Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has appreciated Arab league observer mission to Syria, believing it will protect the Syrian people and calm down the situation there. A 50-member AL observer team will arrive in Syria on Monday. On 19th Dec, Syria granted the permission to AL to send an observer mission team after the pan-Arab group threatened to take the issue to Security Council.

Lavrov reiterated that during 2011, Russia has dispatched teams to curb violence and conflict through a national dialogue between all political, religious, and ethnic groups.
The AL team is to monitor Syria’s compliance to end the crackdown on dissent, which according to UN estimate has led to 5000 civilians deaths, while 2000 deaths of Syrian army and security personnel.

The post Russia: Arab League Observers Mission To Calm Syria Situation appeared first on Politact.

China and Russia vetoed the UN Security Council resolution that condemns Assad’s crackdown and backs Arab League plan calling for Bashar Assad to step aside. Both reiterated their opposition to the use of force to resolve the Syrian crisis, where escalating violence has killed thousands of civilians as the regime has cracked down on dissidents. The other 13 members that include US, UK, France, India and Pakistan, voted in favor of the resolution. Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby was pressing the Council to take swift and decisive action. On the other hand, Syrian UN ambassador dismissed the criticism against the regime, calling it the dream of western powers to return to colonialism and hegemony.

Analysis

Russian envoy to the EU had objected to the language of the Western-Arab UN Security Council resolution, calling for ‘unspecified measures’, if President Bashar does not cede power. Russia wanted a clear clause that rules out the possibility of external military intervention.

Russia had further stated that it will not support any action that is imposed on Syria; moreover, it will not take sides as had happened in the case of Libya. Sergei Lavrov had earlier commented that armed extremists disrupting the civic life are equally condemnable as the use of violence by the government. Additionally, Lavrov had warned that the regime change will not be restricted to Syria only, and it would spread.

China had also resisted Western push for the Security Council resolution, calling the forced regime change a violation of the United Nations Charter and the basic norms guiding the practice of international relations.

Meanwhile, Washington has maintained that the fall of Assad’s regime is inevitable, and it’s only a question of time. The opposition Syrian National Council has deplored the ‘lack of swift’ action by the international community and to protect the Syrian citizens ‘by all necessary means’. The rebel Free Syrian Army has claimed fifty percent of territory is no longer under the control of the regime, while CIA director David Petraeus has said that Assad now faced challenges in Damascus and Aleppo, two cities that had been insulated from the unrest.

The post Russia And China Veto UNSC Resolution On Syria appeared first on Politact.

Context

The situation in Syria has reached a critical stage. Many fears associated with the state of affairs there appear to have materialized one by one; to include the worsening humanitarian crisis, fear of chemical weapons getting into the wrong hands, the growing influence of extremists, and the potential spillover of the conflict in the wider region.

Each one of the above-interconnected anxieties carries serious implications. As has happened in the past, dictators in the Middle East inadvertently try to widen the conflict. This was the worry in the case of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. While these dictators were removed without any such immediate repercussions at the time, nonetheless, the resulting vacuum is causing the gradual spread of chaos across the wider region of Middle East and North Africa.

In both Iraq and Libya, regime change could not have taken place without external intervention. And, it is looking more likely in Syria as well especially when AQ linked extremists are outperforming the other forces of opposition in Syria.

Analysis

The Worries About Syrian Chemical Weapons

To deal with these Syrian worries, US has decided to deploy 200 military personnel to Jordan that will prepare the ground for military operations, if needed. These troops are in addition to the US Special Forces that have already been carrying out joint military exercises with their Jordanian counterparts.

The most serious apprehension obviously is in regards to the Syrian chemical weapons and there are accusations that the country may have already used them. However, Assad regime claims it did so after its introduction by the opposition forces. While US has been examining the proof, in a letter to the UN, France and UK have now asserted that Syria has indeed used chemicals on a number of occasions since December. On the other hand, in a recent interview to BBC, Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed it was ready to take action to prevent these weapons from getting in the hands of extremists, an outcome that would produce unprecedented consequences for Israel.

