British embassy Tehran, to reopen

"... William Hague has announced that Britain's embassy in Iran will be reopened as the West looks to Tehran to help ease the crisis in neighbouring Iraq.The Foreign Secretary said the "circumstances are right" to restore the diplomatic base after a significant thawing in relations over recent months...."

Neocon Kagan: 'Hillary is our best hope!'

"....But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president.“If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”..."

Iraq: 'Saudi Arabia financing ISIS!'

 'The Islamic State of Iraq & Syria'

"... Saudi Arabia should be held responsible for militant financing and crimes committed by insurgent groups in Iraq, the Baghdad government charged on Tuesday.
Comments from Riyadh indicates it is "siding with terrorism", the cabinet said in a statement issued by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office."We strongly condemn this stance," the statement read."We hold it (Saudi Arabia) responsible for what these groups are receiving in terms of financial and moral support."

"Washington must finally confront Saudi Arabia over its longstanding support for jihadi militants as a policy tool"

".... It is also imperative that U.S. policymakers rethink—and rebalance—their Middle East diplomatic strategy, in at least three critical respects.  First, Washington needs to acknowledge the mistaken premises of its Syria policy—that Assad has lost the support of most Syrians and can be overthrown by externally-supported oppositionists—and recognize that ending the anti-Assad insurgency is essential to cutting off ISIS’s base in northeastern Syria.Second, Washington needs to accept Tehran as an essential player in containing and rolling back ISIS’s multifaceted challenge and—as we have been advocating inside and outside government for over a decade—embed that acceptance in a broader realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations.  It is crucial, though, that America engage Iran over ISIS politically—not, as some suggest, by U.S. warplanes covering Iranian foot soldiers in Iraq.  (Most responsible officials and politicians in Tehran appear too smart to fall for such a “trap,” which would also play into al-Qa’ida’s grand strategy.)Third, Washington must finally confront Saudi Arabia over its longstanding support for jihadi militants as a policy tool.  Riyadh’s resort to this tool has proven serially damaging for U.S. interests; time has come for U.S. leaders to make clear to Saudi counterparts that their tolerance for it is at an end."

The Iraq Crisis and America’s Double-Edged Partnership with Saudi Arabia

"... U.S.-armed Sunnis needed a catalyst for resurgence, however.  In the first two years of Obama’s presidency, they grudgingly co-existed with central governments grounded in coalitions of Shi’a Islamist and Kurdish parties.  The Islamic State of Iraq—formed in 2006 from Zarqawi’s Al-Qai’da in Iraq—seemed on the wane.  Then, in spring 2011, Obama decided to support largely Sunni militias and forces willing to collaborate with them in trying to overthrow incumbent leaders in Libya and Syria.  This was motivated partly by dysfunctional aspects of Washington’s strategic co-dependency with Riyadh, and partly by a longstanding delusion that America could orchestrate a de factoaxis of Saudi Arabia and other “moderate” Sunni states with Israel to check Iran’s rise and bolster a pro-U.S. regional order under threat from the Arab Awakening.  But, by reigniting the flames of Sunni militancy, the decision proved profoundly inimical to American interests...."

US Official: 'Drafting of deal with Iran began in May'

"... "Actually there was some drafting... at the last round," the official said. "A little bit of that was done the last time, and it was expected more will take place during this round." While stressing that "significant" differences remain, the official indicated that progress was made at bilateral talks between the United States and Iran in Geneva last Monday and Tuesday.
"We not only understood each other better after those two days but I think we both can see places where we might be able to close the gaps," the official said...."

'Can Obama pull a Nixon with the Iraq crisis?'

"... Unfortunately, signs of Obama repeating Nixon's trick — offsetting failure in Iraq by securing compensatory advantage elsewhere — are hard to find. Instead, the roster of countries across the Islamic world that Washington views as problems or threats has grown appreciably.As shrewd as he was amoral, Nixon contrived a way to limit the damage that Vietnam had done to U.S. interests. Obama has yet to demonstrate any comparable ability to limit the damage done by the Iraq war.One glimmer of opportunity remains, in terms of daring and audacity the closest thing to a Nixonian gambit: Ending the U. S. diplomatic estrangement from Iran could yield a strategic realignment comparable to that produced by the opening to China, its effects rippling across the greater Middle East. There, rather than in misguided proposals for renewed U.S. military action, lies Obama's chance to demonstrate that he has grasped the lessons that Iraq (along with Vietnam) has to teach. One can imagine Nixon himself relishing the prospect."

Daily Star: 'Syrian Arab Army retake Kasab, pound ISIS bases'

Syrian regime forces retake Kasab, pound ISIS bases

"... Government forces flushed opposition fighters from their last strongholds in northwestern Syria near the Turkish frontier Sunday, seizing the Armenian town of Kasab and restoring government control over a nearby border crossing, activists and state media said.The developments came as regime airstrikes pounded bases in eastern Syria belonging to the Al-Qaeda splinter group ISIS in coordination with the Baghdad government, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.The military’s advances fully reversed the gains rebels had made during their three-month campaign in Latakia province, the rugged coastal region that is the ancestral heartland of President Bashar Assad." 

