The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

[StarmanSkye]

^
Thanks for providing the NY Times article, a representaive sample of American 'reporting'.

Once again, the NY Times unabashedly demonstates its mastery of Brave New Worldspeak, talking out of both sides of its mouth in gobbleygook that can pretty much mean whatever a sympathetic PoliCorrect Librul or Conservatoid reader wants it to. The bit where the article explains the US isn't providing arms to the rebels but only coordinating delivery of American and allied weapons supplies thru intermediaries (that are undoubtedly contractors [ie, smugglers & criminal gangs including Saudi-backed/US proxy-agents Muslim Brotherhood] under US or US-cutout employ) is really a masterful bit of duck-and-weave mendicity where the NY Times shows its proficient and well-practiced fealty providing reach-around services to the Agency. Just another instance where taxpayer-funded 'journalistic' training is paying-off for the PR managers of public opinion c/o the MIC.

Ten people producing abstracts of the story would likely result in what would appear to be abstracts based on ten different reports. At one point the report claims the Assad regime is only using its military forces against civilians, but then segues seamlessly into acknowledging it is targetting opposition forces and interfering with establishing coordinated communication among rebel groups.

One story w/ several perspectives re: commonalities among various special-interest groups who all oppose Syria's established gov. carefully attributing most if not all civilian deaths to Gov forces. I'm ashamed for people who read this pap and accept it w/o question.

What a shining example of a vigorous Free Press!
-not-
Too bad its SOP for mainstream 'news'.

[seemslikeadream]

NATO in Syria: Will Turkish Plane Become the New Excuse?
Turkey Calls for NATO Article 4 Meeting
by Jason Ditz, June 24, 2012

The loss of a Turkish F-4 warplane over the Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria, on Friday has set the stage for a high-profile NATO meeting to decide exactly what the military alliance will do to Syria in retaliation.

The details of the shoot down aside, the meeting gives the alliance what many of its members have been seeking, an opportunity to argue a plausible reason for a military invasion of Syria and a NATO-imposed regime change.

Turkey is calling the alliance together on the basis of Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which provides for meetings “after a member is attacked.” This seems the loosest sense of the word since Turkey has admitted to violating Syrian airspace and Syria insists it didn’t know what the plane speeding toward its coast was.

Turkey did not elect to try to use Article 5, which would be a much more serious incident, because it would be even harder to claim that the apparently inadvertent downing of a single military aircraft after a territorial violation constituted a serious threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity.

The facts of the incident are likely to be extremely secondary, however, as nations like Britain and France, which have made no bones about seeking NATO regime change in Syria, look to spin the incident as proof they need to start a war.

[seemslikeadream]

An omen of how Syria's conflict could spread

The downing of Turkey's plane shows that regional security is balanced on a knife-edge

Wednesday 27 June 2012

When the Syrians shot down a Turkish military jet at the weekend, Turkey's government responded with commendable moderation. But the temperature rose yesterday when the country's Deputy Prime Minister, Bulent Arinc, revealed that Syria had gone on to fire on a plane sent to look for the missing pilots and described this as "a hostile act of the highest order". Turkey is now threatening a military response against any Syrian forces approaching the long border between the two countries and has revised its military rules of engagement.

This is an alarming development. Since the start of the uprising against Bashar al-Assad, there has been concern that the violence could spark a wider regional conflict. Relations between Turkey and Syria have long been strained, with recurrent disputes over the border, water, Damascus's support for Kurdish rebels and, most recently, the influx of Syrian refugees.

But just as significantly Turkey is a member of Nato. Ankara has approached the alliance now under Article 4 of the Nato Treaty which allows any member state to demand a Nato meeting if it believes its "territorial integrity, political independence or security" is threatened. And it is only the second time in Nato's history that a member state has invoked Article 4. In response Nato has condemned Syria's attack "in the strongest terms" and said the alliance's 28 members will "stand together with Turkey in the spirit of strong solidarity". The incident, it said, was another example of the Syrian authorities' disregard for international norms.

Referring the issue to Nato is a double-edged sword for Turkey. It summons the power of the alliance, but it also binds Ankara to take the advice of Nato members among whom there is still no appetite for military intervention in Syria. Nato works by consensus and all members must approve any action. Yet Turkey has pointedly refrained from invoking Article 5 of the Treaty by which an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

What this means is that, for all the tough talk of Turkish politicians, its government is limiting its response as yet to a diplomatic rather than a military one. Such caution is prudent. For the downing of the military jet has shown that the international community is here faced with a problem far tougher than that posed by Libya or even Iraq. Syria's air defences are far more extensive than those of Libya, and even these required US air power to destroy.

But if the prospect of Western military intervention in Syria remains remote, what this episode highlights is the way the Syrian crisis is heightening existing volatility. Yesterday there were reports of fighting in the suburbs of Damascus where part of Syria's formidable chemical weapons arsenal is believed to be stored. Both Israel and the US have said privately they would be forced to act if these facilities became insecure. As the bloodshed grows, and the Assad regime becomes more desperate, so the risk mounts that some unforeseen event might ignite a broader conflagration.

Official Nato military intervention is unthinkable without the support of either the Arab League or the UN Security Council, where Russia has a veto. But incidents like the shooting down of the Turkish plane illustrate the knife-edge on which regional security is poised. The nightmare prospect of a conflict involving Syria, Turkey, Israel and Iran becomes more credible with each passing day.

Russia is the key to unblocking the impasse. The West should concentrate now on providing Moscow with assurances that its geopolitical interests will be respected in Syria so long as it assists in a regime change which sees the back of the blood-stained President Assad.

Turkey threatens military retaliation along Syria border, drawing defiance from Assad

Video: Turkey warned Tuesday that any Syrian military unit approaching its border will be treated as a direct threat, a serious escalation in tensions days after Syria shot a Turkish military plane.

By Liz Sly, Updated: Tuesday, June 26, 5:27 PM

BEIRUT — Bolstered by a declaration of support from NATO, Turkey warned Syria on Tuesday that it would retaliate if Syrian forces approach its southern border, signaling a significant escalation of tensions between the two neighbors following the downing of a Turkish jet.

The warning coincided with a strong condemnation of Syria by NATO, which weighed into the Syria crisis for the first time with a statement calling the attack on the plane “unacceptable” and stressing that the alliance stands with Turkey “in the spirit of strong solidarity.”

The Turkish threat, along with NATO’s unequivocal declaration of support, raised the risk of a confrontation along the 550-mile Turkish-Syrian border, which is already a focus of Syrian efforts to crush the 15-month-old revolt against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule. Large swaths of the border region have fallen under rebel control and Syria routinely launches attacks in the area.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a strongly worded speech to parliamentarians in Ankara that “any military element that approaches the Turkish border from Syria, posing a security risk or danger, will be regarded as a threat and treated as a military target.”

“This incident shows that Syria has become an open threat to Turkey and so we have come to a brand-new stage,” he said.

Hours after he spoke, Turkish media reported that tanks and other heavy military equipment had been dispatched to the Syrian border area from a base in southeastern Turkey.

Erdogan made it clear that Turkey plans no immediate military retaliation for the downing of the jet. But by changing its rules of engagement along the border, Ankara is putting Syria on notice that it can no longer operate there with impunity. The action could curb Syria’s capacity to hunt down rebels in the northern province of Idlib, regarded as one of their strongholds.

Smuggling routes between Turkey and Syria are used by the Free Syrian Army, based in a refugee camp in southern Turkey, to secure supplies of weaponry and money. The cross-border flow of rebels and refugees is one of the many sources of friction between Ankara and Damascus.

There have been several instances in recent months in which Syrian troops have fired into Turkey to target fleeing refugees or rebels, and Syrian helicopters have strayed into Turkish territory at least five times, Erdogan said.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad countered the comments with a defiant speech in which he declared that Syria is “in a state of real war.”

“When we are in a war, all our policies . . . need to be directed at winning this war,” he told his cabinet, betraying no indication that Syria had been chastened by the tough international response to the downing of the jet on Friday.

Assad has always portrayed the rebellion against his rule as a conspiracy led by the United States and its allies, and his comments suggested the rising pressure has only affirmed his view.

Rebels welcomed Erdogan’s remarks, saying that a more aggressive Turkish posture will provide a significant boost.

[seemslikeadream]

June 27, 2012
What Did Turkey Think Syria Would Do?
Syria and the Phantom
by CONN HALLINAN

What was that Turkish F-4 Phantom II up to when the Syrians shot it down?

