Obama Thinks His Syria Strategy is Right -- And Folks Just Don’t Get It

So how is that Syrian strategy working out.......???

Iranian AF fully engaged now in Aleppo........

IRIAF C-130 also joined the fight in Aleppo. Dropped aid over Nubl & Zahra
https://www.facebook.com/HalabTodayT...4006452950123/ …

Do not this this assumption ever made it into the WH Syrian strategy...........that Assad, Putin and the Islamic State would be coordinating their ground attacks against the FSA..........

Report
Rebels claim, #Assad, #ISIS and #Russia started simultaneous offensive north of #Aleppo.
Pix: Su-25,Su-34
pic.twitter.com/MnzelGXxh7

Syria Rebels claim retook most points in northern #Aleppo villages after simultaneous attack by #Assad-forces & #IslamicState last night

Assad and Putin are doing everything to provoke the anti Assad opposition to leave the Geneva talks.....

BREAKING
alGhouta Hospital: So far 87 cases of Suffocation due #SAA Chemical Attack#Moadamiyah_alSham #Syria JAN31

BREAKING#SAA targeted the East of #Moadamiyah_alSham with Chemical Gas attack causing casualties #Damascus #Syria JAN 31

Multiple attacks in #Damascus then reports of chemical attack on Eastern Ghouta. Interesting timing and pattern yet again.

http://mebriefing.com/?p=2140

How Obama Ended Up Following Putin’s Syria Script and Giving Assad a Victory?

The meeting between Secretary John Kerry and the head of Syrian opposition’s delegation in the transitional talks Dr. Riyad Hijab January 23 in Riyadh stirred a very negative reaction in many opposition circles. Kerry tried to convey a message that lowers opposition’s expectations and packs their goals into the practical frame of the talks drawn with the Russians. But the Secretary’s language threatened the prospects of constructive engagement by the groups which are proposed to participate in the talks.

Mr. Kerry had the difficult task of incorporating Russian-Assad positions and parameters within a plan that addresses as well the goals of the opposition. It is the usual intrinsic challenge of trying to reach a framework for negotiating an end to a tough conflict like the one in Syria. The result was a clear tilt to Moscow’s position. The question now is: Will these talks succeed?

Kerry’s message confused Hijab and the opposition groups alike. It is still not clear if this was done intentionally by the Secretary of State. He made it clear that there will be no preconditions set for the talks, not even a commitment to the departure of Assad at any point in the future. He also oscillated between describing Geneva-1 and Vienna communiques as “references” of the negotiations. And he used the term “unity government” side by side with the term “transitional government” which caused additional confusion.

Furthermore, Kerry’s proposed “confidence building” measures did not include exchange of prisoners or a halt of air raids or barrel bombs targeting civilian areas during talks. The secretary also said other opposition representatives, proposed by Moscow and considered by the rest of the opposition as too close to the Assad regime, will also be present in the talks. Faced with solid rejection by the opposition, those Assad-friendly groups would be labeled “consultants” to the UN envoy Staphan de Mistura and not a parallel opposition delegation.

After Turkey’s threats to end its cooperation in the process if the PKK linked Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union is invited, de Mistura decided to avoid inviting the group. The Russian selected “opposition” delegation will be stationed in Lausanne while the talks would be in Geneva. The letter of invitation failed to mention the Geneva-1 communique even after President Obama and Secretary Kerry hailed the Geneva-1 communique as the “foundation” of the solution since it was signed in 2012.

The difference between the two communiques, the Geneva-1 and Vienna’s, is that the former emphasizes the importance of the transitional phase towards a solution while the later failed to mention distinctively this phase, and emphasized instead the need to fight terrorism. This applies as well to the UNSC Resolution 2254. This difference expressed a retreat from the previous position of insisting on excluding Assad’s effective governance during the transition phase. The Geneva-1 pointed out to “a transitional body that enjoys all executive powers”. Russia accepted the Geneva-1 communique before having its military “surge” in Syria. It de facto withdrew its support of the communique at the beginning of its military operations there.

This shift in emphasis gained a central place in the preparatory talks of the last few weeks, particularly with Kerry’s ambiguous language on the issue of Geneva-1. An opposition leader told MEB that basing the talks on the Vienna communique “will lead nowhere”. “The Vienna process gives prominence to the regional dynamics of the crisis and almost neglects its domestic Syria dimension. It presupposes the willingness of Assad to reach a deal with his opponents. This presupposition reflects that the two powers, Russia and the US, reached a joint understanding and took it to the region to include the regional powers. The question remains: Where would the Syrians fit here? I do not think that the Syrian crisis was merely a regional or global issue. No solution will be sustainable without a genuine and full inclusion of the opposition”, he said.