"State Department officials are in fact in dialogue with their Iranian counterparts about how to turn back ISIS"

'After a slow start caused by a number of domestic political distractions and the continuing reverberations of the return of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Administration is beginning to formulate its response to the surging advances of the ISIS in Northern Iraq. The Pentagon is preparing a list ofmilitary options, but President Obama has made clear that he is reluctant to intervene unless the Iraqi government provides concrete assurances of its intention to undertake political reform in Iraq. While US officials do not underestimate the seriousness of the ISIS advances, they are also fault Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki for his sectarian manner of governance. The Intelligence Community is reporting that Sunni leaders in Anbar province have given their blessing to ISIS. At the Pentagon, there is deep resentment against him for his failure to allow a basing agreement for a residual US force. Any US intervention will therefore be heavily conditioned. There are even some at high policy making levels who are dusting off former ideas about partitioning Iraq. Our White  House sources advise us that they have "polled" questions about Iraqi intervention extensively and their public statements reflect the current mood of the American public on this issue. The events is Iraq are throwing the spotlight on Iran. Secretary of State Kerry has been publicly cautious about whether last week’s talks with Iran about nuclear issues also included discussion of Iraq. However, we understand that, with evidence ofongoing Iranian operations in Iraq, State Department officials are in fact in dialogue with their Iranian counterparts about how to turn back ISIS. They remain anxious not to conflate the Iraq and nuclear problems and thus give the Iranians the sense that by being helpful on the former they can  extract concessions on the latter.  Iran experts advise us, however, that this goal will prove elusive. Iraq has taken attention away from Ukraine, but US officials hold Russia responsible for the continuing resilience of the pro-Russia militants. While talk of a third round of sanctions has eased recently, these could readily activated unless Moscow takes action to calm the situation in Eastern Ukraine. Finally, on China preparations for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue to be held in early July are in train, but divisions between the two sides are hindering agreement about the agenda.'

Lebanese Army moves against Jabhat al Nusra

'The Lebanese army intensified its security measures near the country’s borders with Syria’s Qalamoun region amid a crackdown on al-Nusra Front militants fleeing Syria. The military operation will in fact take some time, and is expected to further intensify if the Syrian army decides to regain control over al-Zabadani....'

'The potential for de facto coöperation between the United States & Iran'

"... "... Twitter pundits are already speculating about the potential for de facto coöperation between the countries. Among the scenarios: U.S. drones striking ISIS targets and, in effect, providing air cover for Iranian Revolutionary Guards dispatched to help hold back the ISIS jihadis, who have been pushing toward Baghdad. In our conversation, Zarif denied reports that Tehran has already dispatched battalions of Revolutionary Guards to aid and protect Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government, but its élite Quds Force has long had a presence—in various forms—inside Iraq......Today, Tehran, like Washington, seems preoccupied with the rise or return of Sunni militants, from Syria to Afghanistan. “Everybody is threatened by this extremism,” Zarif told me in March. “It has changed the strategic calculations and considerations for everybody who is interested in peace and stability in this region…. I think we all must take cognizance of the fact that this is a threat and work on it together—not against one another.”

'A combined Iraqi-Iranian force has now taken control of 85% of the city'

'Iranian troops have helped Iraqi government forces re-take the town of Tikrit, the Wall St Journal reports Iranian security sources as saying.The source said that two battalions of Iran's Quds force, the overseas branch of the country's Revolutionary Guard, helped battle ISIS Islamist militants in the city.A combined Iraqi-Iranian force has now taken control of 85% of the city, the sources added.'

IRGC' Suleimani in Baghdad?

"... There were reports Thursday that Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards special forces, was in Baghdad to help the Maliki government mount a counterattack and protect the capital..."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/12/230240/obama-says-all-options-on-table.html?sp=/99/117/416/#storylink=cpy

Spreading Bad American Policy from Iraq to Syria…and Back Again

"... In Iraq, the resurgence of sectarian violence stems not from the 2011 American withdrawal. It is, rather, the fruit of America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, the subsequent U.S. occupation, and the much vaunted "surge" of 2007-2008. The U.S. invasion and occupation destroyed the Iraqi state and ignited tensions among Iraq's sectarian and ethnic communities. The surge sought to empower certain Sunni militias while paying them (temporarily) not to kill American soldiers; this ended up giving Sunni militants the means to press their grievances through escalating violence once U.S. forces were no longer around.Unfortunately, Washington seems determined to compound its appalling policy choices in Iraq with equally grievous choices regarding Syria..."

FP: 'The carnage in Iraq is a Saudi dream come true'

"... Such a setback for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been the dream of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah for years. He has regarded Maliki as little more than an Iranian stooge, refusing to send an ambassador to Baghdad and instead encouraging his fellow rulers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman -- to take a similar standoff-ish approach. Although vulnerable to al Qaeda-types at home, these countries (particularly Kuwait and Qatar) have often turned a blind eye to their citizens funding radical groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the most active Islamist groups opposed to Assad in Syria. This perspective may well confuse many observers. In recent weeks, there has been a flurry of reports of an emerging -- albeit reluctant -- diplomatic rapprochement between the Saudi-led GCC and Iran, bolstered by the apparently drunken visit to Tehran by the emir of Kuwait ... The merit, if such a word can be used, of the carnage in Iraq is that at least it offers clarity. There are tribal overlays and rival national identities at play, but the dominant tension is the religious difference between majority Sunni and minority Shiite Islam. This region-wide phenomenon is taken to extremes by the likes of ISIS, which also likely sees its action in Iraq as countering Maliki's support for Assad. ISIS is a ruthless killing machine, taking Sunni contempt for Shiites to its logical, and bloody, extreme....."

Human Rights Watch timid praise of al Qaeda!

"Well, we were going to wage jihad to establish an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but the U.S. is arming moderates so I guess we’ll stay home.”

 'ISIS in full regalia'

'...  The absence of U.S. troops because of the 2011 withdrawal is an extremely minor part of the story at best. The intense interaction between the Syrian and Iraqi insurgencies is certainly an important accelerant, but again is only part of the story. Nor is the U.S. reluctance to provide more arms to “moderate” Syrian rebels really the key to the growth of ISIS in Syria or in Iraq. It’s a bit hard to believe that the jihadists who have joined up with ISIS would have been deterred by the presence of U.S.-backed forces – “Well, we were going to wage jihad to establish an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but the U.S. is arming moderates so I guess we’ll stay home.” In reality, the shift to an externally fueled insurgency and the flow of money and weapons to a variety of armed groups is what created the conditions that allowed ISIS to thrive in the first place...."

