretary for Middle East affairs Paulo Cordeiro went to Damascus to discuss the current situation in Syria and the way forward.

25

26

Earlier, President Barack Obama asked Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to step down, and slapped another round of sanctions against Syria.

"The net effect of the sanctions that we have imposed is to close the US financial sector to Syria - combination of the freeze on all Syrian government assets that are subject to US jurisdiction, prohibiting US persons anywhere, under any authority, to engage in transactions involving the government of Syria, and then striking at the stream of revenue to the regime by banning imports of Syrian origin -- petroleum and petroleum products -- into the United States," Nuland said.

"So this is a closing of the US financial system to Syria. And of course, as we've said, we look to other countries to match what we have done and to look at how they also can take national steps to tighten the noose," she said.

"I think our first priority is to see other countries around the world with companies operational in Syria take national measures. Our hope and our expectation is that in coming weeks and months and -- weeks and days, more countries will take such action," she said.

Nuland said in all of these countries in the so-called --experiencing the so-called Arab Spring, the policy of the Obama Administration has been grounded in its commitment to the right of all people to peaceful protest; it’s commitment to universal human rights of speech, assembly, the right to have a say in how one is are governed; and the obligation of governments to be responsive to the calls of their people for reform, aspirations of their people.

Those are the undergirding principles, she said.

"In the case of Egypt, We had deep economic and political and other military contacts, which allowed us, working with those Egyptians who wanted change, including those Egyptians in the system who wanted change, to support them in the quick transition

26

27

that they had, which, blessedly, was far less bloody and far less protracted than what we have seen in Syria," she said.

"The situation in Syria is different both in terms of US influence versus the influence of other neighbors; in terms of the need to build a coalition, which has taken time and in terms of the ability of the Syrian people themselves to quickly exact the kind of change that Egypt was able to bring about, given the 40-year dictatorial rule of the Assad family, and the fact that they really had been living in a politics-free zone and have to build from scratch a movement for change," Nuland said.

HOME PAGE

Assad and the Palestinians Dictators and double standards.Wall Street Journal,AUGUST 19, 2011

In the Department of Bottomless Cynicism, does anything match the treatment of Palestinians by their ostensible champions in the Arab world? In the latest example, Bashar Assad's regime last week launched an assault on a Palestinian neighborhood in the Syrian port city of Latakia, and some 10,000 residents have fled, died, or gone missing. Will the United Nations now ask Judge Richard Goldstone to investigate?

The assault on Latakia, complete with naval shelling, is part of the regime's broader effort to suppress five months of peaceful demonstrations against Mr. Assad's misrule. Though Syria's nearly 500,000 Palestinians are not citizens—they have been frozen into refugee status for 63 years to be used as pawns against Israel—they have suffered their share of the regime's indignities and have been active in the protests. Now they're in the regime's gun sights.

All this has met with a certain amount of international protest. A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the regime's assaults "unacceptable." Turkey has wagged a stern

27

28

finger at Mr. Assad, though it has yet to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia by withdrawing its ambassador from Damascus. President Obama finally came around to doing the right thing yesterday by calling for regime change in Damascus, only days after Hillary Clinton said that doing just that was "not going to be any news." Mr. Obama deserves praise for superceding his Secretary of State, who seems to rate the influence and moral weight of the U.S. on a par with that of Vanuatu.

Meanwhile, Russia plans to go forward with arms sales to the regime, reminding everyone what the Administration achieved with its Moscow "reset." Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group long-headquartered in Damascus, recently broke up a small anti-Assad demonstration in the Gaza Strip. We also haven't heard much by way of support for Latakia's Palestinians from the usual suspects in the pro-Palestinian movement.

Compare this international reaction to what has happened in Latakia to the outrage after last year's Turkish flotilla incident involving Israel. No wonder Mr. Assad has spent the past months thinking he can get away with anything.

HOME PAGE

Syria Bloodbath: A festival of hypocrisy Guy Bechor explains world’s continued silence in face of Assad massacre in Syria Guy Bechor,Yedioth Ahronoth,18 Aug. 2011, So what’s going on in Syria? All is well, thanks for asking; people are being butchered as usual. And what is the world saying about it? The world is rolling its eyes to the heavens and pretends that 5,000 Syrians have not been murdered already, that tens of thousands were not wounded, and that tens of thousands were not detained by their own regime.

28

29

Why was an international coalition forged vis-à-vis the Gaddafi regime? Because the world said Gaddafi is shooting his own citizens. And what exactly is Assad doing? He has undertaken worse actions, bombarding his own citizens using battleships. Yet in this case, disconcerting silence prevails.