The Extremist Influence And Afghanistan Style Boomerang

The second concern is in regards to the growing influence of Al Qaeda (AQ) linked extremists in Syria. According to recent media reports, the strategic zone between Jordan, Israel and Syria that is located east of Golan, was taken over by the Syrian AQ linked group, Jabhat al-Nusra. Subsequently, AQ in Iraq claimed that Jabhat al-Nusra was now merged with it, and together they will be called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. While the association was long suspected, there is a danger that secular and nationalist opposition forces to Assad may be taken over by the extremists, posing negative repercussions for the Gulf, Israeli and Western interests.

This prospect is validating a scenario that PoliTact had pointed out to; a new Afghanistan like situation is brewing right in the heart of the Middle East, and with active support of Turkey, the West, including the Gulf heavy weights of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. If indeed the extremists begin to take the upper hand, as seems to be happening, military interference of one sorts or the other will be required.

US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey himself raised this possibility recently. He commented that US could send troops to Syria if the regime there appears to be falling to rebels, and its chemical weapons are in danger. In March Senator McCain had stated: “The President must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will Assad be allowed to finish what he has started, that there is no future in which Assad and his lieutenants will remain in control of Syria, and that the United States is prepared to use the full weight of our airpower to make it so.”

Early signs indicate the Gulf Region is also now is preparing for the inevitable overflow of the conflict in Syria and tensions with Iran. UAE and Saudi Arabia are both cracking down on illegal immigrants and have clamped down on Al Qaeda and Iran linked cells. In March Saudi Arabia claimed to have arrested 18 spies, some of them linked with Iran.

US-Russia Counter-Terror Cooperation

While the intervention in Syrian appears imminent, opposition from Russian and China has continued. In this context the Boston marathon incident may play an important role in soothing the ties between Russia and US. President Obama thanked Putin on Friday for unspecified support provided by Russia for the resolution of the matter. Will this lead to smoothening of US-Russia anti-terror cooperation, which could also speed up the regime change in Syria, is yet to be seen. However, it is interesting to see such linkages are already appearing in several prominent media outlets.

There are many Chechens that are fighting in Syria in cohorts with AQ, just as they have in the AfPak region. Russian assistance in stopping the flow of jihadist could prove to be instrumental. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to meet his Russian counter part, Sergei Lavrov, in Brussels next week. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week:

“Right now, he (Bashar al-Assad) is sitting there (in Syria) with support from Iran, with support from Hezbollah, with support from Russia, with artillery and an army, and believing that he can continue to fight it out using his air power, his Scuds, his artillery and his tanks. So that equation somehow has to change, and we all understand that.”

Conclusion

At the weekend meeting of the foreign ministers of Friends of Syria group that was held in Turkey, US decided to double its non-lethal assistance and humanitarian aid. According to reports, the equipment to be provided will now include armored vehicles, night vision goggles and sophisticated communications equipment. On the other hand, the Free Syrian Army has continued to complain they have not been provided enough support to decisively settle the matter, which only increases their dependence on the Islamist groups.

The Friends of Syria group is concerned that arms being supplied to the opposition forces may ultimately end up with the extremist groups, and that would only complicate the post Assad scenario. For their part, the opposition forces have assured the military equipment will not fall in the wrong hands. However, if the extremist groups continue to outperform the opposition forces supported by Friends of Syria in toppling the Assad regime, military intervention is all but likely.

The post Syria, Boston Bombings And US-Russia Terror Cooperation appeared first on Politact.

Context

The debate continues about Israel’s intent and readiness to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and what Iran would do if that was to occur. The narrative covering this debate has revolved around if Israel will hit Iran before the US November election. Recent coverage was more concentrated on the difference of opinion between President Netanyahu and President Obama over establishing clear-cut red lines for Iran. There are also doubts about if the military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities can completely destroy them. Reports indicate that even if the US and Israeli acted jointly, the program will likely be set back only by a couple of years.