It is possible that Kerry overplayed his hand under the impact of freshly reached understanding with Lavrov and Saudi Arabia. It cannot be dismissed neither that the approach of the Secretary may work in starting a partial ceasefire. Yet, it is almost certain that this approach, and regardless of any argument that it was the only possible one, may not be sustainable and will not represent a real “solution” to the crisis.

The State Department rushed to contain the negative impact of Kerry-Hijab meeting. Michael Ratney, the administration’s point man for Syria, spent hours with opposition leaders on the phone following the meeting. Ratney tried to play down the points that caused concern among opposition groups all the while keeping the main lines of the US-Russian understanding intact. But Kerry’s warning that if the opposition refused to go to the talks, the negotiation will start anyway, was echoing loudly among the opposition groups and splitting them further.

The talks, if they start, which is still a big “if”, are slated to go on for 10 days. The “Syria Friends” group of nation will then meet in February 11 to evaluate the results of the talks and prepare the following round. The main focus of the first round will be the ceasefire and providing humanitarian aid to Syria’s civilians. Issues related to transition and the future of the country will not be discussed.

However, the invitation issued by de Mistura emphasized the need to form a transitional government to set a time table for the transitional process. This process would result in elections supervised by the UN and to form a non-sectarian, inclusive and credible government and start the process of writing a new Constitution” (No word about a transitional government with full powers). Theoretically, Assad would be able to run again in the elections. Kerry hinted to GCC foreign ministers during their meeting in Riyadh that Assad will not run “if everything goes according to plan”. Those were almost word by word what Putin told his interlocutors since last fall.

The whole picture reflects a shift in the previous US approach to Syria. The illicit logic of that shift gives priority to counterterrorism over looking at Syria within the boundaries of its overall political conflict, which gave rise to terrorism. The nature of the new approach gives precedence to working with Russia and regional powers. In other words, Mr. Putin succeeded in causing a deeper effect than expected on the US approach to the Syrian conflict.

On the ground, however, it is difficult to see how this approach would achieve the required effects, either in fighting terrorism or in solving the political crisis, even if regional powers decided, under pressure, to stop their assistance to the opposition. The weak point of this “Russian” approach –now adopted now by Washington- lies in its crudeness.

For if a deal is reached on the bases of considering most opposition groups terrorists, as seems to be the essence of this approach, a wider war will be in our hands in a matter of few months. This will buy the Obama administration a cheap and superficial “accomplishment” for a short time, while failing to end the crisis on any sustainable way. The bottom line of this approach is exactly what Putin wanted all along. All what happened is that the US delivered its allies to the Kremlin.

The reason behind this conclusion stems from the fact that the approach has the following underlying aspects:

* It places the emphasis on immediate goals at the expense of the overall objectives. This is clear in giving priority to ceasefire and humanitarian aid, and in neglecting to frame these objectives in a process that promises the non-terrorist opposition leaders a possible solution which enables them to restrain their members.

* It is based on duel “references”, that of Geneva-1 which is acceptable by the mainstream opposition groups, and that of Vienna and the UN SCR 2254, which were promoted as the only acceptable references by the regime and the Russians, and which drop the need for Assad to leave or commit to departure after a successful transition.

* It enables terrorist groups like ISIL and Nusra to ask the others: What have you really achieved after five years of fighting? The question would turn into a major factor in pulling members of other groups, who saw their families and friends killed by the regime, to join those who refuse this kind of solution which effectively means that Assad won. In other words, there is nothing for the leaders of the invited groups to show their members in terms of justification for their participation in the talks.

* There are enough arms in Syria to make dependence on either regional powers or the US minimal.

* It cannot be certain that what Kerry hears wherever he goes is true or will indeed happen. Pressure may bring about a superficial consent while the real calculations may be carefully hidden and acted upon.

Continued........

But is there any chance it could work?

Continued......

Washington has given up a lot of grounds in Syria to Moscow’s views. The initial position of Washington, that the Assad regime can never return Syria to stability, was the right one. There will be no stability in Syria for years to come if Russia’s crude and militarized “Grozny” approach carry the transitional process to where Mr. Putin wants it to go.

Continued.....

Secretary Kerry ended up following Putin’s Syria script. No surprise. As this administration proved over and over again that it does not have a strategy, it was to be expected that it will follow those who do.

Continued.......

This so called Obama successful Syrian strategy just keeps on getting better and better......

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...t-all-there-is

January 28, 2016

Geneva: Is That All There Is?