Ankara said the plane strayed into Syrian airspace, but quickly left and was over international waters when it was attacked, a simple case of carelessness on the part of the Turkish pilot that Syrian paranoia turned deadly.

But the Phantom—eyewitnesses told Turkish television that there were two aircraft, but there is no official confirmation of that observation—was hardly on a Sunday outing. According to the Financial Times, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, told the newspaper “the jet was on a test and training mission focused on Turkey’s radar defense, rather than Syria.”

Translation: the F-4 was “lighting up” a radar net. It is a common—if dangerous and illegal—tactic that allows one to probe an opponent’s radar system. Most combat radar is kept in a passive mode to prevent a potential enemy from mapping out weaknesses or blind spots that can be useful in the advent of an attack. The probes also give you valuable information on how to neutralize anti-aircraft guns and ground to air missiles.

“Lighting up” radar was what the US Navy EP-3E Aries II was doing near China’s Hainan Island when it collided with a Chinese interceptor in 2001. Nations normally take a very dim view of warplanes entering their air space, particularly if there is tension between the countries involved.

As a warplane, the F-4 is a pretty ancient. It was introduced back in 1960, and became the mainstay of the U.S. air war in Southeast Asia. In its day it was a highly capable aircraft, able to hold its own against interceptors like the MIG-21 in a
dogfight, and could also carry heavy bomb payloads. It was also cheap and relatively trouble free, unlike the current crop of US high performance aircraft.

It is doubtful that Syria indentified exactly what the Turkish plane was, just that an unidentified warplane, flying low—generally the altitude one takes when trying to avoid radar—was in Syrian airspace. Paranoia? In 2007 Israeli warplanes—US-made F-16s, not Phantoms—slipped through Syria’s radar net and bombed a suspected nuclear reactor.

Even if Syria identified the plane as a Phantom, they could have taken it for an Israeli craft. Israel was the number one foreign user of F-4s, although they retired them in 2004. Indeed, the Turkish Phantom might even have begun life as an Israeli warplane.

If the Syrians are on hair-trigger alert, one can hardly blame them. The US, the European Union (EU), and NATO openly admit they are gunning to bring down the Assad regime. Turkey is actively aiding the Free Syrian Army organize cross-border raids into Syria, and it is helping Saudi Arabia and Qatar supply arms and ammunition to the rebels.

For Turkey to send a warplane into Syrian airspace—or even near the Syrian border—on a radar mapping expedition at this moment was either remarkably provocative or stone stupid. The explanation could be more sinister, however.

NATO has established a command and control center in Iskenderun, Turkey, near the Syrian border, that is training and organizing the Free Syrian Army. It surely has a sophisticated setup for tapping into Syrian electronic transmissions and, of course, radar networks. If NATO eventually decides to directly intervene in Syria, the alliance will need those electronic maps. NATO aircraft easily overwhelmed Libya’s anti-aircraft systems, but Syria’s are considerably more sophisticated and dangerous.

There are a number of things about the incident that have yet to be explained. Turkey says the F-4 was 13 nautical miles from Syria when it was attacked—which would put it in international waters—but it crashed in Syrian waters. Damascus claims the plane came down less than a mile from the Syrian coast.

Turkey says one of its search planes was shot at as well—the Syrians deny this—and has called for a meeting of its NATO allies. So far, Ankara is only talking about invoking Article Four of the NATO treaty, not Article Five. Four allows for “consultations”; Five would open up the possibility of an armed response.

A thorough investigation of the incident seems in order, although Turkey’s Davutoglu says, “No matter how the downed Turkish jet saga unfolds…we will always stand by the Syrian people until the advent of a democratic regime there.” In short, regardless of what happened, Turkey will continue to pursue regime change in Damascus.

The Assad regime’s heavy-handed approach to its opponents played a major role in sparking the current uprising, but the default position of regime change by the EU and NATO has turned this into a fight to the death. Assad is broadly unpopular, but not universally so, and the support of the regime is not limited to his own Islamic sect, the Alawites, or other minorities, like the Christians.

Nor is all of the opposition a paragon of democratic freethinking. The heavy role played by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in supplying arms and money to the rebels, means the deeply conservative Salafist sect of Islam has a major presence in the resistance. This is exactly how the Afghan mujahedeen mutated into the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The demand for regime change by the US, the EU, and NATO torpedoed the United Nations effort for a diplomatic solution. The Assad regime had no stake in a peaceful resolution, since it would mean its ouster in any case. And the opposition knew it need not respect a ceasefire, since everyone who supports them supports regime change.

It was into this situation that Turkey flew an F-4 Phantom through Syrian airspace. Exactly what did Ankara think Syria would do? On the other hand, maybe it knew exactly what Syria would do.

[seemslikeadream]

Syria Will Have A Long, Bloody War
By Robert Fisk and Tony Jones
Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Monday, July 02, 2012

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: To discuss the situation in Syria I was joined just a short time ago from Beirut by the Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper, Robert Fisk.

Robert Fisk, thanks for being there.

ROBERT FISK, MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT, THE INDEPENDENT: You're welcome.

TONY JONES: Now after the massacre in Houla, you speculated on whether this would be a tipping point of horror in Syria. What's your conclusion as to what will happen?

ROBERT FISK: Well I used the word tipping point a little bit cynically because it's a word that journalists and academics like to use.

I'm not sure, given the claws and the depth of the claws that the Baath Party of Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafiz al-Assad, have in the soil of Syria, whether we're going to see the toppling of this regime as quickly as Mr Obama and Madame Clinton and Mr Cameron would wish.

I rather think this will go on for a long time. There are a lot of supporters of the Baath Party regime. Not just members of the Shiite Alawite community and the Christians and the Druze, but others too, particularly among the Syrian bourgeoisie, the middle classes who support the regime.

I think this will be a very bloody and terrible war before it is concluded. And I think the idea that, you know, Mrs Clinton suddenly says this is terrible and Obama says it's awful, that's not going to end the war, unfortunately.

TONY JONES: In fact you've written the Middle East is littered with 100 Houlas, maybe more, and that there are some pretty grim historical precedents here for repressive regimes getting away not just with killing tens of thousands, but with hundreds of thousands of people. Is that what you think will happen in Syria?

ROBERT FISK: Yes, yes, yes. Well, you know, I covered the Algerian War from 1991 to 1998 when there were genuine free elections in Algeria. Muslim parties were clearly going to win the second round of elections. Those elections were stopped by the "government" with the support of the West.

And there started a terrible civil war of villages being destroyed, women and children having their throats cut, men being shot dead, government troops besieging towns - very much like what's happening today in Syria. And at the end of the day the West was very happy that the Algerian government stopped the "Islamists" from taking over the government and today we don't even think about it.

It's a pretty terrible precedent, but one which I think Bashar al-Assad will think about because his father, Hafiz al-Assad, he destroyed up to 20,000 lives, liquidated the people of Hama in 1982.

And after that battle, when the Algerians were trying to find out how to win their own war against the Islamists, the Algerians sent a military delegation to Damascus to find out how the Syrians fought their war against the Islamists, and then they applied these lessons to their own enemies within Algeria.

So there are a lot of consequences there and a lot of precedents, unfortunately, and I fear that this war in Syria will not end now, that Bashar al-Assad will not go now and that it will continue much longer with many more people dead.

TONY JONES: In the Algerian precedent, both sides, the military and the Islamists, militias, started massacring very large numbers of civilians in terrible ways. Do you have a similar fear that the same kind of thing could happen in Syria because we know very little about the rebel forces and the rebel militias that are now emerging?

ROBERT FISK: Well it already is happening in Syria. I went to a suburb of Algiers called Bentalha where there was an Islamist attack on villagers who were themselves "Islamists". Hundreds of people were killed, including babies who had their throats cut.

I was in the village where this happened and saw the corpses of these babies and I saw the parents. And from the roof of their home, I saw the Algerian flag flying from the nearest Algerian Army barracks. From which, apparently, the Algerian Army could not come to the rescue of the villagers.

Of course they could, but they didn't. This is the sort of situation we're now seeing in places like Houla and Hama and I suppose perhaps, horribly speaking, in Aleppo too. We're seeing the same sort of pattern emerge, unfortunately.

TONY JONES: What do we know about the Free Syrian Army whose commander, Colonel Riad al-Assad, is actually now threatening to resume attacks?

ROBERT FISK: I wouldn't take too seriously anything he says, simply because whenever I've gone to the border and tried to see the Army, I've seen three or four different versions of it.