In short, prior to the recent events in Libya, US remained reluctant to pursue an all-out military solution towards Iran’s nuclear program. However, since the killing of Chris Stevens, the optimistic view of the trajectory of Arab Spring in the US is giving way to the narrative Israel has promoted all along. Early signs indicate a change of US posture may be in the offing.

Analysis

Military Or Political Solution

Deciphering this ongoing deliberation reveals that Iran is not going to back down under the pressure of economic sanctions. Therefore, to Israel, it is obvious that there is no alternative to a military strike and covert operations that are already underway. Especially, when there is an alarm that Iran is fast approaching the point of no return in acquiring nuclear capability.

On the other hand, the US is not so sure that the military option is the only one available. Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, US likes to work on the political and military solutions in tandem. This approach has not worked out very well in both places. Nonetheless, the US has relied on economic sanctions, covert operations and diplomacy for the time being.

There is obviously the dynamics of Arab Spring to consider that has worked in the favor of US up to this point. With the spreading Arab revolt the balance of power in the Middle East is being altered to such an extent that ultimately, in combination with economic sanctions, Iran will be left without allies and depleted exchequer. And, this change in itself may convince the Iranians about the futility of its nuclear ambition. The parallel here is not much different than the example of Pakistan. The spreading war against extremists and its worsening economic woes have persuaded the country its time to change the nation’s security policies and ties with India.
However, recent events in North Africa, Middle East, including Afghanistan, are now pushing the US towards a rethink of its strategy. The protests that erupted in the aftermath of the anti-Islam video and the killing of the American ambassador in Libya have revealed alarming levels of anti-Americanism. On the other hand, the spreading green on blue attacks in Afghanistan presents a stark reflection of the collapse of approach there.

War On Terror And Arab Spring

For all intents and purposes, this year’s 9/11 anniversary marked the beginning of the next phase of the war on terror and Arab Spring, the two interconnected phenomena. It is worth mentioning that the recent protests around the Islamic world, and the reasons behind them, are not without historical precedence. During the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 in the subcontinent, the underpinnings also involved cultural and religious miscalculations. The present mishandlings are already producing dire consequences in Afghanistan and more serious consequences are likely to follow. In a statement regarding the events of Libya, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was already making these connections with history when it praised ‘Omar al-Mukhtar’s descendants’ for the killing of the American ambassador.

The harsh tactics adopted in the first phase of the war against terror have gradually eaten up the credibility and space the despotic leaders of the region needed to remain in power. At the same time, moderate Islamist and nationalist are resurgent while the secular and liberal space have consistently shrunk. On the other hand, the US is in need of allies that retain some level of public support to implement the counterterrorism strategy. The challenge being, in the second phase of the campaign against extremists, in many places, such allies no longer exist or have no political space to operate.

The killing of the American ambassador and the initial ambivalence of the Egyptian and Tunisian authorities to control the protests have given credence to the Israeli claim that moderate Islamists, that came to power as a result of the Arab awakening, have a soft corner for the radical Islamists. Moreover, the extremists will eventually take over the moderates. If this really is the case, then that means extremist groups are indeed benefiting by the present flux and chaos in the region and by exploiting the direction of the uprisings.

The American Elections

The Republican Party is leading the charge to counter this and has blamed Obama for not fully supporting Israel. In an interview with Fox News Newt Gingrich commented, “I think we should have a total reassessment of our entire strategy for the region.”

Representing the threat perception of Israel, Gingrich went on to state the Middle East is heading for serious turmoil, “As these dictatorships collapse, you’re seeing more and more weapons get in the hands of extremists. The Israelis have a real fear… they may suddenly see Syrian chemical weapons being fired at them by Hezbollah in very substantial quantities.”
In a fund raising event in May, Mitt Romney had this to say about the two-state solution:

“So the only answer is to show them strength. American strength, American resolve, and the Palestinians will some day reach the point where they want peace more than we’re trying to force peace on them. Then it’s worth having the discussion. So until then, it’s just wistful thinking.”