By Frederic C. Hof

Quote:

Without doubt the High Negotiations Committee of the Syrian opposition will authorize and direct its delegation to go to Geneva to engage in indirect "proximity talks" under the supervision of UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Whatever burdens have been borne by this opposition for the better part of five years, it simply cannot risk being blamed for the collapse of a diplomatic initiative spearheaded by an otherwise empty-handed United States. Whatever disappointments the opposition has experienced over the years from the mismatch between administration words and actions, it simply is not in a position to alienate Washington. As it did two years ago in Geneva, the opposition will mount the gallows of Syrian public opinion and hope the hangman overslept.

From the beginning of the Syria crisis, those who rose against the incompetence, corruption, and brutality of the Assad regime have suffered from a friendship deficit. Washington's desire to see Assad gone was and remains somewhere between wishful and advisory in nature—no match for the material determination of Tehran and Moscow to keep their client indefinitely in power in at least part of Syria.

The Obama administration sought, for its own domestic political purposes, to camouflage this fundamental imbalance with rhetoric about red lines and people stepping aside. It sacrificed its own reputation and credibility in the process. Iran, on the other hand, used its Lebanese militia to save Assad militarily in 2013. Russia has been employing its air force to save Assad since the fall of 2015. The American response to the strategic, diplomacy-shaping actions of others has been plaintive: surely Assad's friends know what an asset he is for the Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS, Daesh); surely Russia and Iran know that ISIL is our common enemy; surely Moscow and Tehran will work with us to put Assad to the side so Syrians can unite against ISIL; surely they know what a mistake they are making by intervening militarily. To speculate on how all of this is processed in the Kremlin, Tehran, and Damascus is to invite clinical depression.

One can be as critical as one wants about the performance to date of the external Syrian opposition. Indeed, it is infinitely easier for senior American and UN officials to take a didactic tone with the High Negotiations Committee than it is to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin or Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about their actions or those of their client in creating a rising toll of death, destruction, displacement, and terror among Syrian civilians—all of which benefit ISIL and all of which make creative diplomacy and compromise impossible. It is easier to lecture the Syrian opposition about its responsibility to engage in a dialogue than it is to corner Iran's president—now doing a "come and sell stuff to Iran" victory lap through European capitals —about Tehran's role in facilitating war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.

The Syrian opposition is, to be sure, organizationally challenged. It is fractious. It cannot defeat Iran, Russia, and the regime inside Syria. Its ability to protect its own constituents is very limited. If airdropped tomorrow onto a welcoming Damascus it might, while eschewing collective punishment and mass murder, still prove lacking in governing skills. But this oft-reviled opposition wants Assad—an asset for ISIL and a tool of Hezbollah—gone. Is this not a basis for a close relationship with Washington? Are these people neither worth cultivating nor treating with respect?

And for all of their defects they are neither blind nor stupid. They see Russians and Iranians killing armed Syrian rebels and civilians alike for the sake of preserving a useful client. They know that the greatest power on earth—the United States of America—has protected not a single Syrian inside Syria from the depredations of the Assad regime or its allies—not a single Syrian. And now they are being told exactly what they were told in 2013, before the Geneva conference fiasco of January 2014: come to Geneva, engage in dialogue, help the world see who is serious about this process and who is not, and we will be with you if the other side does not deliver.

There are two missing ingredients in the relationship between the US government and the Syrian opposition: trust and confidence. Evidently some of what Secretary of State John Kerry said days ago to the General Coordinator of the High Negotiations Committee, former Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab, was misunderstood and/or deliberately misrepresented to the media by some of Kerry's listeners. The Department of State has moved rapidly to refute allegations that Kerry was essentially presenting Russian talking points. Did the American side care enough about the audience to insure that the words it used were measured carefully and clearly understood? Was the Syrian side—on the basis of past performance—predisposed to hear something that simply was not said? How can this relationship be so lacking in basic trust and confidence? Who was it, after all, that the United States recognized in December 2012 as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people?

If the Obama administration wants the Syrian opposition to risk whatever positive standing it may have inside Syria for the sake of a diplomatic due diligence exercise aimed at proving to the world that which is already known—that the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran have no interest in genuine Syrian political transition—then it will have to sit with the opposition and spell out what it intends to do to protect Syrian civilians once the exercise has run its course. The course itself need not be lengthy. If the bombings, sieges, and mass incarcerations continue, there is nothing to discuss—it is, as Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura told the UN Security Council on January 18, just another trip to Geneva. If the Assad regime does not accept the terms of reference embodied in the June 30, 2012 Geneva Final Communique, there is nothing to negotiate. It will just be a repeat of Geneva, January 2014.