'Maliki's army is in a real "world of hurt."'

'The Iraq crisis becomes more and more interesting.  Today we are learning that ISIS has made some sort of temporary common cause with former Iraqi Army (sadddam period) people to include a large number of men who are members of the "Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order." The naqshbandiya is the largest Sufi order in the Islamic World .  Izzat Ibrahim, the redhead who was Saddam's VP is a member and is reputedly recognized at least temporarily by ISIS as something like field coordinator for the campaign.  Izzat's nephew is an Iraqi Republican guard general who commanded an armored division and a mechanised infantry division in the war with Iran as well as holding the post of chief of military intelligence during that war.  His name is Sabr Abd al-Aziz Al-Douri.Contrary to public delusion in the USA, the former Iraqi Army had many capable and well trained officers. The speed and effective direction of this offensive seems to me to show the participation of such officers as Sabr- Abd al-Aziz al-Douri.If that is the case, then Maliki's army is in a real "world of hurt."  pl

How do you say 'finally' in Turkish? Nihayet!

"... Despite such indirect acknowledgements of Jabhat al-Nusra’s status as a terrorist group, it took nine months for Ankara to finally designate it as a terrorist organization by a government decree published in the Official Gazette.The question arises as to why the Erdogan government decided to blacklist Jabhat al-Nusra now, after having resisted doing so for so long. The simple answer seems to be that its Syria policy is in tatters, after all the horses it bet on lost one by one.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has proved to have staying power, and his latest election gambit shows that he will remain in place for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, it has become apparent that there will be no direct Western-led military intervention against the Syrian regime, which continues to get major backing from Russia and Iran.
The Erdogan government has no choice at this point but to also accept that as far as the United States and Europe are concerned, the emphasis in Syria has shifted from toppling Assad to combating the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist groups in that country..."

'Regime Change in Iraq': It worked beatifully the first time! Let's do it AGAIN!

 'ISIS controlled in red. (AsSafir)'

Cordesman in CNN:"... Yes, the United States might have to help in spite of his total unfitness to rule and Iraq's desperate need to expel him and his cronies from the country, but U.S. aid must be conditional and tied to the fact that al-Maliki is an authoritarian thug. The United States should also quietly do everything possible to push him out of power and into exile..."

Insane!

'How can the West hope to contain the monster it helped to create? Call Tehran!

"... In order to understand this new phenomenon, it is essential to grasp what brought it into being. Its emergence can be traced straight back to the Iraq invasion. Some of its fighters (who bring formidable military capability) are former Ba’athist soldiers. Others learnt their trade with the so-called “Awakening fighting” groups created by the US to head off an all-out Iraqi civil war back in 2007.The Western campaign to dislodge President Assad of Syria was another contributing factor. While our leaders were ready to call for Assad to go, they were unwilling to intervene directly to dislodge him. Instead, mainly through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into Isis and other al‑Qaeda connected militias.The comparison with the terrible mistakes made by Western intelligence agencies during the Afghan war against the Soviets is startling. We supported al‑Qaeda, which later turned on us. Thanks to this policy, Pakistan now faces a permanent terrorist insurgency bordering on civil war. It is very likely that Turkey (and probably Jordan and Saudi Arabia) will face the same problem in due course as a result of the Syrian backlash. Meanwhile, jihadists have found a new terror base from which they can mount attacks on the West. All this was predictable at the start of the Syrian war – indeed, President Assad warned of it.How can the West hope to contain the monster it helped to create? The countries we formed at the stroke of a pen in the Sykes-Picot treaty 98 years ago are being washed away. Only Egypt and Iran, states whose history stretches back for thousands of years rather than decades, are certain to survive intact.With Egypt facing grave problems, Iran has emerged as the most stable and powerful country in the Middle East. Again and again since the 9/11 attack on the twin towers in 2001, the Iranians have offered cooperation against al-Qaeda and its allies. These entreaties have repeatedly been turned down. It is time for President Obama and David Cameron to acknowledge that we have been helping to sponsor terror for the past few decades. We have to choose new allies, and they must include Iran. If we carry on with our present deluded course, the threat to the West will only grow more dangerous."

'The next generation of "al-Qaedism"'

"... The Bush surge in 2007 did not destroy Zarqawi's empire. A residual US ground force would not have eliminated it, either. Decapitating the group and buying the Sunni tribes only forced it deeper into the angry Sunni underground. Only sustained good and smart governance could kill it, and that was something post-Saddam Hussein Iraq could not produce, with or without the United States.The Syrian civil war was a gift to ISIS. At first, ISIS created Jabhat al-Nusra as its agent in Iraq that could be portrayed as an independent party under one of Zarqawi's former deputies, Mohammad al-Golani. Then, ISIS demanded al-Nusra accept its loyalty to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and not bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahri. The protege had turned on his leader's heir. Ironically, Zawahri had long warned bin Laden of this eventuality. In his last days, bin Laden told Zawahri he had always been right about the upstart Jordanian. Too late...."

Russia & the 'color revolutions': Better listen!

CSIS' Cordesman:  

"... Key Russian officers and officials presented a view of the US and the West as deliberately destabilizing nations in North Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the world for their own ends. They describe such actions as having failed, and been a key source of terrorism. They see the West as rejecting partnership with the West as a threatening Russia along all of its borders with Europe.... Western experts can argue the degree to which this represents Russian anger over the West’s reaction to events in Ukraine, Russian efforts at persuading developing nations and Asia to back Russia in a reassertion of its strategic role in the world, propaganda to cloak the character Russian actions in the Ukraine and near abroad, an effort to justify Russian action in Syria, very real Russian concern over US and European actions that have destabilized key MENA and Central Asian states, and a host of other possible motives and intentions.What is critical is that the US and Europe listen to what Russian military leaders and strategists are saying. These are not Russian views the US and Europe can afford to ignore...." 