The fact of the matter is that the Syrian opposition, the armed opposition to Bashar al-Assad is so divided that it cannot be regarded as being a single united faction. What we've got to realise - and this is one of the reasons why Obama and Madame Clinton and all the other mountebanks and liars are saying what they're saying is that we don't know who the opposition is.

And since we don't know who the opposition is, all we can do - "we" being the West - is express our outrage against Bashar al-Assad and his Baathist regime. But we can't give too much support for the opposition, who may indeed include members of Al Qaeda, and whose members may indeed perhaps be involved in the Houla massacre. We don't know yet. I'm not saying that Bashar al-Assad is a good guy. He's not, he's a bad guy.

But you ...

TONY JONES: But Robert, I mean, the Sunni Gulf states have been arming the anti-Government rebels and will continue to do so presumably.

ROBERT FISK: Oh, sure, yes, yes.

TONY JONES: What would it take actually for them to become powerful enough to overthrow the regime?

ROBERT FISK: What you need would be the Syrian armoured forces, by which we mean tank forces and anti-aircraft forces to have sufficient military officers prepared to stand against the regime, and this we have not seen and I don't think we will see in the near future.

The Syrian military regime has remained loyal to the presidency. And as long as that's the case and as long as Damascus as a central city and Aleppo, more or less as a central city, remains loyal to the regime, there will not be an overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, however much Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton and Mrs Cameron and indeed your own beloved Prime Minister may wish to think.

TONY JONES: Is there any prospect at all of the similar doctrine of responsibility to protect which was used to protect civilians in Libya being used in Syria? Obviously there's huge problems in the United Nations preventing that from happening at the moment.

ROBERT FISK: Well I'm sure there are many Libyans who would hope, you know, "Please, God, you don't use this on us or them." You know, the RtoP, the responsibility to protect, which is very, you know, cliche-ridden and so on for television, kills an awful lot of innocent people.

And I think quite enough innocent people have already been murdered in Syria, particularly by the regime, without adding NATO's statistics of death to those figures.

What we need to see is - the best way I can express it is an idea that a new Syria can come about which actually represents all the people of Syria - the Sunni, the Shiites, which means of course the Alawites of the presidency, Bashar al-Assad and the Christians and Druze and so on. But that's easier said on Australian television than it is done, unfortunately.

TONY JONES: Yes, I mean, do you see any prospect at all that it could be done? Because I know that some of the key people behind the Arab Spring uprising feel that they've actually been betrayed, their peaceful revolution's been betrayed by the arming of the opposition forces, and yet, when you see them murdered by the regime, it seems quite compelling to give them weapons.

ROBERT FISK: Yes, well, I mean, I live in Lebanon and I mean, in Lebanon - Beirut I'm speaking to you from now and you can see this argument very easily.

My understanding - I've been to Syria dozens and dozens of times. Syria has a lot of weapons. Syrian families, tribes, organisations have a lot of weapons. They don't need more weapons. If they really needed to have what you and I would call a civil war, that civil war would have started and there are those who will tell us now that it already has started.

But the one thing I can say, because so many Syrians live in Lebanon, are Lebanese, it was only the Western powers that decided that Syrians and Lebanese were different people back in - you know, almost 100 years ago. They are the same people.

And my friends here who happen to be Syrian, you know, passport holders, but who could be Lebanese, their view is that they have one country and they want to be loyal to it, but they don't want to live under a dictatorship.

And that is the problem: when the dictator claims that he and he alone can protect them from violence so they have to support him, you never have a revolution, and at the end of the day I think probably there will be a revolution in Syria.

The question is: will it be of the kind that you and I and all us nice Western people would like it to be, ie a revolution of liberal instincts and ideas and thoughts? Or will it be a revolution tainted and I suppose terribly painted by - you know, by sectarianism and by religious differences.

TONY JONES: Robert, I can't help noticing a kind of sadness in your voice at the moment I haven't sort of noticed before and I'm wondering if it's because we've seen some other really rather grim signs that the war in Syria could be sliding across the border into Lebanon where you've pitched your tent. I mean, are you genuinely worried about that?

ROBERT FISK: Yes, I was worried about it a bit. Actually, I was on holiday in Ireland, a good place, you might say, to be when you're studying these things. But, no, I think you've got the right idea for the wrong reason.

One of the things that happened here in Lebanon, which is where we now are and you can see behind me the Lebanese parliament building and the seat of the of the Lebanese presidency - one of the things happened here is that during the civil war between 1975 and 1990 in which 200 - 150,000 minimum people died, was that many of the Lebanese sent their children, their sons and their daughters, abroad to Europe, to Canada, Australia, America, to be educated and they came back and did not want to live in a state of sectarianism.

And one of the reasons why the "civil war" has not spread across from Syria into Lebanon is because the young people of Lebanon did not want to live in a sectarian society and told their parents they did not want to live in this society.

And as one says in Ireland, "Fair doos to them," you know, they were right. And I think that this is a more educated, more diplomatic - I use this in the nicest, non-Western sense of the word - society which has realised that you can't and you must not run your country according to the maximum, the major religion, the majority Shiite, Muslim, Alawite, Druze, whatever in the country, and I think that's one reason why Lebanon has not actually become part of the Syrian war.

But the Syrian war as a sectarian war is something which I think the government in Damascus unfortunately and shamefully is prepared to project as a possible danger and one which I think it could use.

Syrian helicopters strike Damascus suburb

Warning: This report contains graphic images. Shocking video has emerged of the moment a funeral procession was hit by an explosion in Damascus, killing dozens of people. NBC's Bill Neely reports.
By msnbc.com news services

BEIRUT - Syrian attack helicopters bombarded a suburb of Damascus on Monday and Turkey said it had scrambled warplanes near the border in the north, as a 16-month conflict entered a more violent phase and diplomacy appeared to have failed.

Fighting has come to the gates of the capital in recent weeks and is also raging throughout the country as the battle to unseat President Bashar al-Assad increasingly takes on the character of an all-out civil war, fueled by sectarian hate.

Turkish PM Erdogan calls Wall Street Journal ‘ despicable ‘ over downed jet report
02 July, 2012 | 18:16

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan slams Wall Street Journal, calls the US newspaper despicable and claims downed Turkish jet reports are biased.

Istanbul / NationalTurk – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addressed his party’s supporters in the Anatolian province of Kayseri onSunday and this time he engaged a battle of words with US daily Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

On Turkish leader’s agenda was Wall Street Journal’s engagement in biased journalism over Turkey Syria crisis erupted after Syria shot down a Turkish military jet over Turkish-Syrian border previous week. Erdogan claimed Wall Street Journal is taking sides and pumping biased reports ahead of the coming U.S. presidential elections. The Wall Street Journal a daily from USA contradicted Ankara’s version of the incident regarding the June 22 downing of Turkish military jet by Syrian air defense.
From Erdogan to US newspaper Wall Street Journal : That despicable paper

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rejected WSJ’s recent claims stating the Turkish jet plane was shot in Syrian airspace, citing allegedly senior U.S. defense officials as a source.

Erdoğan asked during the event ‘ Who are these sources?’ calling on the WSJ to reveal its sources and accusing the paper of ‘ despicableness ’ by covering the truth of their stories. ‘ They have published lies earlier as well.’ he added.

Local Turkish media whom Erdogan referred as ‘ certain media ‘ also has been targeted by Turkish PM’s sharp criticism for accepting the WSJ report as truth and rejecting the reports from Turkish authorities, such as the Turkish General staff and the Foreign Ministry.
Wall Street Journal is anti-Obama, says Tayyip Erdogan

Erdogan indicated that WSJ’s assertion for publishing biased reports was the upcoming presidential elections in the USA, stating openly the stories stemmed from the anti-Barack Obama attitude in the USA.
Syria Turkey Crisis : The downed Turkish military jet

An unarmed Turkish military jet was shot down June 22 by Syrian air defense. Turkey claims the jet was shot in international airspace with a heat- or laser-guided missile, but Syria rejects those claims, stating the Turkish jet was downed by anti-aircraft gunners as it flew at an altitude of 100 meters within Syrian airspace. The 2 pilots of the downed Turkish military jet are listed still as missing.

[seemslikeadream]

WikiLeaks has data from 2.4 million Syrian emails
The secret-spilling group WikiLeaks said Thursday it was in the process of publishing material from 2.4 million Syrian emails -- many of which it said came from official government accounts.

July 5, 2012, 5:02 a.m.
The secret-spilling group WikiLeaks said Thursday it was in the process of publishing material from 2.4 million Syrian emails -- many of which it said came from official government accounts.