A coalition of dark interests allows Bashar al-Assad to act as he wishes – and he knows it. The biggest hypocrites are his Turkish neighbors, of course. Turkey’s prime minister constantly slams Israel over the nine people killed on board the Marmara, but apparently has little to say about the 5,000 people killed in Syria. Turkey has the longest border with Syria, and for a few months now the Turks are pretending to grant Assad “a final opportunity,” yet in practice they are safeguarding his regime.

The Turks are scared of a Syrian vacuum that will come at their expense. Every week, Turkish soldiers are being killed by the Kurdish underground, and the Turks fear that the Kurds will be killing their soldiers on both sides of the Syrian border.

As opposed to the reports and assessments we are hearing, it does not appear that the Turks intend to intervene in Syria militarily. That would prompt an entanglement vis-à-vis Syria’s main supporter, Iran, which does not hide its public endorsement of the murderous regime in Damascus. Another state that maintains its silence is the Shiite Iraq, which views Syria’s Alawites as close associates.

UN lost its raison d’êtreSo who else supports Assad’s regime? The Arab League. The one that rushes to complain against Israel at the UN Security Council over every tiny violation in Gaza, while allowing an Arab regime to butcher its own people with no interruptions. There is no longer any justification for the existence of the Arab League, which is preoccupied with one thing: Trying to embarrass Israel. The several Arab ambassadors recalled from Damascus are no more than lip service.

29

30

And who else is turning a blind eye to events in Syria? Russia, which protects Assad because of the modern, expensive dock it built at the Syrian port of Tartus. Russia needs a home base in the Mediterranean, yet as its fleet can dock in Israel too there is no need to support Assad.

The UN, which is also incapable of averting the mass carnage, has lost its raison d’être. After all, this institution was established in order to prevent new holocausts and further extermination in the wake of World War II. The UN is not even capable of issuing a condemnation of Syria. Finally, we have President Barack Obama’s Administration. It was Obama who virtually forced a new US ambassador to return to Syria, while portraying Assad as an American ally. This showed complete failure to understand regional realities. To this day, the US has not recalled its envoy from Damascus, thereby continuing to legitimize Assad’s terrible regime of oppression.

Of course, the greatest hypocrisy being exposed at this time is that of the Syrian regime itself, which did not spare insults, incitement and lies against Israel; a tyrannical regime that pretended to be a human rights champion, while falsely portraying Israel’s democracy as a tyranny. At least this is one mask we can remove in the hypocritical global festival surrounding the ailing Syria.

HOME PAGE

A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War? Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research (Canadian), August 9, 2011

Part I of a three part series

30

31

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." General Wesley Clark

PART I I The Pentagon's "Salvador Option": The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria - by Michel Chossudovsky –Global Research, 2011-08-16

An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s.

As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored "humanitarian mandate".

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning.

There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 categorizes Syria as a "rogue state", as a country which supports terrorism.

A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had "ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack

31

32

on Iran's nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria" (George Bush's memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010)

This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants.

The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned "military road map". The extension of "The July War" on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah.

Israel's July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters.

The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon's drawing board despite Israel's setback in the 2006 July War: "In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III). The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon" (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009)

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A "humanitarian war" under the logo of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

32

33

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations.

A war on Syria would lead to military escalation.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.

From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that "protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns." (DEBKAfile August 1, 2001. Report on Hama, emphasis added)

"All Options on the Table"In June, US Senator Lindsey Graham (who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee) hinted to the possibility of a "humanitarian" military intervention directed against Syria with a

33

34

view to "saving the lives of civilians". Graham suggested that the "option" applied to Libya under UN Secuirty Council resolution 1973 should be envisaged in the case of Syria:

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria, ...

We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” (CBS "Face The Nation", June 12, 2011)

Following the adoption of the UN Security Council Statement pertaining to Syria (August 3, 2011), the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for "regime change" in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al Assad:

"We do not want to see him remain in Syria for stability's sake, and rather, we view him as the cause of instability in Syria," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

"And we think, frankly, that it's safe to say that Syria would be a better place without President Assad," (quoted in Syria: US Call Closer to Calling for Regime Change, IPS, August 4, 2011)

Extended economic sanctions often constitute a leadup towards outright military intervention.

A bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman was introduced in the US Senate with a view to authorizing sweeping economic sanctions against Syria. Moreover, in a letter to President Obama in early August, a group of more than sixty U.S. senators called for "implementing additional sanctions... while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasing cost for its outrageous repression."