"The Obama Administration has been pursuing a policy of covert support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent movements in the Middle East since 2010..."

"... The Obama Administration has been pursuing a policy of covert support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent movements in the Middle East since 2010.  MEB has obtained a just-released U.S. State Department document through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that confirms the Obama Administration’s pro-active campaign for regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa region.
The October 22, 2010 document, titled “Middle East Partnership Initiative: Overview,” spells out an elaborate structure of State Department programs aimed at directly building “civil society” organizations, particularly non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to alter the internal politics of the targeted countries in favor of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives..."

Abandon the diplomacy of lies and fear

"... The common thread here is the total lack of accountability or restraint in how global, mostly Western, powers focus on an issue related to a powerful Middle Eastern country, and then take action, from sanctions to warfare and regime change, to achieve the goals they set. Clinton writes that she thought she had acted “in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong.”
And with that mild public admission of her mistake, we are asked to wipe clean the slate of moral accountability and open the way for Clinton to seek the American presidency. The immense and continuing dark consequences of the 2003 war on Iraq are not relevant, according to this approach. We are supposed to forget the trillions of wasted dollars, the hundreds of thousands of people who have died, the millions displaced, and the continuing aftershocks of the war in the form of lawless zones that have given rise to a flourishing expansion of Salafist-takfiri Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria....."

Critiquing America’s Brain-Dead Foreign Policy “Debate”

"... “Nobody seems to be happy with U.S. foreign policy these days.  It’s not hard to see why.  Relations with Russia are frosty and could get worse.  China is throwing sharp elbows and looking for opportunities to shift the status quo in Asia.  The NSA is out of control.  Afghanistan and Iraq were failures.  Libya is a mess, Syria is worse, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s quixotic effort at Middle East peacemaking was a farce.  Al Qaeda keeps spreading and morphing no matter how many leaders our drones and Special Forces kill.  With criticism mounting, U.S. President Barack Obama defended his basic approach at West Point and hardly anyone came away feeling any better.  And now we are having a pointless squabble over repatriated POW Bowe Bergdahl.With nearly everyone—from Afghanistan War veterans to former envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to former Ambassador Robert Ford to MoveOn.org—upset about how things are going, it’s time for our premier foreign-policy institutions to step up with some outside-the-box thinking on how the United States could do better. ..."

Iraq has been Broken

What were you saying on the weaponization of the events in Syria? I repeat: weaponization happened on DDay -1!

"...On Sunday in Syria, ISIL fighters clashed with the al-Qaida-affiliated al Nusrah Front in eastern Syria, while its Iraq wing fought to capture Mosul in Iraq. This is a formidable group. Only the Syrian Kurds stand in the way of ISIL consolidating large areas in Iraq and Syria under its control.
Mosul's capture reinforces the judgment that Iraq has re-entered civil war. ISIL is more than an insurgency because it has an effective organization and is conquering territory. By force of arms, it has created a power-sharing arrangement with the government in Baghdad and fragmented the country. A statement by the Muslim scholars association today encouraged ISIL to hold Mosul and to set up an administration. It urged the youth of the city to defend it against the Baghdad government.ISIL's control in Syria seems tenuous and contested by other opposition groups. In Iraq, it is the dominant anti-government force and it has broken Iraq, for now."

ISIL' "a threat to the entire region"

"... The United States, which pulled its troops out from Iraq to and half years ago, pledged to help Iraqi leaders "push back against this aggression" as the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked parliament to declare a state of emergency.
It said Washington would support "a strong, coordinated response", adding that "ISIL is not only a threat to the stability of Iraq, but a threat to the entire region"..."

The Huthis: From Saada to Sanaa

"... The situation is combustible. Emboldened by recent victories, the Huthis may overplay their hand and miss a chance to consolidate gains through compromise. Their opponents, who show no sign of giving in, are pushing state intervention to roll back Huthi advances. President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s government is at risk of being pulled into a conflict that it cannot win militarily, especially while it fights an emboldened al-Qaeda branch. Southern separatists also are watching developments in the north closely; should the military become embroiled there, they could seize the opportunity to advance an independence bid...."

'Nuclear Talks: What about Europe?'

Gary Sick, here;"... Two new European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) publications recommend how and why Europe should maximise the chances of a diplomatic solution, including if talks need to be extended beyond July. In a policy memo, ECFR visiting fellow Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi suggests that at this stage in the six-month JPA nuclear deal between Iran and major world powers, fears that this interim deal would  lead to the unravelling of the sanctions regime and a European commercial rush back into the Iranian market, have not been realised. Tabrizi however warns that the opposite may be the case - that Europe’s difficulties in even making good on some of the limited concessions granted under the JPA risks undermining Rouhani’s domestic standing, his ability to showcase the benefits of reaching a nuclear deal and subsequently negotiating flexibility could be weakened, and Iranian confidence that de-sanctioning can happen. This could negatively impact the nuclear talks. (Linked here).   ECFR policy fellow, Ellie Geranmayeh, in a separate policy brief argues that a final nuclear deal would advance Europe’s interests both on the non-proliferation front and in opening new channels for addressing regional conflicts and security concerns with Iran, including on Syria. If a deal is agreed, Europeans can play a key role in implementing it. In the more likely event of the existing JPA needing to be extended to give negotiators more time, then European deliverables may be necessary in exchange for Iran continuing its JPA commitments. At the same time Europe should devise a damage limitation plan in case of a breakdown caused by the these stumbling blocks of hardliners in Tehran or US Congress. Geranmayeh outlines four broad trajectories that could shape the future of the nuclear talks and recommends how Europe should react in each: (1) a settlement is reached by the interim deal deadline; (2) the interim deal needs to be extended; (3) US Congress blocks implementation of a final deal; and (4) negotiations derail. In the third scenario, she argues that Europe should pursue its own interests and recommends that if Tehran shows commitment to diplomacy and to the agreements reached, Europe should attempt to salvage negotiations by taking a more independent line on Iran through altering the scope of its unilateral sanctions and working to ring-fence European entities from the secondary impact of US sanctions. (Linked here)...."