WikiLeaks' Sarah Harrison told journalists at London's Frontline Club that the emails reveal interactions between the Syrian government and Western companies, although she declined to go into much further detail.

Harrison quoted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as saying that "the material is embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria's external opponents."

WikiLeaks only posted a handful of the documents to its website Thursday, but the disclosure -- whose source WikiLeaks has not made clear -- wouldn't be the first major leak of Syrian emails.

In February, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published excerpts of what it said were emails hacked from Syrian servers by Anonymous, the shadowy Internet activist group. In March, Britain's Guardian newspaper published emails it sourced to Syrian opposition activists.

The messages appeared to catch the glamorous wife of Syrian President Bashar Assad shopping for pricey shoes while her country slipped toward civil war.

Harrison said the WikiLeaks emails dated from August 2006 to March 2012 and originated from hundreds of different domains, including Syria's ministry of presidential affairs.

Harrison said her group was "statistically confident" that the body of material was genuine.

Assange, who is currently seeking asylum at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, was not at the brief presentation. He is wanted by British police for possible extradition to Sweden to face questions about alleged sexual misconduct there.

He has denied wrongdoing but faces arrest if he leaves the embassy.

Harrison acknowledged that WikiLeaks is facing "a difficult time at the moment" but said "we are continuing to work through that."

[seemslikeadream]

Tall Tales in Tremseh
Another day, another fake Syrian atrocity

by Justin Raimondo, July 16, 2012

For what seems like months we have been inundated with reports of “massacres” carried out by Syrian government troops against defenseless villagers. The sourcing for these reports is always Syrian “activists,” sometimes named but often not, and the details are always quite horrific: There was the “massacre” at Houla, touted by the BBC in a story that included a photo of a boy jumping over the shrouded bodies of the victims. The report claimed Syrian forces had murdered children and women in a house to house rampage in the village of Houla: it was all very dramatic. There was just one problem with the story: it wasn’t true. The photo used by the BBC to illustrate this tall tale was taken in Iraq, not Syria, and it had been pilfered by the Syrian “activists” who palmed it off to the BBC as “evidence” of atrocities committed by the regime.

That wasn’t the first hoax these “activists” tried to pull, and — in spite of being repeatedly exposed as frauds — it certainly wasn’t meant to be the last. Now we have another such attempt: in Tremseh, a village near the city of Hama, the rebels claim, hundreds of civilians were wantonly slaughtered in a full-scale military operation by the Syrian army and air force. Kofi Annan is citing this alleged massacre as a reason for the UN Security Council to issue a serious warning: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the Syrian action as “an outrageous escalation of violence,” and went on to “condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and shelling of populated areas, including by firing from helicopters.”

Except the firing wasn’t indiscriminate. As the New York Times reports:

“New details emerging Saturday about what local Syrian activists called a massacre of civilians near the central city of Hama indicated that it was more likely an uneven clash between the heavily armed Syrian military and local fighters bearing light weapons.”

The UN sent a team into Tremseh and “their initial report said the attack appeared to target ‘specific groups and houses, mainly of army defectors and activists.’ It said a range of weapons had been used, including artillery, mortars, and small arms.”

Given the rhetoric coming from top UN officials, however, one can safely assume the UN observers’ initial report will be considerably “revised” in a pro-rebel direction when the final version is released.

The title of the Times story — “Details of a Battle Challenge Reports of a Syrian Massacre” — succinctly encapsulates the issue at hand: the Syrian government is engaged in a battle with armed opponents. The propaganda of the rebels, freely broadcast by the US government and its allies, seeks to depict every act of self-defense on the part of the regime as an atrocity. Our complicit media, which routinely takes the word of “activists” as gospel, is an essential element in establishing the right narrative, one that will justify intervention by the Western powers under the guise of the UN.

The real meaning of this propaganda campaign is clear enough: nations targeted for regime change that dare mount a military defense are engaging in “war crimes.” This is the first law of the New World Order, one that Bashar al-Assad and his like defy at their peril.

It isn’t enough for regime-changers to topple defiant governments: they must also delegitimize them posthumously by dragging their leaders to the Hague. Moammar Gadhafi was only spared that because he knew too much about his persecutors, who had once profited from their relationship with the Libyan despot.

Assad knows he is fighting to avoid such a fate, and that makes a negotiated peace nearly impossible. The intransigence of the rebels, who expect Western-backed military intervention at some point, is another stumbling block to even a cease-fire. That intransigence is generated by those who are backing the rebels, financially and militarily, i.e. the US and its regional allies. Hillary Clinton declares Assad must step down before any talk of a settlement: only Russia and China are preventing the UN from sanctioning another Libyan-style military operation to take the Syrian leader out.

The American people didn’t support the Libyan escapade, and they will hardly rush out in to the streets cheering if and when we intervene in Syria, but, then again, that won’t matter much. This President maintains he doesn’t even have to consult Congress before going to war. Perhaps he’ll repeat his Libyan performance, in the course of which he maintained — in all seriousness — it wasn’t a real war because Gadhafi failed to mount an effective resistance and there were no American casualties.

While starting another unpopular war may seem counterintuitive in an election year, this really isn’t about Syria — it’s about Iran.

While the American public is not in the mood for another war, the power elite is of quite a different mindset. As Gen. Wesley Clark pointed out, big donors to the Democratic party are avid supporters of Israel — the major agitator for war with Iran. Israel’s lobby in the US exercises a decisive influence on both major parties, and so while the public is generally opposed to more military adventurism in the Middle East — or anywhere else, for that matter — the political class is more favorably disposed.

The Syrian “crisis” — one brought on by the Western powers and their sock-puppets in Qatar and Saudi Arabia — is but a prelude to the main event: the strangulation of Iran, via economic blockade, and eventual all-out war. What is happening in Syria today reflects, in miniature, the regime-change crowd’s plan for the entire region: unleashing Sunni fanatics in a religious war against all other sects, one that will liquidate the Christian and other minority communities. The ultimate target of this Sunni onslaught: the Shi’ites of Iran.

In an election year, tightening the vise on the Iranians is going to make President Obama look “tough” against a candidate who criticizes him for being too soft. Any discussion of foreign policy is likely to be a pissing match to see who’s the real Tough Guy. And there’s nothing like a major war to divert attention away from a rapidly sinking economy and attribute, say, rising prices to those evil Eye-ranians.

Expect the Syrian civil war to escalate to the point where either the UN or Israel intervenes — in which case the prospects for war with Iran by election day, November 2012, are a good bet.

'US believes Syria moving part of chemical stockpile'

By REUTERS07/13/2012 13:26

Officials concerned that Syria moving its stockpiles of sarin nerve agent, mustard gas and cyanide shows intent to use weapons; others say he's safeguarding them, 'Wall Street Journal' reports. Photo: Reuters
WASHINGTON- US officials said that Syria has started to move part of its chemical weapons arsenal out of storage facilities, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The country's undeclared stockpiles of sarin nerve agent, mustard gas and cyanide have long worried US officials and their allies in the region, the report said.

Western nations have looked for signs amid the rebellion against President Bashar Assad's government of any change in the location of those weapons, believed to be the world's largest stockpile.

American officials are divided on the meaning of the moves of the arsenal. Some fear Assad may want to use the weapons against rebels or civilians, while others said perhaps he is trying to safeguard them from his opponents, the Journal reported.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Phnom Penh, said "We repeatedly made it clear that the Syrian government has a responsibility to safeguard its stockpiles of chemical weapons."

She added that "the international community will hold accountable any Syrian officials who fail to meet that obligation."

The Syrian government denied chemical stockpiles have been moved, the Journal said.

Syria is one of eight states - along with Israel and nearby Egypt - that have not joined the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, which means the world's chemical weapons watchdog has no jurisdiction to intervene there.

The Assad government has in the past denied having weapons of mass destruction.

[seemslikeadream]

Could bus attack draw Israel into Syria crisis?

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

As the Syrian crisis worsens, if you thought that things in the Middle East were already complicated and unstable enough, then the attack on an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria has just made things that much worse.

Israeli security experts believe that this is just the latest - and the first successful - attack in a series of operations against Israeli targets around the world, planned by the overseas operational arm of the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

And behind Hezbollah the Israelis see the hand of Iran; an Iran smarting at a series of attacks against its nuclear scientists, widely believed to have been planned, maybe even carried out, by the Israelis.

For its part Hezbollah insists that it had nothing to do with the Bulgarian attack.