On January 27 the following exchange, which did not escape the attention of the High Negotiations Committee, occurred during the Department of State daily press briefing:

QUESTION: And the—and at the same time, the Russians and the Syrians are providing additional support to the fight, or to their side of the fight. At what point does the United States decide that this test may be—that they failed the test and decide to increase—to increase pressure or change the balance of power on the ground in support of the people that the Americans are supporting?

MR TONER: Sure. I think that’s a very valid but also very difficult question to answer. I would say we’re still committed—strongly committed—to seeing this process move forward. We feel like, since really this process began and has taken shape throughout the autumn, that we have gathered a little momentum here, that we have moved the parties together in the sense of having these talks, and that we’ve got to keep that momentum going.

In the immortal words of the late Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?" Because if that's all there is—if the Obama administration is just going to keep on dancing for the next twelve months-minus—2016 will be a very bad year indeed for Syrians, their neighbors, Western Europe, and the United States. The Syrian opposition will, with much apprehension and dread, play the role it has been asked to play in helping to reveal the obvious and unveil that which is already plainly visible to those who elect to see. It is, after all, the weakest of the actors. It continues to hope that the strongest will emerge from hiding behind the curtain and appear, at last, center stage.

With the Iran Deal in place and that highly successful Syrian strategy working hard for the WH......not sure this needs any comment...

Khamenei.ir @khamenei_ir
Order of Fat'h given by Chief Commander of Armed forces to IRGC Navy commanders who captured intruding U.S. marines.
pic.twitter.com/1gkGz2bh2p

It just keeps getting worse and worse...but yes there is a successful Syrian strategy......

From farce to farce to tragedy again. In Confidential Memo, U.N. Says It Can’t Enforce a Syrian Peace Deal
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/...an-peace-deal/

Here it comes....at some point Turkey and KSA who view themselves as the "defenders of the faith" and in the case of Turkey they still view the region from an Ottoman view.....as Russia has not stopped their killing and starving of Sunni's then at some point Turkey and KSA will step in...

The interesting point is Putin has spoken a number of times about "engaging NATO"...is he attempting to provoke a NATO confrontation via Turkey as Obama has implied the US will not support Turkey under Article 5 if they engage into Syria....

BREAKING: ‘Turkish Military authorizes all fighter pilots to fire without a warning’
http://ln.is/syria.liveuamap.com/ce61O

Turkey says Russian jet violated its airspace, summons envoy
http://dlvr.it/KMNLZ2
pic.twitter.com/oehyflvomL

NATO calls on #Russia 'to act responsibly and to fully respect NATO airspace'
http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-says-another-russian-jet-vi… …
pic.twitter.com/7FXuCftbdF

Remember he has three core geo political goals in his non linear war with the West.....

1. damage and discredit the EU
2. damage and discredit NATO
3. disconnect the US fully from Europe and the ME.....in this case Obama is providing great secondary support to Putin....

Reference the moderating effects of the Iran Deal that created the success of the Obama Syrian strategy........

American Pastor that was held hostage by Iran speaks out for first time "they hung Sunnis just for being Sunnis"

With Iranian moderates like this no wonder Sunni jihadi's are flocking to IS and JaN

Amazing with the lack of the West's interest in ending the deliberate killing of Syrians via Russian and Assad air strikes and the Assad/Putin use of starvation in it self a war crime that more Syrians have not flocked to IS/JaN..

NOW we can see the raving success of both the Obama Syrian strategy and his Iran Deal.......

Syria looks like an Iranian C-130 parachuted supplies in SAA controlled Deir-e-Zor via @MilitaryMediaSy
pic.twitter.com/A5xmIab4kt

Another shinning example of that highly successful Obama and Kerry Syrian strategy...hard at work to prove Putin is fully behind the "peace talks" AIMED at keeping Assad in total power not just transitional.......

Russia "claims to support the peace talks" which includes humanitarian talks WHICH Russia signed up for by supporting the last UNSC resolution....

BUT WAIT....then this occurs.....

White helmets reports that +60 #Russian Rockets hit the #Refugee camp today in #Idlib/#Lataika.
pic.twitter.com/iQn6r2ZTAn

IMAGES: Assad-approved #Russia|n rockets being fired at IDP camps in rural #Latakia on #Syria-#Turkey border.
pic.twitter.com/kZ4Zr0jISD

Assad/Russ targeted refugee camps with 200+ rockets. Civis being displaced again from Turkman Mount toward Turkey.
pic.twitter.com/Bku6UuM6BR

HNC has announced they will attend Geneva after UN made humanitarian relief assurances....