ISIS's takeover of Mosul

 

"... Militants seized Iraq's second-largest city Tuesday, officials said, in another blow to the authorities, who appear incapable of stopping rebel advances....Mosul is the second city to fall to militants this year, after the government lost control of Fallujah, just a short drive from Baghdad, in early January."

By numbers ...

"...In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11.....By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11..."

Putin brings China into Middle East strategy

"... Such consensus includes Syria, despite Beijing’s lesser involvement on this issue, relative to Moscow; Iran, within the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program; the fight against terrorism and extremism; the creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free Middle East; the condemnation of external intervention and the strategy of "regime change" as well as the push for "color revolutions;" the policy to reach a settlement in the Middle East; and relations with the new Egyptian regime with respect to the Sudanese issues..."

Turkish perspective: "We have to start thinking about Assad still ruling Syria"

"... In reality, nobody has won anything from the Syrian crisis. Everybody has lost. Unfortunately, Turkey is among the losers. Our government’s policy had predicted a new Syria without Assad. But all the predictions of our officials about the Assad regime turned out to be futile. In the meantime, by supporting the opposition and resistance, Turkey became a party to the conflict.Today, Assad is still standing. Turkey, on the other hand, is facing a refugee problem that has so far cost $3.5 billion. Various jihadists and al-Qaeda groups are operating in our border region. The policy we followed has caused problems in our relations with many countries in our neighborhood.This is why we have to start thinking about Assad still ruling Syria."

"So Assad still has access to Syria’s oil, and can sit and watch as his enemies slaughter each other"

"... Western consultants are unlikely to have any involvement in Syria’s oil industry today, because all the oilfields in the north-east have been seized by hardline Islamist factions. In Deir Ezzor, two al-Qaida inspired groups – Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – are fighting over the territory. In the oil-rich areas, in other words, rebels are fighting other rebels and opportunistic Islamists rather than directing their energies against Assad’s regime. Meanwhile, whoever controls the oil sells the bulk of it off to the highest bidder – and often, according to some rebel commanders and opposition activists, to the regime they are purportedly fighting against. So Assad still has access to Syria’s oil, and can sit and watch as his enemies slaughter each other."

'Officials close to the negotiations tell us that they expect an agreement with Iran will only be reached, at the very last moment.

'After a brief moment of heartfelt national pride over the D-Day commemoration, the more usual partisan bickering has returned over the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban detainees at Guantánamo. Whether or not this affair lingers in the news, it is significant in highlighting – once again – the fragility of the Administration’s political support in Congress. Constant feuding between the White House and Capitol Hill seems likely the remainder of President Obama’s term in office. This bodes ill for any agreement that may emerge from the nuclear talks with Iran. Next week’s P5+1 talks are being joined by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, a sign that important decisions are now looming. As we have reported before, the principal difference between the two sides is over the residual enrichment capability to be left in Iran’s hands. Officials close to the negotiations tell us that they expect agreement will only be reached – if it is – at the very last moment. This is where its main challenges may start – both in Washington and Tehran. While the Administration can lift some sanctions against Iran by executive order, many others are anchored in statute and will need Congressional cooperation. For this to happen, the Administration needs a rock-solid agreement, something that may be unacceptable to hard-liners in Tehran. By contrast, US officials are encouraged by signs of détente on Ukraine. They feel that the new president Petro Poroshenko is someone with whom both they and the Russians can work. While President Obama had some stern words for Russian President Putin at the G7 meeting, we understand that their brief meeting in the margins of the D-Day ceremonies, while hardly warm, has laid the groundwork for a resumption of more normal relations. The end result of the Ukraine crisis is likely to be greater US attention to Eastern Europe. Turning to Asia, the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military reinforced the trend of a more suspicious US attitude to China. The next milestone will be the Strategic and Economic Dialogue to be held in Beijing in early July (though precise dates have yet to be announced). Meanwhile, in a minor headache for Obama, excerpts from Hillary Clinton's forthcoming autobiography indicate that she advised a more hawkish approach on Syria. While Obama’s more cautious policy resonates well with US public opinion, it attracts strong criticism from the foreign policy elite, thus drawing Obama into a debate he would rather avoid.'

Saudi rollback plans for Iran on hold: 'US pressures & failure on all fronts'

"... Sensing that the U.S. may be moving toward a detente with Iran, the Saudis may be trying to hedge their bets and defuse what has taken on the dimensions of a regional confrontation with the Islamic Republic. This would follow an established pattern. Since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saudi outreach to Iran has ebbed and flowed based on Saudi perceptions of U.S. resolve in the region..... Now that the U.S. may be ending more than 35 years of confrontation with Iran, Saudi Arabia, along with the rest of the Gulf region, is being forced to reassess its own regional security interests, particularly with the Syrian civil war generating immense pressure on the internal cohesion of Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. ..........
.......... the Saudis will likely pursue a strategy they have used toward Iran in the past, which a 2009 RAND study characterized as combining elements of engagement, containment and rollback. ......
 In Lebanon, the Saudis have reportedly worked actively behind the scenes to support Lebanese Sunnis and other groups willing to roll back Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon in the wake of the Iran-backed movement’s “victory” against Israel in their 2006 war. ....... The Saudis’ dual “smiles and daggers” approach to Iran’s regional influence ended, however, with Hezbollah’s takeover of Sunni West Beirut in May 2008, which led to a cooling of Riyadh’s posture toward the Islamic Republic. ....."