But a series of arrests - most recently in Cyprus - have given credence to Israel's claims of a long-running Hezbollah plan to attack soft Israeli targets abroad.

The Burgas attack has potentially brought Israel into the frame of a crisis in which, up until now, it has been a concerned bystander.


The Syrian military is said to have redeployed troops from the Golan Heights to defend Damascus
Indeed, the Burgas attack has the potential to exacerbate three over-lapping crises - the long-standing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon; the growing chaos in Syria; and the wider struggle between Israel and Iran focussed on Tehran's nuclear programme.

The stakes are high. A new regional conflagration beckons if any of the actors make a wrong move.

Israel has been watching events unfold in Syria with alarm, perhaps tinged with just a small measure of optimism.

The demise of the Assad regime - Iran's principal Arab ally - would be a major blow to Tehran.

It would greatly constrain Iran's regional ambitions.

But on the other hand, the Assad regime - father and son - have been known quantities. Israel's border with Syria on the Golan Heights has been its quietest frontier since the 1973 war.

The collapse of Syria into sectarian chaos - chaos that could well spread to Lebanon as well - is worrying Israeli political leaders and military commanders.

There have already been murmurings of concern at Syrian troop levels in the Golan being reduced as the regime pulls reinforcements into the centre of the country.

Israel fears it could have an ungoverned space on its northern border akin to the growing security challenges posed by the breakdown of order in Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

Add to this the fear of Syrian weapons - missiles and even chemical weapons - potentially falling into the hands of Hezbollah and it is no wonder Israeli military planners are uneasy.

Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have contrived an uneasy informal truce since Israel's last major incursion into the country in 2010.


Iran says its defences are prepared for any attack by Israel
This operation was not a success for the Israeli military. Hezbollah emerged battered but with its confidence enhanced. Since then it has dramatically built-up its ground-to-ground missile force. Israel too believes that it has learned the lessons from its last military operation in Lebanon. Both sides are preparing for the next round in their struggle.

What links both the Syrian regime and Hezbollah in Lebanon - quite apart from their own close ties - is the patronage and support they both get from Iran.

Of course Israel regards Iran's nuclear programme as a potential existential threat. It has trained and planned for an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. US pressure - not least the imminence of a US presidential election - tougher economic sanctions, and renewed efforts by the major players in the UN Security Council along with Germany to engage Tehran in negotiations have forestalled an Israeli attack up to now.

But three rounds of talks have not made any significant progress. Israel is fast losing patience and Israel's own domestic political circumstances may come into play.

After the Kadima party quit the coalition a general election may be in the offing; perhaps in early 2013. Could this be a factor in determining the timing of a potential Israeli attack against Iran?

Of course such an attack could have dramatic consequences across the region. The Burgas attack has thus added a new level of complexity to an already difficult strategic picture.

Israel will no doubt respond against Hezbollah; but maybe not now. It already has bigger strategic threats to worry about.

[seemslikeadream]

Barak Orders Israeli Military to Prepare for Syria Invasion
Israeli Troops Would Seize 'Advanced Weapons' From Syria
by Jason Ditz, July 20, 2012

In an interview with Israeli Channel 10 today Defense Minister Ehud Barak confirmed that he has ordered the military to prepare for a full-scale invasion of neighboring Syria, with the goal of seizing weapons from the Syrian military, currently embroiled in a civil war.

Barak sought to justify the move, saying that it was possible Syria might transfer “anti-aircraft missiles” or even chemical weapons to Hezbollah, a militant faction operating out of neighboring Lebanon.

There were some reports that Syria was hoping to ditch some of its less useful weapons on Hezbollah, because they weren’t of much value in the ongoing civil war and were costing resources to protect from looters. Though this would be the case with some weapons, it is unlikely Syria would want to reduce its anti-aircraft arsenal, particularly with Western nations chomping at the bit for a NATO attack and imposed regime change.

Early this week it had been reported Israel was considering such a step, and that Pentagon officials had been dispatched to try to talk Israel out of the invasion, warning it would bolster Assad’s position.

[seemslikeadream]

Exclusive: Secret Turkish nerve center leads aid to Syria rebels

By Regan Doherty and Amena Bakr
DOHA/DUBAI | Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:12am EDT
(Reuters) - Turkey has set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria's rebels from a city near the border, Gulf sources have told Reuters.
News of the clandestine Middle East-run "nerve centre" working to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad underlines the extent to which Western powers - who played a key role in unseating Muammar Gaddafi in Libya - have avoided military involvement so far in Syria.

"It's the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main co-ordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom," said a Doha-based source.

"The Americans are very hands-off on this. U.S. intel(ligence) are working through middlemen. Middlemen are controlling access to weapons and routes."

The centre in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 100 km (60 miles) from the Syrian border, was set up after Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud visited Turkey and requested it, a source in the Gulf said. The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations, he added.

A Saudi foreign ministry official was not immediately available to comment on the operation.

Adana is home to Incirlik, a large Turkish/U.S. air force base which Washington has used in the past for reconnaissance and military logistics operations. It was not clear from the sources whether the anti-Syrian "nerve centre" was located inside Incirlik base or in the city of Adana.

Qatar, the tiny gas-rich Gulf state which played a leading part in supplying weapons to Libyan rebels, has a key role in directing operations at the Adana base, the sources said. Qatari military intelligence and state security officials are involved.

"Three governments are supplying weapons: Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia," said a Doha-based source.

Ankara has officially denied supplying weapons.

"All weaponry is Russian. The obvious reason is that these guys (the Syrian rebels) are trained to use Russian weapons, also because the Americans don't want their hands on it. All weapons are from the black market. The other way they get weapons is to steal them from the Syrian army. They raid weapons stores."

The source added: "The Turks have been desperate to improve their weak surveillance, and have been begging Washington for drones and surveillance." The pleas appear to have failed. "So they have hired some private guys come do the job."

President Barack Obama has so far preferred to use diplomatic means to try to oust Assad, although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled this week that Washington plans to step up help to the rebels.

Reuters has established that Obama's aides have drafted a resolution which would authorize greater covert assistance to the rebels but still stop short of arming them.

The White House's wariness is shared by other Western powers. It reflects concerns about what might follow Assad in Syria and about the substantial presence of anti-Western Islamists and jihadi fighters among the rebels.

The presence of the secret Middle East-run "nerve centre" may explain how the Syrian rebels, a rag-tag assortment of ill-armed and poorly organized groups, have pulled off major strikes such as the devastating bomb attack on July 18 which killed at least four key Assad aides including the defense minister.

A Turkish diplomat in the region insisted however that his country played no part in the Damascus bombing.

"That's out of the question," he said. "The Syrian minister of information blamed Turkey and other countries for the killing. Turkey doesn't do such things. We are not a terrorist country. Turkey condemns such attacks."

However, two former senior U.S. security officials said that Turkey has been playing an increasing role in sheltering and training Syrian rebels who have crossed into its territory.

One of the former officials, who is also an adviser to a government in the region, told Reuters that 20 former Syrian generals are now based in Turkey, from where they are helping shape the rebel forces. Israel believes up to 20,000 Syrian troops may now have defected to the opposition.

Former officials said there is reason to believe the Turks stepped up their support for anti-Assad forces after Syria shot down a Turkish plane which had made several passes over border areas.

Sources in Qatar said the Gulf state is providing training and supplies to the Syrian rebels.

"The Qataris mobilized their special forces team two weeks ago. Their remit is to train and help logistically, not to fight," said a Doha-based source with ties to the FSA.

Qatar's military intelligence directorate, Foreign Ministry and State Security Bureau are involved, said the source.

WESTERN CAUTION

The United States, Israel, France and Britain - traditionally key players in the Middle East - have avoided getting involved so far, largely because they see little chance of a "good outcome" in Syria.

"Israel is not really in the business of trying to 'shape' the outcome of the revolt,", a diplomat in the region said. "The consensus is that you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. The risk of identifying with any side is too great".

A former U.S. official who advises a government in the region and other current and former U.S. and European security officials say that there has been little to zero direct assistance or training from the U.S. or its European allies.

The former official also said that few sophisticated weapons such as shoulder-fired bazookas for destroying tanks or surface-to-air missiles have reached the anti-Assad forces.

While some Gulf officials and conservative American politicians have privately suggested that a supply of surface-to-air missiles would help anti-Assad forces bring the conflict to a close, officials familiar with U.S. policy say they are anxious to keep such weapons out of the hands of Syrian rebels. They fear such weapons could make their way to pro-jihad militants who could use them against Western aircraft.