A statement like these caused Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat to state last week that the Palestinian leadership is considering canceling the 1993 Oslo Accords all together.

The politicking of American elections and events in the Middle East appear to be moving US policy closer to the Israeli position, even with all the risks. There is a very real chance that Israel will act independently and the US will be dragged into the conflict, even when it does not want to.

On Saturday, US Senate cleared a non-binding resolution on Iran by a vote of 90 to 1. The resolution emphasizes the US must do all it can to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Some observers think the bill clears the US moving towards war. Senator Rand Paul, the only one dissenting, argued, “This means that right now before anything happens, you’ve decided that you will preemptively go to war,” Paul commented.

The post US, Israeli Strategy On Iran Converging appeared first on Politact.

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi stated that the Syrian conflict could only be resolved through serious talks between the opposition and the government. Moreover, Salehi warned of catastrophic consequences if Assad fell from power.

Delegations from 28 nations participated in the meeting. Among others, the countries in attendance included Russia, China, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, and India. These states, like Iran, have neither backed the Syrian opposition nor have demanded Assad to resign.

During the meeting, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar explained why Pakistan had abstained in the recent UN Security Council vote on Syria. She emphasized that principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty should by respected in dealing with the Syrian crisis, as it will set a precedent for dealing with future conflicts. Pakistan has used the same argument in opposing drone strikes conducted by US in FATA. Additionally, she reiterated the need for finding a mutually acceptable solution to end the impending crisis, which poses serious implications for the entire Ummah.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State visited Turkey to speed up preparations for dealing with the Syrian challenge, and the possible use of chemical weapons by it. UK and US both have increased aid to the Syrian opposition

The post Iran Builds Support Against Regime Change In Syria Prior To OIC Meeting appeared first on Politact.

11 votes, which included India, were cast in favor, while Pakistan and South Africa abstained.

The move enraged western countries with the US calling for the use of an alternative approach outside the Security Council, using a diverse range of partners, to pressure Assad and to aid those in need.

The post Russia, China Veto While Pakistan, South Africa Abstain From Resolution On Syria appeared first on Politact.

Russia is also organizing an international conference on Syria that would include all major stakeholders, including Iran. The United States, Britain and France have objected to Iran’s participation in the conference. On the other hand, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that western and Arab nations are sending weapons and forces to Syria to impede reforms promised by Assad.

As blame game on who is supplying arms to Syria heats up, there is real danger of the crisis turning into a proxy war, with NATO, Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia and Iran aiding the government forces.

The post Syrian Crisis Turning Into A Proxy War appeared first on Politact.

Context

As the crisis in Syria worsens, the calls for military intervention are getting louder. However, the prospect of foreign military involvement remains fraught with problems, not least the fact that Russia and China would most certainly veto any such resolution in the Security Council.

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was recently on a European tour, and the situation in Syria was a key point of discussion. However, European countries remain largely divided over the efficacy of military intervention in Syria. The fact remains the military intervention in Syria or Iran cannot be localized, with many Arab countries in turmoil as a result of the uprisings and extremism, a larger regional conflict is simply inevitable.

Analysis

Syrian Options

In addition to the economic pressures, there are several other reasons why European countries that had participated in the Libyan campaign earlier, now feel reluctant. It is almost certain that Russia and China would veto such a movement in the Security Council, and few countries would be willing to act without the consensus of a UN resolution behind them. Moreover, US itself is double minded and apparently does not want another entrenched engagement when it is extricating itself from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, last week’s massacre in the Syrian town of Houla has seen the calls for military intervention renewed with increased fervor, as the toll from the unrest there continues to rise. The consequences of potential military action in Syria have staid many actors from pursuing the path.