Preparing for a Hezbollah invasion, in shadow of Syria war

Guessing is good!

"... N. believes the IDF should not be asking whether Hezbollah is capable of attacking the Galilee but what it means that it is entertaining this idea. He sees a warning light, indicating a paradigm change. He attributes the change to developments that are forcing Hezbollah to change its goal from trying to drag out the campaign to making it as short as possible.According to N., Hezbollah would rather stick to its old strategy, which led to the IDF withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 and its achievements in 2006. However, the organization has since become established in Lebanese politics, making it more responsible for whatever happens in the country if Israel attacked.Moreover, Hezbollah used to rely on the outlook expressed by its leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel’s 2000 withdrawal that Israel was weaker than a spider web and unable to absorb losses. This outlook was challenged by Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008. The organization also believes less in the possibility that the international community will intervene to stop the fighting and has lost the support of Syria, which is too busy fighting its own civil war.
There is a silver lining for Hezbollah: It has amassed a lot of experience in the battles in Syria and is now capable of waging a wider war. N. believes that participating in the war in Syria brings Hezbollah closer to adopting an offensive strategy against Israel as well. The significance is that Hezbollah is liable to strive for a different kind of confrontation: Instead of reacting to an Israeli initiative and standing in the breach, taking the initiative and making a ground offensive and multi-pronged attack on Israeli territory.
If Hezbollah does change its strategy, it will have substantial consequences for Israel. The IDF will have to take into account the possibility that Hezbollah will try to shorten the war by creating facts on the ground like an attack on the Galilee. It will have to prepare civilians for such an offensive and prepare for the option of Hezbollah launching a surprise attack in an attempt to end the war before it even begins."

what is NOT fair and balanced in coverage of Syria...

"Look at this sentence:  "Indeed, Assad now appears stronger than he did two years ago. Backed by Russia, Iran and volunteer militias from Lebanon and Iraq".  Why not follow up this sentence--if you want to be fair and balanced--with something like this: while the variety of Syrian rebels receive a variety of aid from US, UK, France, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, among other countries of the world that the US grouped as "Friends of Syria". Why?

For some, a vote for Assad was a vote for 'stability & return home'

"... Ahmed, 25, was among a swarm of Syrian refugees who crossed the border from Lebanon to cast ballots in the town of Jdeidat Yabous. He said he was voting for Assad not because he supports him but because he hopes the election will stabilize Syria enough for him to go home.“I am with the opposition,” he said, refusing to give his full name because he fears for his safety. “But the regime is better than many of the rebel factions who are fighting each other.”

So which one is is? Lost most of the country or controls most of the country?

Sly's piece is full of bull as she relies solely on 'rumors' and Abu Emad! 

"... Indeed, Assad now appears stronger than he did two years ago. Backed by Russia, Iran and volunteer militias from Lebanon and Iraq, his forces have ejected rebels from significant chunks of territory in the heart of Syria over the past year. Tuesday’s voting leveraged his military gains into an assertion of political authority.....

But the live footage of enthusiastic voters proclaiming their love for Assad in various locations nonetheless served as a reminder that he still controls much of the country, along with the loyalties of at least some of its citizens..."

The “Shale Revolution” and “Energy Independence”—Myths, Realities, and America’s Strategic Delusions

"... Pursuing energy independence, in defiance of reality in today’s oil and gas markets, is not just quixotic—it is counterproductive for America’s standing and influence.  It is counterproductive most immediately because it reinforces official Washington’s longstanding conviction that the United States doesn’t have to engage in real diplomacy with strategic rivals—that is, diplomacy which recognises and accommodates their legitimate national interests (e.g., Russia’s interest in not having the West turn other post-Soviet states into anti-Russian platforms, or Iran’s interest in developing safeguarded but indigenously managed nuclear fuel cycle capabilities).More broadly, American political and policy elites should understand that the opposite of energy independence is not energy dependence—it is energy interdependence.  Since World War II, the stabilisation of energy interdependence has been a critical element in America’s standing as a great power.
For decades, America’s interest in stabilising energy interdependence has been embodied in its commitment to defend the free flow of Persian Gulf hydrocarbons to international markets.  But the U.S. interest in Persian Gulf oil, from its origins in World War II, has never been primarily about America’s own energy needs..."

New Israeli settlement expansion condemned

Al Jazeera English

"... The latest order on Thursday comes only hours after Israel announced it would beef up its settlement expansion by advancing plans for a separate 1,500 units in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem..."

'Syrian Fantasies'

 'Our friends, the 'rebels''

"... Of course, even if the U.S. did have a finely tuned understanding of various rebel groups and how they would act if they were to receive large shipments of U.S. weapons (a skill that Washington has curiously failed to manifest elsewhere) this is hardly the only argument against arming factions in Syria's civil war.A more serious objection is that backing one side to "victory" does nothing more than implicate the U.S. in the creation of yet-another failed state. Ford and his supporters have a surpisingly naive faith in the power of Syria's rebel groups to not only depose Assad but to stand up a relatively cohesive and secure state in his wake. Where is this faith coming from? It couldn't be from Iraq orLibya, where the U.S. directly and indirectly toppled regimes only to see chaos flower in the aftermath. The U.S. directly implanted a government in Afghanistan at the cost of billions of dollars and is now leaving the country at the mercy of a still-potent insurgency.
And yet, we're supposed to believe that U.S. arms to Syrian rebel groups would buck this trend. On what grounds?
Some might argue that early U.S. intervention would have at least empowered "our guys" at the expense of Assad and may have headed off al-Qaeda. The second claim seems completely false -- if rebel groups were able to depose Assad, al-Qaeda would almost certainly have slipped into the country in the resultant chaos (unless you make the over-confident assumption that U.S.-backed rebels would have quickly locked down the entire country). As for deposing Assad, it's probably true that U.S. support early on could have tipped the balance -- but again, it would have tipped the balance toward just as much chaos. Only in that instance, the U.S. would bear a much greater responsibility for the destruction and would be under even more pressure to step up its involvement to clean up the resulting mess..."