AFTER ASSAD

The CIA and the Israelis' main concern so far has been that elements of al-Qaeda may attempt to infiltrate the rebels and acquire some of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst who now serves as an adviser to the Israeli government, told Reuters: "It's a nightmare for the international community, and chiefly the Americans - weapons of mass-destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. In parallel to its foreign contacts, Israel is taking this especially seriously. After all, we are here, and the Americans are over there."

She envisaged two circumstances under which Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist group, could obtain some of the chemical weapons stockpile.

"Assad goes and anarchy ensues, during which Hezbollah gets its hands on the weapons. There is a significant Hezbollah presence in Syria and they are well-ensconced in the military and other national agencies. So they are close enough to make a grab for it.

"Another possibility is that Assad, knowing that he is on his way out, will authorized a handover to Hezbollah, as a message to the world about the price of encouraging his ouster."

However, British and U.S. officials believe there is little or no sign of Assad being toppled imminently.

The situation, one senior European official said, is still likely to veer back and forth, like a tug-of-war between pro- and anti-Assad forces.

There is no indication, the official added, that Assad himself has any intention of doing anything but fighting on until the bitter end.

(additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in London and Dan Williams in Jerusalem; writing by Richard Woods; editing by Michael Stott and Ralph Boulton)

[seemslikeadream]

Robert Fisk: Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy
The West's real target here is not Assad's brutal regime but his ally, Iran, and its nuclear weapons
ROBERT FISK SUNDAY 29 JULY 2012

Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such public humiliation? I'm not talking about the physical victims of the Syrian tragedy. I'm referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our masters and our own public opinion – eastern as well as western – in response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare.

While Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm and fund the rebels of Syria to overthrow Bashar al-Assad's Alawite/Shia-Baathist dictatorship, Washington mutters not a word of criticism against them. President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, say they want a democracy in Syria. But Qatar is an autocracy and Saudi Arabia is among the most pernicious of caliphate-kingly-dictatorships in the Arab world. Rulers of both states inherit power from their families – just as Bashar has done – and Saudi Arabia is an ally of the Salafist-Wahabi rebels in Syria, just as it was the most fervent supporter of the medieval Taliban during Afghanistan's dark ages.

Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijacker-mass murderers of 11 September, 2001, came from Saudi Arabia – after which, of course, we bombed Afghanistan. The Saudis are repressing their own Shia minority just as they now wish to destroy the Alawite-Shia minority of Syria. And we believe Saudi Arabia wants to set up a democracy in Syria?

Then we have the Shia Hezbollah party/militia in Lebanon, right hand of Shia Iran and supporter of Bashar al-Assad's regime. For 30 years, Hezbollah has defended the oppressed Shias of southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. They have presented themselves as the defenders of Palestinian rights in the West Bank and Gaza. But faced with the slow collapse of their ruthless ally in Syria, they have lost their tongue. Not a word have they uttered – nor their princely Sayed Hassan Nasrallah – about the rape and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Bashar's soldiers and "Shabiha" militia.

Then we have the heroes of America – La Clinton, the Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, and Obama himself. Clinton issues a "stern warning" to Assad. Panetta – the same man who repeated to the last US forces in Iraq that old lie about Saddam's connection to 9/11 – announces that things are "spiralling out of control" in Syria. They have been doing that for at least six months. Has he just realised? And then Obama told us last week that "given the regime's stockpile of nuclear weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad … that the world is watching". Now, was it not a County Cork newspaper called the Skibbereen Eagle, fearful of Russia's designs on China, which declared that it was "keeping an eye … on the Tsar of Russia"? Now it is Obama's turn to emphasise how little clout he has in the mighty conflicts of the world. How Bashar must be shaking in his boots.

But what US administration would really want to see Bashar's atrocious archives of torture opened to our gaze? Why, only a few years ago, the Bush administration was sending Muslims to Damascus for Bashar's torturers to tear their fingernails out for information, imprisoned at the US government's request in the very hell-hole which Syrian rebels blew to bits last week. Western embassies dutifully supplied the prisoners' tormentors with questions for the victims. Bashar, you see, was our baby.

Then there's that neighbouring country which owes us so much gratitude: Iraq. Last week, it suffered in one day 29 bombing attacks in 19 cities, killing 111 civilian and wounding another 235. The same day, Syria's bloodbath consumed about the same number of innocents. But Iraq was "down the page" from Syria, buried "below the fold", as we journalists say; because, of course, we gave freedom to Iraq, Jeffersonian democracy, etc, etc, didn't we? So this slaughter to the east of Syria didn't have quite the same impact, did it? Nothing we did in 2003 led to Iraq's suffering today. Right?

And talking of journalism, who in BBC World News decided that even the preparations for the Olympics should take precedence all last week over Syrian outrages? British newspapers and the BBC in Britain will naturally lead with the Olympics as a local story. But in a lamentable decision, the BBC – broadcasting "world" news to the world – also decided that the passage of the Olympic flame was more important than dying Syrian children, even when it has its own courageous reporter sending his despatches directly from Aleppo.

Then, of course, there's us, our dear liberal selves who are so quick to fill the streets of London in protest at the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. Rightly so, of course. When our political leaders are happy to condemn Arabs for their savagery but too timid to utter a word of the mildest criticism when the Israeli army commits crimes against humanity – or watches its allies do it in Lebanon – ordinary people have to remind the world that they are not as timid as the politicians. But when the scorecard of death in Syria reaches 15,000 or 19,000 – perhaps 14 times as many fatalities as in Israel's savage 2008-2009 onslaught on Gaza – scarcely a single protester, save for Syrian expatriates abroad, walks the streets to condemn these crimes against humanity. Israel's crimes have not been on this scale since 1948. Rightly or wrongly, the message that goes out is simple: we demand justice and the right to life for Arabs if they are butchered by the West and its Israeli allies; but not when they are being butchered by their fellow Arabs.

And all the while, we forget the "big" truth. That this is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans – if they exist – and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies. Quelle horreur!

[seemslikeadream]

Syria has expanded chemical weapons supply with Iran’s help, documents show
By James Ball, Published: July 27

Syria has expanded its chemical weapons arsenal in recent years with help from Iran and by using front organizations to buy sophisticated equipment it claimed was for civilian programs, according to documents and interviews.

The buildup has taken place despite attempts by the United States and other Western countries to block the sale of precursor chemicals and so-called dual-use technology to Damascus, according to the documents.

A look at the Syrian uprising one year later. Thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power, despite numerous calls by the international community for him to step down.

As recently as 2010, documents show that the European Union provided $14.6 million in technical assistance and equipment, some intended for chemical plants, in a deal with the Syrian Ministry of Industry. Diplomats and arms experts have identified the ministry as a front for the country’s chemical weapons program.

Recognizing the potential for Syria to divert equipment to the weapons program, the E.U. stipulated that it be allowed to conduct spot checks on how it was used. But the inspections were halted in May 2011 when the organization imposed sanctions on Syria after the crackdown on opposition groups.

Concerns about Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal took on new significance this week when a top Syrian official warned that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad would use them “in the event of external aggression.”

U.S. officials have expressed concerns over whether Assad would authorize using the weapons against his own people as a last-ditch effort to remain in power. Similarly, officials have said they worry about the security of the arsenal if Assad’s government falls.

The portrait of Syria’s efforts to develop a larger chemical weapons program emerged from E.U. documents, a handful of little-noticed State Department cables released by WikiLeaks and interviews with outside experts.

Arms experts say Syria has pursued a two-pronged strategy to build and grow its chemical weapons stockpile: overt assistance and procurement of chemical precursors and expertise from Iran, coupled with the acquisition of equipment and chemicals from seemingly unwitting businesses in other countries, in many cases through a network of front organizations.

The materials are often dual use, with purposes in civilian plants and in weapons facilities.

Iranian assistance

A 2006 cable recounts a confidential presentation by German officials to the Australia Group, an informal forum for 40 nations plus the European Commission that protects against the spread of chemical weapons. The cable described Syria’s cooperation with Iran on Syria’s development of new chemical weapons, noting that Syria was building up to five new sites producing precursors to chemical weapons.

“Iran would provide the construction design and equipment to annually produce tens to hundreds of tons of precursors for VX, sarin, and mustard [gas],” said the cable, written by a U.S. diplomat. “Engineers from Iran’s DIO [Defense Industries Organization] were to visit Syria and survey locations for the plants, and construction was scheduled from the end of 2005-2006.”