Most governments are in fact extremely cautious since their many unknowns. The state of affairs of the country are much more complex than that of Libya. There is no comparison to that case, for two main reasons:

There is no cohesion in the Syrian opposition, and hence no answer to the question of who would take over if Assad were overthrown.

Secondly, the Syrian Army is not only much better trained than the Libyan forces but well armed as well. This may be due to its long-standing relationship with Russia. Additionally, and the nexus of conflict is in urban centers rather than the more spread out terrain, as was witnessed in Libya.

The most critical concern is the spread of unrest into neighboring countries, like Turkey and particularly to fragile Lebanon and Iraq. The probability of a proxy war between Iran and other regional players is quite high in case a regime change scenario plays out, which will most certainly result in a wider sectarian war.

China, Russia And European Disunity

Thus, there is recognition of the risks involved in pursuing a military intervention in Syria. The major dilemma is that nothing else seems to be working and the initial optimism for the Annan plan also appears to have faded after the Houla massacre.

While US has come out with a strong condemnation of the Russian and Chinese positions, from the perspective of China and Russia, they do not want a repeat of the Libyan experience and towards application of military means towards regime change.

In this light, Hilary Clinton’s tour of Scandinavia was an attempt to win the support of these states, particularly as there is no stomach in the US or in Europe for another unilateral intervention.

This may be a difficult task, however, given that Europe is swamped in its own economic crisis, and governments are stretched as it is. Already it appears that Germany has agreed with Russia that military route is not an option. As Russian President Vladimir Putin met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande in Paris on Friday, Merkel stated that,

“We both [Putin] made clear that we are pushing for a political solution, that the Annan plan can be a starting point but that everything must be done in the United Nations Security Council to implement this plan. There is a need to find a convergence of these interests and have them sit down at a negotiating table. That’s the direction we are going to work in.”

Hollande was a little less clear as to whether France would consider Libyan style intervention or not, but stated that removing Assad was “a prerequisite for a political transition” and that “there must be sanctions” against his government. “Bashar al-Assad’s regime has conducted itself in an unacceptable and intolerable manner. It has committed acts that disqualify itself [from ruling]” he continued.

On the other hand, UK has been less kind to Russia, accusing it of ‘fence sitting’ and placing responsibility at its door, like US, should Syria descend into civil war. The fear is that with or without an intervention, the country is descending into a civil war, with violence spreading across the borders.

There is no easy answer when it comes to Syria. The challenge is that in other instances in the recent past when military means were used, political alternatives were available to achieve the desired ends. In the case of Syria, political alternatives are not working while there is little appetite for another military intervention.

The post The Question Of Military Intervention In Syria appeared first on Politact.

Context

Relationships in the Middle East are shifting dramatically over the issue of Syria and Iran. On the one hand, Turkey and the BRICS countries have supported Iranian rights to peaceful nuclear program and have not relented from importing oil from it despite EU and American sanctions. On the other hand, the position of Arab countries and Turkey are similar when its come to the situation in Syria. However, this did not prevent Arab nations from attempting to sideline Turkey from the controversial Arab League conference, recently held in Iraq.

Meanwhile, US is strengthening its ties with the Gulf States, while warning Iran that its window for diplomacy will not be open long. But this does not mean the Gulf countries are united against Iran.Qatar, an emerging regional power, has strongly opposed any military action against Iran.

Analysis

Arab League Summit In Iraq

Attendees were low at the recent Arab League summit held in Baghdad, with most of the Gulf States, Jordan and Morocco absent. While this may have been a blow for the new Iraqi government, there was still cause for them to feel the success of the event, given that it went off without security incident and was the first time in the Arab League history that a summit was chaired by a non-Arab, Shiite leader.

The absence, however, of the most significant players in the region was testament to the shifting relationships in the Middle East. The sunni-shiite divide is becoming increasingly apparent, with the issues of Iran and Syria taking center stage as the regional and world players tussle for influence.