34

35

These sanctions would require blocking bank and financial transactions as well as "ending purchases of Syrian oil, and cutting off investments in Syria's oil and gas sectors." (See Pressure on Obama to get tougher on Syria coming from all sides - Foreign Policy, August 3, 2011).

Meanwhile, the US State Department has also met with members of the Syrian opposition in exile. Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel groups.

Dangerous Crossroads: War on Syria. Beachhead for an Attack on Iran

Following the August 3 Statement by the Chairman of the UN Security Council directed against Syria, Moscow's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned of the dangers of military escalation:

"NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran,...

"[This statement] means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa," Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper... The Russian diplomat pointed out at the fact that the alliance is aiming to interfere only with the regimes "whose views do not coincide with those of the West."

Rogozin agreed with the opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO's last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.

"The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region," Rogozin said.

35

36

Having learned the Libyan lesson, Russia "will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria," he said, adding that the consequences of a large-scale conflict in North Africa would be devastating for the whole world. "Beachhead for an Attack on Iran": NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria, Novosti, August 5, 2011)

Military Blueprint for an Attack on SyriaDimitry Rogozin's warning was based on concrete information known and documented in military circles, that NATO is currently planning a military campaign against Syria. In this regard, a scenario of an attack on Syria is currently on the drawing board, involving French, British and Israeli military experts. According to former Commander of the French Air Force (chef d'Etat-Major de l'Armée de l'air) General Jean Rannou, "a NATO strike to disable the Syrian army is technically feasible":

"Nato member countries would begin by using satellite technology to spot Syrian air defences. A few days later, warplanes, in larger numbers than Libya, would take off from the UK base in Cyprus and spend some 48 hours destroying Syrian surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and jets. Alliance aircraft would then start an open-ended bombardment of Syrian tanks and ground troops.

The scenario is based on analysts in the French military, from the specialist British publication Jane's Defence Weekly and from Israel's Channel 10 TV station.

The Syrian air force is said to pose little threat. It has around 60 Russian-made MiG-29s. But the rest - some 160 MiG-21s, 80 MiG-23s, 60 MiG-23BNs, 50 Su-22s and 20 Su-24MKs - is out of date.

...."I don't see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems ... [But] it would be more risky than Libya. It would be a heavy military operation," Jean Rannou, the former chief of the French air force, told EUobserver. He added

36

37

that action is highly unlikely because Russia would veto a UN mandate, Nato assets are stretched in Afghanistan and Libya and Nato countries are in financial crisis. (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011) The Broader Military Roadmap While Libya, Syria and Iran are part of the military roadmap, this strategic deployment if it were to be carried out would also threaten China and Russia. Both countries have investment, trade as well as military cooperation agreements with Syria and Iran. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Escalation is part of the military agenda. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

The Role of Israel and Turkey Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are involved in supporting an armed insurgency. These endeavors are coordinated between the two governments and their intelligence agencies.

Israel's Mossad, according to reports, has provided covert support to radical Salafi terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011).

The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is supporting Syrian opposition groups in exile while also backing the armed rebels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Syria.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) are behind the insurrection. Both organizations are

37

38

supported by Britain's MI6. The avowed objective of both MB and Hizb-ut Tahir is ultimately to destabilize Syria's secular State. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention", Global Research, May 3, 2011).

In June, Turkish troops crossed the border into northern Syria, officially to come to the rescue of Syrian refugees. The government of Bashar Al Assad accused Turkey of directly supporting the incursion of rebel forces into northern Syria:

"A rebel force of up to 500 fighters attacked a Syrian Army position on June 4 in northern Syria. They said the target, a garrison of Military Intelligence, was captured in a 36-hour assault in which 72 soldiers were killed in Jisr Al Shoughour, near the border with Turkey.

“We found that the criminals [rebel fighters] were using weapons from Turkey, and this is very worrisome,” an official said.

This marked the first time that the Assad regime has accused Turkey of helping the revolt. ... Officials said the rebels drove the Syrian Army from Jisr Al Shoughour and then took over the town. They said government buildings were looted and torched before another Assad force arrived. ...

A Syrian officer who conducted the tour said the rebels in Jisr Al Shoughour consisted of Al Qaida-aligned fighters. He said the rebels employed a range of Turkish weapons and ammunition but did not accuse the Ankara government of supplying the equipment." (Syria’s Assad accuses Turkey of arming rebels, TR Defence, Jun 25 2011)

Denied by the Western media, foreign support to Islamist insurgents, which have "infiltrated the protest movement", is, nonetheless, confirmed by Western intelligence sources. According to former MI6 officer Alistair Crooke (and high level EU adviser): "two important forces behind events [in Syria] are

38

39

Sunni radicals and Syrian exile groups in France and the US. He said the radicals follow the teaching of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a late Jordanian Islamist, who aimed to create a Sunni emirate in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria called Bilad a-Sham. They are experienced urban guerillas who fought in Iraq and have outside finance. They infilitrate protests to attack Assad forces, as in Jisr al-Shagour in June, where they inflicted heavy casualties." (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011, emphasis added).