A 2008 State Department cable summarized a presentation by Australian officials to the monitoring group that concluded Syria had become sophisticated in its efforts to move equipment and resources from civilian programs to weapons development.

“The Australians believe Syria is committed to improving and expanding its program, including through testing,” the cable said. “Syria maintains a basic indigenous capability, in contrast to other countries of concern, but maintains some dependence on precursor imports. . . . Syria appears focused on importing precursors and precursors of precursors.”

[seemslikeadream]

Critical Analysis
Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia
By F. William Engdahl.
Saturday, Jul 28, 2012

Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another “world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.” It involves intense diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards, especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv and certainly not in either Russia or China.1

According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all, 20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2

That would be some 4 million Syrians. That ought to be food for thought for those in the West cheering on a murky dubious opposition “Syrian National Council” that is dominated by the ominous Muslim Brotherhood, and an armed opposition “Free Syrian Army” that has been reported even by the New York Times as rife with factional armed splits. Moreover the conflict were it to descend into a Libya-like internal bloodbath, would spill over across the Syrian border into Turkey. Syrian coastal area has a significant Alawite population and a large number of Alawites live in the adjoining Turkish provinces of Hatay and Antakya.

To sort out fact from fiction inside Syria is daunting as media are limited and opposition spokesmen have been repeatedly caught lying about events. In one recent instance, a UK journalist claimed he was deliberately led into a potential death trap by rebel opposition forces to score propaganda against the Damascus regime. The UK Channel 4 News's chief correspondent, Alex Thomson, told AP that Syrian rebels set him up to die in no man's land near the Lebanese border, saying they wanted to use his death at the hands of government forces to score propaganda points.3 And in one brazen example of political manipulation, BBC was recently caught publishing a photograph it claimed was of a massacre at Al-Houla on 25 May 2012, in which 108 persons are known to have died including 49 children. It turned out the picture had been taken by Italian photo journalist, Marco Di Lauro in Iraq in 2003.4

The stakes in this geopolitical chess game are nothing less than survival first of Syria as a sovereign nation, whatever its flaws and defects. More, it ultimately involves the survival of Iran, Russia and China as sovereign nations together with the other BRIC states Brazil, India and South Africa. Longer term, it involves the matter of survival of civilization as we know it and avoidance of a world war that would decimate the world population not by tens of millions as seventy years ago but likely this time by billions.

The Syria stakes for Moscow
Russia’s Putin has drawn a deep hard line in the sand around the survival of Al-Assad and Syria as a stable state. Few ask why Russia is warning of possible world war if Washington persists to demand immediate regime change in Syria as Hillary Clinton is doing. It is not because Russia is intent on advancing its own imperialist agenda in the Middle East. It’s in little shape militarily and economically to do so even if it had wanted. Rather, it is about preserving port rights to Russia’s only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus, the only remaining Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot. In event of a showdown with NATO the base becomes strategic to Russia.

Yet there is more at stake for Russia. Putin and Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have made clear were NATO and the USA to launch military action against Assad’s Syria, the consequences would be staggering. Reliable sources in Damascus have reported the presence of at least 100,000 Russian “technical advisers” in the country. That’s a lot, and a Russian freighter carrying rebuilt Russian Mi-25 attack helicopters is reportedly bound for Syria, while several days earlier a Russian naval flotilla sailed for Tartus led by the Russian destroyer, Admiral Chabanenko.

An earlier attempt to send the rebuilt helicopters back to Syria which had earlier purchased them, was blocked in June off Scotland’s coast when it sailed under a non-Russian freighter flag. Now Moscow has made clear it will tolerate no interference in its traffic with Damascus. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, announced that “The fleet will be sent on task to guarantee the safety of our ships, to prevent anyone interfering with them in the event of a blockade. I remind you there are no limits,” he soberly added.5 In so many words, what Moscow is announcing is that it is willing to face a 21st Century version of the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis if NATO foolishly persists in pressing regime change in Damascus.

As it has openly emerged that the so-called democratic opposition in Syria is being dominated by the shadowy Muslim Brotherhood, hardly an organization renowned for multi-ethnic democratic tendencies, a victory for a US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, Moscow also believes, would unleash a wave of Muslim-led destabilizations across Central Asia into republics of the former Soviet Union. China is also extremely sensitive about such a danger, only recently confronted with bloody riots of Muslim organization in its oil-rich Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Province, quietly sponsored by the US Government.6
Russia has joined firmly with China since both nations fell into a catastrophic trap over abstaining in the UN Security Council from vetoing the US Resolution. That US resolution opened the door to NATO destruction of not only Mohammar Ghaddafi, but of Libya itself as a functioning country. This author has spoken personally in Moscow and in Beijing since the Libya debacle asking well-informed persons in both places how in effect they could have been so short-sighted on Libya. They both clearly have since concluded that further advance of Washington’s agenda for what George W. Bush called the Greater Middle East Project is diametrically opposed to the national interest of both China and Russia, hence the iron opposition to the NATO agenda in Syria for regime change. To date Russia and China, Permanent veto members of the UN Security Council, have three times exercised their veto over new US-sponsored sanctions against Syria, the latest on July 19.

Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insist on a strict adherence to the proposed peace plan of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Unlike what Washington prefers to generously read into it, the Six Point Annan Plan calls for no regime change, rather for a negotiated settlement and end to the fighting on both sides, a ceasefire.

Washington’s Janus-faced duplicity
Aligned on the side of violent regime change in Syria are a bizarre coalition that includes, in addition to Washington and its European “vassal states” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski called European NATO members),7 most prominently Saudi Arabia, hardly a regime anyone would accuse of being a paragon of democracy. Another lead role against Damascus is being played by Qatar, home to US military as well as the blatantly pro-NATO propaganda channel Al-Jazeera. In addition, the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is providing training and space to prepare armed mercenaries and others to flow over the border into neighboring Syria.

An attempt by the Erdogan government to send a Turkish Phantom air force fighter jet into Syrian airspace flying provocatively low, apparently in order to incite a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident to fan flames of NATO intervention a la Libya two weeks ago, fell flat when Turkey's general staff issued a statement saying: "No traces of explosives or flammable products were found on the debris recovered from the sea." Erdogan was forced to shift his line to cover face, no longer using the phrase, "shot down by Syria" and instead referring to "our plane that Syria claimed to have destroyed."8 NATO has established a command and control center in Iskenderun, in Turkey’s Hatay province, near the Syrian border months ago to organize, train and arm the “anything but” Free Syrian Army.9 The Obama Administration, not wanting a full Syria war before US elections in November, reportedly also told Erdogan to “cool it” for now.

Most westerners who take their knowledge of world affairs religiously from the pages of the Washington Post or CNN or BBC are convinced the Syrian mess is a clear cut case of “good guys” (the so-named Syrian National Council and its rag-tag makeshift “Free Syrian Army”) versus the “bad guys” (the Al-Assad dictatorship with its armed forces). For more than a year western media has run footage, some as noted, not even filmed in Syria, claiming that innocent, unarmed opposition civilian pro-democracy populations are being massacred ruthlessly in a one-sided butchery by the regime.

They never explain how it would serve Assad to alienate his strongest asset to survival, namely the support of a majority of Syrians against what he has accurately named foreign intervention into sovereign Syrian affairs.

Indeed numerous eyewitness journalist accounts from inside Turkey and Syria including RT have alleged that from the beginning the “peaceful democratic opposition” had secretly been provided with arms and training, often inside camps across on the Turkish side. Professor Ibrahim Alloush from Zaytouneh University in Jordan told RT,
“Weaponry is being smuggled into Syria in large quantities from all over the place. It is pretty clear that the rebels have been receiving arms from abroad and Syrian television has been showing almost daily shipments of arms being smuggled into Syria via Lebanon, Turkey and other border crossings. Since the rebels are being supported by the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and by NATO it is safe to assume that they are getting their financing and weaponry from the same sources that are offering them political cover and financial backing.”10

One veteran Turkish journalist whom this author interviewed in Ankara in April, just back from an extensive tour of Syria, gave his eyewitness account of the capture of a small band of “opposition” fighters. The journalist, fluent in Arabic, was astonished as he witnessed the head of the rebels demand to know why their military captors spoke Arabic. When told that was their native language, the rebel leader blurted out, “But you should speak Hebrew, you’re with the Israeli Army aren’t you?”