The Gulf States have reservations about Iraq because of the perception that Iran is exerting influence there, and indirectly through Iraq into Syria. They are also uneasy about Iranian reach in the Yemen and feel hemmed in by the long arm of Tehran. In this vein they are increasing their cooperation with the US in matters of defense, even talking about a Gulf-wide missile-defense system with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a recent visit.

At the same time, Qatar is emerging as regional player, and with the head of US command in the region stationed in Qatar, they have some leverage in the situation. Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani recently stated that Qatar was opposed to military action against Iran: “We will not accept, and this is very clear, any act of aggression against Iran (being launched) from Qatar.” This puts them at odds with their powerful Saudi neighbors, but the oil-rich nation has been flexing its muscle of late, and appears to be gaining traction as a regional heavyweight.

The BRICS And Turkey

The sentiment expressed by Qatar was backed by the BRICS nations, who met in Delhi. In a joint statement by the BRICS:

“The situation concerning Iran cannot be allowed to escalate into conflict, the disastrous consequences of which will be in no one’s interest,” said the declaration. “We are concerned about the situation that is emerging around Iran’s nuclear issue,” it continued.

The declaration backed Iran’s right to nuclear power, saying: “[we] support resolution of the issues involved through political and diplomatic means and dialogue between the parties concerned, including between the IAEA and Iran and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.”

This blow to the western power bloc’s refusal to believe Iran is only interested in a peaceful nuclear program was further hammered by Turkey’s assertion recently that Iran’s right to nuclear power should be upheld.

“The government and nation of Turkey has always clearly supported the nuclear positions of the Islamic republic of Iran, and will continue to firmly follow the same policy in the future,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said March 27 while in Iran, the same day the Arab nations were meeting in Baghdad.

Both Turkey and Iran were snubbed from the summit, with the Arab League stating that all non-Arab participants were not included, despite having an EU observer there for the summit. Turkey’s relationship with Iraq has been deteriorating over Iraqi fears that Turkey is exerting undue influence in the country, filling the political void in the absence of a strong and unified Iraqi government. Turkey is looked at with suspicion by the rest of the Arab countries as well, who fear a rise in neo-Ottoman ambitions.

In the mean time, Turkey appears to be sticking to its plans to oppose the US sanctions on Iranian oil, which amount to 30 percent of Turkey’s energy imports. The country is said to be interested in receiving a waiver from the US, however it is anticipated that they will defy the sanctions anyway if such a waiver is not granted.

Syria

The situation in Syria is the other issue polarizing the Middle East. At first the Arab League was quick to call on Bashar al Assad to step down or be removed, however since failing to convince China and Russia at the UN Security Council, they have softened their tone somewhat, instead choosing to back the Kofi Annan-authored peace plan which has been accepted by the Assad regime.

While Annan’s plan was accepted by Assad, there has been no evidence of its being implemented in the three days since Annan met with the Syrian leader. This is further cause for concern, as it drastically narrows the political room for movement if Assad refuses to comply with the terms of a plan he himself has agreed to.

At the same time Turkey is hosting a Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul on Sunday, which is viewed with deep suspicion by Arab nations. The Arab nations are trying to distance themselves from the calls for Assad’s fall, instead focusing on national dialogue as the means to end the conflict. The Istanbul meeting, to which Syrian rebel representatives are invited, is seen as focusing on how to oust the Al Assad regime.

US And Gulf States

The US joins the fears of the Gulf States that Iran is wielding too much influence in Syria, even suspecting them of furnishing arms to the Syrian government, with some suspecting Iraq of also playing a role in propping up the Assad regime with Iranian help.

Clinton hinted at this while in the Gulf, stating that the mutual interest of the US and the Gulf regarding Syria and Iran promotes the need for taking “practical and specific steps to strengthen our mutual security, such as helping our militaries improve interoperability, cooperate on maritime security and missile defense, and coordinate responses to crises.”

Particularly poignant was the talk of a regional missile defense architecture. Going forward, Clinton said, the discussion will focus on “the wide range of common strategic concerns, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and curbing its interference in the affairs of its neighbors.”