'Syrian Fantasies'

"... Of course, even if the U.S. did have a finely tuned understanding of various rebel groups and how they would act if they were to receive large shipments of U.S. weapons (a skill that Washington has curiously failed to manifest elsewhere) this is hardly the only argument against arming factions in Syria's civil war.A more serious objection is that backing one side to "victory" does nothing more than implicate the U.S. in the creation of yet-another failed state. Ford and his supporters have a surpisingly naive faith in the power of Syria's rebel groups to not only depose Assad but to stand up a relatively cohesive and secure state in his wake. Where is this faith coming from? It couldn't be from Iraq orLibya, where the U.S. directly and indirectly toppled regimes only to see chaos flower in the aftermath. The U.S. directly implanted a government in Afghanistan at the cost of billions of dollars and is now leaving the country at the mercy of a still-potent insurgency.
And yet, we're supposed to believe that U.S. arms to Syrian rebel groups would buck this trend. On what grounds?
Some might argue that early U.S. intervention would have at least empowered "our guys" at the expense of Assad and may have headed off al-Qaeda. The second claim seems completely false -- if rebel groups were able to depose Assad, al-Qaeda would almost certainly have slipped into the country in the resultant chaos (unless you make the over-confident assumption that U.S.-backed rebels would have quickly locked down the entire country). As for deposing Assad, it's probably true that U.S. support early on could have tipped the balance -- but again, it would have tipped the balance toward just as much chaos. Only in that instance, the U.S. would bear a much greater responsibility for the destruction and would be under even more pressure to step up its involvement to clean up the resulting mess..."

"This is not simply a vote for Assad. It is a vote for ceasefire."

(Via Camille Otrakji) Comment by Vijay Prashad, Edward Said Chair of American Studies at American University of Beirut (AUB):

"when I went to cover the Syrian voting in Beirut I was startled by the crowds and enthusiasm. People I spoke to said they wanted to go home, and Assad was the road. It was a desolate choice, but the enthusiasm seemed genuine. Assad has won the election with 88.7%, the lowest for a Syrian president in recent history. But less than Sisi's 96%. The turnout was 73%, which means over ten million voted for Assad. If fireworks and gunfire in Beirut is a measure of things, this is more than a palace rigging. More enthusiasm in Syria than Egypt. Damascus, Latakia and Homs (pic) have people on streets, celebrating. This is not simply a vote for Assad. It is a vote for ceasefire."

POLL: "VAST MAJORITIES of Arabs OPPOSE ' any form of U.S. military engagement in Syria"

Poll:
"... There is almost no support in any country surveyed for direct U.S. involvement in the conflict, air strikes  to degrade Assad’s military capability, and even providing more advanced weapons to the moderate Syrian opposition..."

'... Yet, the bombs ceaselessly continue to fall, claiming more lives as students attended exams at schools where ballot boxes were placed'

"... Herein lays the importance of the elections to the regime, and why they make the opposition and the rebels despair and seethe with anger. The scenes from Lebanon last week, of tens of thousands of Syrians flocking to their embassy to vote, sent shock waves through the visibly irritated and angered anti-regime camp. Those scenes are being repeated today, as voting in regime-held parts of the country begins. The official Facebook page of Assad’s election campaign “Sawa” has put up pictures and videos of polling stations and voters, including Assad and his wife casting their ballots at a school in Malki, Damascus.It is scenes like these that infuriate many armed rebel factions, which have vowed to disrupt the elections in any way possible. Unfortunately, this inevitably meant bombing and shelling polling stations and regime-controlled areas, which they specifically threatened to do. One rebel posed in a picture with a cooking canister filled with TNT, with “election present” written on it. A later statement, reportedly issued by various rebel factions, said they would not target voters but warned people to stay at home in case the regime does. This seems to be, as is quite typical of such grandiose rebel declarations in the past, merely media fodder and ink on paper as the shelling continues unabated...."

Muaz Al-Khatib back into Syria?

The Angry Arab 

"I am told from people "who know" that Muaz Al-Khatib (former head of Syrian National Coalition) will be returning to Syria soon. "

BRILLIANT!

What better way to support Lebanon's stability than to 'discuss' an increase for an insurgency in Syria? 
BRILLIANT 

"... (Reuters) The senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Kerry will press Lebanese politicians to elect a president as soon as possible."You need a fully empowered president to do everything that Lebanon needs to govern its territory and also to get the assistance from the international community that it really needs, ... While there is not a president, he wants to go in and express the desire to get that president elected," the official added......
During the visit Kerry will also discuss plans by the United States to increase its support for moderate Syrian rebels........"

Syria's vote and the will of neighbouring countries

Al Jazeera English

"... What is most telling about the election is not the way the vote turned out on Syrian territory, rather the way Assad polled in Lebanon and Jordan. In each of those two bordering countries, over a million long-suffering refugees, voted with apparently great enthusiasm for Assad.These destitute Syrians used their vote to say what I said in March: If the Syrian people were given a choice between (real or desired) immediate security, peace and stability with Assad at the helm or a protracted conflict, continued suffering and an unknown future, even the most disenchanted Sunnis would probably go with Assad...."