The former MI6 official also confirms that Israel and the US are supporting and financing the terrorists: "Crooke said the exile groups aim to topple the anti-Israeli [Syrian] regime. They are funded and trained by the US and have links to Israel. They pay Sunni tribal chiefs to put people on the streets, work with NGOs to feed uncorroborated stories of atrocities to Western media and co-operate with radicals in the hope that escalating violence will justify Nato intervention." (Ibid, emphasis added).

Political factions within Lebanon are also involved. Lebanese intelligence has confirmed the covert shipment of assault rifles and automatic weapons to Salafi fighters. The shipment was carried out by Saudi-backed Lebanese politicians.

The Israel-Turkey Military Cooperation AgreementIsrael and Turkey have a military cooperation agreement which pertains in a very direct way to Syria as well to the strategic Lebanese-Syrian Eastern Mediterranean coastline (including the gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon and pipeline routes).

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This "triple alliance", which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ....

39

40

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes "many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." (See Michel Chossudovsky,"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Meanwhile, the recent reshuffle within Turkey's top brass has reinforced the pro-Islamist faction within the armed forces. In late July, The Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey's Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force.

General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army the new army chief.

These developments are of crucial importance. They tend to support US interests. They also point to a potential shift within the military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.

"New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey... [T]he military power is able to carry out more ambitious projects in the region. It is predicted that in case of using the Libyan scenario in Syria it is possible that Turkey will apply for military intervention." ( New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey : Public Radio of Armenia, August 06, 2011, emphasis added)

The Extended NATO Military AllianceEgypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) are partners of NATO, whose forces could be deployed in a campaign directed against Syria.

40

41

Israel is a de facto member of NATO following an agreement signed in 2005.

The process of military planning within NATO's extended alliance involves coordination between the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), as well as the active military involvement of the frontline Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt: all in all ten Arab countries plus Israel are members of The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

We are at a dangerous crossroads. The geopolitical implications are far-reaching.

Syria has borders with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It spreads across the valley of the Euphrates, it is at the crossroads of major waterways and pipeline routes.

Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus makes Syria Russia's instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East.

Damascus is an important ally of Iran and irreconcilable enemy of Israel. It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces.

Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow's relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.( Ivan Safronov, Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection, Global Research July 28, 2006)

World War III ScenarioFor the last five years, the Middle East-Central Asian region has been on an active war footing.

41

42

Syria has significant air defense capabilities as well as ground forces.

Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles. In 2010, Russia delivered a Yakhont missile system to Syria. The Yakhont operating out of Russia's Tartus naval base "are designed for engagement of enemy's ships at the range of up to 300 km". (Bastion missile systems to protect Russian naval base in Syria, Ria Novosti, September 21, 2010).

The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria's northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.

Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.

In the short run, with the war in Libya, the US-NATO military alliance is overextended in terms of its capabilities. While we do not forsee the implementation of a US-NATO military operation in the short-term, the process of political destabilization through the covert support of a rebel insurgency will in all likelihood continue.

This article was updated on August 11, 2011. HOME PAGE

Cyprus Mail: ‘Leaked papers [about a meeting with HE President Assad and Christofias two years ago] put Christofias in a tight spot’..

White House: 'Fact Sheet on Syrian SanctionsTHE WHITE HOUSE'..

42

43

Reuters: ‘Russia opposes Western calls for Assad to go’..

Daily Star: ‘Markets prepared to handle Syrian oil loss’..

Assyrian Agency: 'Muslims Attack Christian Village in Egypt -- 1 Murdered, Homes Looted and Torched'..

Bloomberg: 'Iraq’s ‘Soft Line’ on Syria Snubs Obama Policy in Nod to Iran'..

Jerusalem Post: 'Iran, not peace process, should drive US policy on Syria''..

Cnn: 'Bachmann says Obama is leading from behind on Syria'..

NYTIMES: 'Notes From Homs: A Reporter’s Trip to One of Syria’s Most Rebellious Cities'..

Independent: 'Assad must go: the world unites against Syria's tyrant'..

NYTIMES: 'President Obama’s Statement on Syria'..

NYTIMES: 'If Al-Assad Steps Down' [Vedio]..

HOME PAGE

43