In short, the mercenaries had been blitz-trained across the border in Turkey, given Kalashnikovs and a fistful of dollars and told they were making a jihad against the Israeli Army. They did not even know who they were fighting. In other instances, mercenaries recruited from Afghanistan and elsewhere and financed by Saudi money, including alleged members of Al Qaeda, make up the “democratic opposition” to the established regime of Al-Assad.

Even the ultimate US establishment newspaper, The New York Times, has been forced to admit that the CIA has been pouring arms into the Syrian opposition. They reported, “C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”11

The International Committee for the Red Cross now classifies the conflict as a civil war.12

Peter Wallensteen, a leading peace researcher at the University of Uppsala and the director of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, stated that, "It's increasingly an internationalized civil war, and as we know from previous history, the more internationalized, the longer the conflict will be... there is a civil war, but now so many weapons are coming from the outside, that there is actually an internationalized civil war."13

According to Mary Ellen O'Connell, a respected legal scholar and professor of law and international dispute resolution at the University of Notre Dame, "The International Committee of the Red Cross statement means that the Assad regime is facing an organized armed opposition engaging in military force, and it has the legal right to respond in kind. The Syrian military will have more authority to kill persons based on their being part of the armed opposition than when Assad was restricted to using force under peacetime rules."14 The rebel opposition groups claim it means just the opposite.

While the US State Department makes pious pronouncements of their supporting “democracy” and demanding Al-Assad step down and recognize the dubious and factionalized opposition of the Syrian National Council, an exile group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia is working skillfully on the diplomatic front to weaken the Western march to war.

Putin’s shrewd diplomacy
Now, no sooner did Vladimir Putin again take the office as Russia’s President on May 7 than he embarked on a complex series of diplomatic missions to defuse or hopefully derail Washington’s Syrian game plan. On July 16 Putin hosted a Moscow visit of Kofi Annan where he repeated Moscow’s unflinching support for the Annan Peace Plan.15

Because of the considerable media distortions it’s useful to read the actual text of the six-point Annan plan:

(1) commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;

(2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.

To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.

As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.

Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;

(3) ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level;

(4) intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;

(5) ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;

(6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.16


There is no demand in the Annan Plan for Bashar al-Assad to step down before any ceasefire, contrary to what Hillary Clinton repeats after insisting the US also backs the Annan Plan. The Annan Plan calls for a diplomatic solution. The US clearly does not want a diplomatic solution. It wants regime change and evidently widening war across the Shi’ite-Sunni divide of the Muslim world.

Moscow and Beijing just as clearly want to draw the line and prevent chaos spreading from Syria. On July 19, again Russia and China, both veto members at the UN Security Council blocked a new US-backed resolution on Syria they insisted was designed to open the door to a Libya-like military intervention into Syria. The resolution had been drafted by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and would have opened the door for a Chapter 7 resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria. Chapter 7 allows the 15-member council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.17

The Hague resolution demanded that the Syrian government in 10 days pull out all its heavy weapons from urban areas and return troops to barracks. Nothing was said about disarming the “Free Syrian Army.” Washington claimed it would only be interested in economic or diplomatic sanctions, not military. Of course. Hmmmm...

Putin has more than a little leverage to use with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Erdogan was in Moscow just prior to the July 19 UN Security Council vote to discuss Syria with Putin.18

Turkey is the second-largest buyer of Russian natural gas, some 80% of its natural gas coming from Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom.19
Turkey’s entire “energy hub” strategy of playing a key role in gas flows from Eurasia, the Middle east to Europe depends on gas from Russia and Iran. One year ago a $10 billion pipeline deal was signed between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s huge South Pars field to Iraq, Syria and on to Turkey, eventually connecting to Europe.20

Putin had also gone to Tel Aviv on June 21 to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.21 Russian influence inside Israel is not minor. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union some six million Russians, mostly Jews, have emigrated to Israel over the past two decades. Ultimately Israel cannot be overjoyed at the prospect of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Syrian opposition coming to power in neighboring Syria. While few details emerged of the content of the talks, it is clear that Putin delivered the message that a “destroyed, disoriented and broken up Syria would not help Israel. Syria has the second, most well-organized Muslim Brotherhood organization after Egypt,” according to former Indian Ambassador K. Gajendra Singh.22

Then on July 11, Putin and Lavrov invited Abdel Basset Sayda, the new head of the US-backed opposition organization, Syrian National Council, to Moscow for “talks.” Sayda, who is from the Kurdish Syrian minority and has lived twenty years in Swedish exile, is a curious figure as opposition spokesman, from the Kurd minority in Syria, a man with little or no active political experience, clearly chosen mainly to hide the dominant Muslim Brotherhood profile of the SNC. Russia reportedly made it clear to Sayda they would continue to block any attempts to oust Assad and that the opposition need seriously adhere to the Annan Plan and negotiate a settlement. Sayda for his part made clear no negotiations until Assad is gone, a stance that is feeding the bloodshed.23

There are signs in all the bloodshed and escalation of violence that Putin reached some quiet deal as well with Obama to keep war off the table until Obama is past the November elections. Russia recently agreed to reopen supply lines for US military supplies in Afghanistan at the same time Washington orchestrated an “apology” for the recent killings of civilians in Pakistan with its drones.24

Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality:
“Turkey will keep offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from "liberated" Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponize them. And Washington, London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus. Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly weaponized by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless. Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will remain in place - if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon.”24

[seemslikeadream]

Chinese destroyer enters Mediterranean via Suez
Warship crosses through Suez Canal into Mediterranean Sea, possibly en route to Syrian coast for naval maneuvers
Published: 07.29.12, 19:07 / Israel News

A Chinese destroyer sailed through Egypt's Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea, Egyptian daily Al-Shuruk reported on Sunday.

The destroyer could be on its way to the Syrian coast, the Egyptian newspaper reported, adding that the warship is planning to hold naval maneuvers in the area.

Al Shuruk daily further claimed that the canal authority authorized the Chinese ship's crossing through the canal following permission from the Egyptian armed forces.

Meanwhile, Egypt's Al-Wafd website reported that high security measures were taken during the ship's crossing of the canal.

Beijing, an ally of Syria, has repeatedly blocked Western-backed Security Council attempts to increase pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad to end the violence sparked by a government crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

Last month reports claiming that the armies of Iran, China, Russia and Syria are planning to hold naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea were circling the media outlets. According to the report, 90,000 soldiers from the four countries will take part in the large-scale maritime war games, which will be held off the Syrian coastline.


In February, two Iranian naval ships sailed through Egypt's Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, and according to Iranian reports, the ships docked in Syria.

Just last month, Russia said that it had dispatched a flotilla of 11 warships to the eastern Mediterranean, some of which would dock in Syria.

Moscow's gesture was the largest display of Russian military power in the region since the Syrian conflict began. Nearly half of the ships were capable of carrying hundreds of marines.

[seemslikeadream]

Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 1, 2012 9:04pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad's armed opponents - a shift that intensified following last month's failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad's opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

'NERVE CENTER'

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad's opponents.

This "nerve center" is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey's moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad's departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad's departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad's helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.

On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had "not obtained any such weapons at all." U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.

Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.

Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad's opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a "memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.

Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.

Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it.

OVERT SUPPORT

Separately from the president's secret order, the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is providing some backing for Assad's opponents.

The State Department said on Wednesday the U.S. government had set aside a total of $25 million for "non-lethal" assistance to the Syrian opposition. A U.S. official said that was mostly for communications equipment, including encrypted radios.

The State Department also says the United States has set aside $64 million in humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people, including contributions to the World Food Program, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other aid agencies.

Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury confirmed it had granted authorization to the Syrian Support Group, Washington representative of one of the most active rebel factions, the Free Syrian Army, to conduct financial transactions on the rebel group's behalf. The authorization was first reported on Friday by Al-Monitor, a Middle East news and commentary website.

Last year, when rebels began organizing themselves to challenge the rule of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Obama also signed an initial "finding" broadly authorizing secret U.S. backing for them. But the president moved cautiously in authorizing specific measures to support them.

Some U.S. lawmakers, such as Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have criticized Obama for moving too slowly to assist the rebels and have suggested the U.S. government become directly involved in arming Assad's opponents.

Other lawmakers have suggested caution, saying too little is known about the many rebel groups.

Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad's opponents.

U.S. and European officials say that, so far, intelligence agencies do not believe the militants' role in the anti-Assad opposition is dominant.

While U.S. and allied government experts believe that the Syrian rebels have been making some progress against Assad's forces lately, most believe the conflict is nowhere near resolution, and could go on for years.