The Independent: 'Hypocritical Mr Hague & John Kerry, pretend that there is a “moderate” opposition' in Syria

"... What makes the position of people such as Mr Hague peculiarly hypocritical is that they do not, in fact, want Mr Assad to be defeated by his most effective military opponents such as Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qa’ida affiliate, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formerly al-Qa’ida in Iraq. But instead of devising new policies to cope with the real situation on the ground, Mr Hague and John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, pretend that there is a “moderate” opposition that, given enough weapons, will one day be capable of replacing Mr Assad.In reality, more guns will simply prolong the conflict and not end the present stalemate...."

A question to Syrian rebels and Syrian exile opposition.

The Angry Arab News Service

"Someone on Facebook raised this legitimate question: if the Syrians are forced to vote by the Syrian regime, why are the Syrian rebels shelling them in polling stations around Damascus?"

'Qatar pays the price of overreach'

"... Qatar’s star has appeared to wane as the geopolitics of the Middle East have turned against it. Soon after Sheikh Tamim took power, Egypt’s Islamist government – which Qatar supported, financially and politically – was ousted in a military coup, shattering Doha’s regional strategy. The low returns from Qatar’s investment in Syria’s rebel movement also became increasingly apparent as the opposition failed to alter the dynamics of the war.This week Doha was swept into a more high profile controversy amid allegations that the 2022 Fifa World Cup – the event that was to cement its new international status — had been bought through bribery....Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian strongman that Doha has tried to unseat, staged an election on Tuesday to underline his staying power and the feebleness of his opponents. The Syria poll followed another vote in Egypt that crowned Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi – the ex-military chief who led last year’s coup – as president.As the politics of the region have shifted, Sheikh Tamim has been embroiled in an unusually public spat with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Determined to put an end to the spread of Islamist politics across the region, Qatar’s rivals have gone on the offensive, essentially demanding that the Doha ruler follow their lead. Tensions appear to have eased in recent weeks but people familiar with the details of the dispute say differences between the Gulf neighbours could easily flare up again.Also troubling for Qatar is that after raising its profile in the region, it has turned into a convenient target to blame for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East. Even the most benign of intervention can provoke suspicion...."

'Securing the Syrian Regime'

"... Institutionalizing the groups that practiced violence at the beginning of the revolution and subordinating them within the frame of the state reflects an effective strategy of the Syrian regime to cope with the war. In doing so, the regime gained considerable leverage over these fighters. Their destiny is now linked to that of the regime, and the local societies from which the groups emerge are therefore also linked to the regime. For this reason, we are unlikely to see the leaders of these groups rebel against the Syrian state..."

Obama at West Point: Doubling Down on a Failed Syria Policy

"... The Syrian conflict will end in one of two ways.  In one scenario, the Assad government continues to extend and consolidate its military gains against opposition forces.  Over time, opposition elements make their peace with the government, in piecemeal fashion.  However, because of ongoing external support, enough opposition groups are able to keep fighting that significant portions of Syria’s population will continue to face serious humanitarian and security challenges for several more years.  In the alternative scenario, the main external supporters of the opposition (the United States, Britain and France, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states, Turkey) and of the Assad government (Russia, China, Iran) pursue serious diplomacy aimed at helping the government and those opposition elements with some measure of genuine support in Syria reach a political settlement based on power sharing.The current trajectory of U.S. policy makes the first scenario—with the unnecessary deaths of more Syrians, further revitalization of Al Qaeda, and continued erosion of America’s strategic position—virtually inevitable....."

12 ways the US administration has failed its ally Israel

 The Times of Israel

"... 10. Further afield, you’d think an ally would maintain an empathetic silence rather than repeatedly tell the world that Israel has struck weapons shipments in Syria en route to Hezbollah. This when Israel was deliberately avoiding acknowledging responsibility for such actions because of concern that President Bashar Assad would be provoked into counterattacks at Israel..."

Oh wow! 'They are genocidal terrorists, but it's ok to rekease them!'

"... To be sure, the five Taliban are still enemies of the U.S. They're bad men: Two of them have been implicated in massacres of Shiites, for instance. Also, it's an awkward complication that some of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers apparently suspect him of desertion -- hardly the ideal case for ensuring "no man is left behind." Nonetheless, since the Taliban isn't going to be crushed, it will have to be talked to. Scruples about good and bad negotiating partners must yield to that reality...."

Fighting rages between Houthis & Yemeni government' forces

"... (Reuters) - At least 120 people were killed in northern Yemen on Monday in fighting between Shi'ite Muslim Houthi rebels and government forces before a ceasefire was agreed, a Yemeni official said on Tuesday...."

Questions for those who clamor for the United States to "do more" in Syria

"... Those who clamor for the United States to "do more," meaning further militarizing a brutal civil war beyond the president’s "ramp up" with a low-grade regime change policy, should have the burden of explaining how such an approach will end the war and its related tragedies, sooner rather than later; what exactly is the endgame, reflecting on the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan; how it will defeat terrorists who are laying waste to parts of Syria and Iraq and threaten the United States and its allies; and, in the process, keep the United States off the slippery slope to further military engagement, which Americans don’t want."

'The ranks of Syrian widows grow as rebels are killed off'

"... "I don't want the same thing to happen to me," said Ahlam, whose two younger brothers are also rebel fighters. "I foresee that they're all going to get killed. I don't think many of them will return.".....Some sheiks have called on rebel fighters to marry widowed mothers. One imam in this town on the outskirts of Aleppo offered fighters money for each child they help raise. But for the women, these are often the very men they don't want to marry because of the risk of being widowed again..."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/29/228774/the-ranks-of-syrian-widows-grow.html?sp=/99/117/416/#storylink=cpy

"You can criticize & make fun all you want, but in the end, Assad controlled the messaging.”

"... He said the photos of tens of thousands of people in Lebanon converging on the Syrian Embassy served as a “shock” to supporters of the opposition.
“You can criticize and make fun all you want, but in the end, the regime controlled the messaging.”