The shifting relationships in the Middle East are making an already volatile situation even more unstable, with suspicions increasing all around. PoliTact will continue to monitor the evolving situation in Middle East.

The post Emerging Alignments In The Middle East appeared first on Politact.

Context

Iran was the central theme of a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 5, 2012. The two leaders exchanged reassurances of support each for the other; however their biggest difference of opinion remains how to tackle Iran.

The Iranian issue remains a strong point of convergence as well as divergence for the Israel and the US. US President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an extended talk at the White House, but neither appeared to budge from their underlying positions: Obama that a sequential, ideally diplomatic solution is best. Netanyahu that Israel will strike, the only variable is at what time.

While the Israeli leader did not back down on his talk of a strike against Iran, he did say it was no longer a ‘matter of weeks’ that the event will take place. He curbed this, however, by also stating that it was also not ‘a matter of years.’ So no action in the immediate future, but there is the distinct possibility in a relatively short time.

Analysis

First Things First

For the US, dealing with Syria, specifically getting rid of Bashar al Assad is a premium objective before tackling Iran. Not only is the Syrian situation more pressing, but ridding Syria of al Assad is also removing a staunch ally of Iran. With no view of a stable government being formed in Syria quickly, a country in disarray will serve US interests in Iran, especially as a country in chaos is perhaps more palatable than the possibility of a new government with the same sentiments toward Iran and Israel as the al Assad government.

The US is also keen to wind things up in Afghanistan before turning fully to the Iranian problem, particularly if that will require use of military force. The US will want to prevent being military engaged in more than one area, and thus being overstretched as well as overtaxing the American population’s stomach for war. There would also have to be a clear and distinct approach to any action in Iran, as Pakistan has avowed to side with Iran in the event of an attack, and so the US would no doubt be denied the supply routes and presence it has enjoyed in Pakistan to support the Afghanistan war.

Furthermore, the US and the EU are putting a lot of effort into their sanctions regimes against Iran, so they will be calling for a stay of any military action to determine how effective these new sanctions can be in coercing Iran into cooperation on the nuclear issue. Already some positives have come out of it, with a positive response from Iran to the EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton letter of invitation back to negotiations.

Ashton wrote in her reply to Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili “Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, while respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.” Iran has also allowed UN nuclear investigators into facilities where they were previously barred.

This movement on the diplomatic side of the Iranian problem would be cause for Obama to offer very stern suggestions of patience to Israel.

Israel Not Convinced

Israel, however, remains unconvinced of the sincerity of Iran on any of the diplomatic avenues or overtures. And they have support from many in the Republican Party in the US as well. They are more convinced of the negotiations and inspections as merely being a ploy to buy more time for Iran, than a true step toward conciliation or understanding.

The question is, how long is Israel prepared to wait. For its part, the US has staunchly vowed to support Israel, and to support Israel’s right to self defense. Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated this at a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): “I think that above and beyond that there are two principles, longstanding principles of American policy that you [Obama] reiterated yesterday in your speech – that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself by itself against any threat; and that when it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right to make its own decisions,” Netanyahu said.

He further added “That’s the very purpose of the Jewish state – to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. And that’s why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.”

For Israel this realization remains tied to Iranian nuclear capacity. Because of the anti-Israel rhetoric of Iran, Israel views their achieving nuclear weapon technology and the destruction or attempted destruction of Israel as synonymous.

While the Washington talks may have cooled the threat of immediate military action on Iran, perhaps the most telling element of the meeting was the gift Netanyahu gave to President Obama: A copy of the “Megillah of Esther,” a scroll detailing the story of the Persian Jews who overcame a plot by the Persian Vizier Haman to destroy them. This story is read to celebrate the Jewish holiday Purim, but its theme, at such a time is all too pertinent. Israel means, like the Jews of ancient Persia to overcome the Persian plot against them.

The post The Future of Iran Strategy As Obama, Netanyahu Meet appeared first on Politact.