What an elegant move...they are at Geneva which no one can deny they did not come----yet the UN must implement the UNSC humanitarian resolution or they go home thus the failure of the UN/UNSC (US/Russia)...not the HNC.....elegant...elegant.

HNC sending a small team to Geneva to discuss mechanisms of implementing UNCS resolution 2254 humanitarian relief issues before peace talks.

All HNC 17 members will join the peace talks after arrangements for humanitarian relief issues are made.

AND they launched a multiple front major assault which has stunned the SAA and the Shia mercenaries....

WHO comes from the Assad side and who has a major history behind the killing of Sunni's in the military prisons...tens of thousands......

Assad sends COL Samir Bridi , a brutal #murderer general intelligence officer, to #Geneva.
http://all4syria.info/Archive/289285
pic.twitter.com/FiaDop60M7

Here are those "boots on the round fully capable to fighting IS" BUT largely and totally ignored by Obama and Kerry....WHY is that.....?????

The Guardian ✔ @guardian
Syria’s moderate opposition is real – but we’re fighting on two fronts | Asaad Hanna http://trib.al/qS4NRwT

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/29/syria-moderate-opp…

We are Syria’s moderate opposition – and we’re fighting on two fronts

Asaad Hanna

President Assad and Islamic State are two sides of the same coin. Whenever we, the Free Syrian Army, make advances against the regime, Isis steps in

Friday 29 January 2016 13.08 GMT Last modified on Friday 29 January 2016 13.17 GMT

“I will tell God everything I saw” was the last sentence uttered by a Syrian child before he died of injuries caused by one of the Assad regime’s barrel bombs.

For those lucky enough not to know what barrel bombs are, they are a type of improvised explosive device, usually made from barrel-shaped containers, that are packed with explosives and then rolled out of helicopters.

Activists’ cameras have documented barrel bombs being dropped by the dozen on a daily basis from Assad’s helicopters. But despite this, he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge their existence to the press, scoffing at the very idea.

Barrel bombs have killed and destroyed the lives of thousands of Syrians, and caused the displacement of many more. They have given rise to an anticipated level of violence and reaction far beyond any of the Arab spring revolutions, exceeding the numbers of victims of even the Libyan revolution.

There has been talk of a number of “moderate” fighters who are open to co-operation. David Cameron has talked about the existence of 70,000 fighters opposing Daesh, and there is reason to believe the number is yet higher. I want to unpack this a little.

Last October the UN special envoy for Syria, Steffan de Mistura, invited Syrian military factions to engage in dialogue with the regime through the so-called Four Committees Initiative. The initiative was rejected by the factions out of mistrust, but it did reveal the elevated number of opposition fighters that were active in Syria: 74 military factions signed the rejection statement, the smallest of which numbered 1,000, while others totalled more than 10,000.

Crucially, none of these 74 are internationally classified as extremists. The moderate opposition is not a myth. Syrians do not need foreign fighters to help them fight Isis; they have indigenous fighters, better acquainted with the land and able to confront any aggressor, particularly where there is firm international will to support them to do so.

The Syrian armed opposition is fighting a war on two fronts: against Assad and against Daesh. Assad’s barbarity has driven Syrians from their homes and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians over the past five years.

On the other side, we are facing Daesh, a terrorist group whose creation Assad must take some of the responsibility for. Daesh is helping the Assad regime by fighting us, the armed moderate opposition. The relationship between the two should not be in doubt.

Whenever we have made advances and secured victories, Daesh has defended the Assad regime. For example, we have seen Daesh launch offensives in order to draw Free Syrian Army forces away from battle, to ease pressure on the regime. During a battle near Qardaha – the birthplace of Bashar al-Assad – the armed opposition was achieving great victories until Daesh suddenly launched an attack on a key military position in the nearby city of Aleppo, killing a number of Free Syrian Army commanders. Just three days later they withdrew, at which point they handed the area over to regime forces.

Syrian local forces describe how Assad and Daesh are two sides of the same coin, brought together by the common interest of prolonging the conflict.

On the ground in Syria, thousands of people are fighting for liberation from a despotic regime that has drawn terrorists to Syria. Anyone familiar with the crisis will be aware that the victims suffering the most at the hands of Daesh’s terror are the Syrians themselves. They are stuck between terrorists and a brutal dictator, neither of which has any regard for civilian lives.

The moderate opposition remains firm in its struggle to combat the Syrian regime, as well as the growing threat from terrorism in Syria. The Free Syrian Army welcomes any hand extended to help bring the Syrian people closer to gaining their freedom, without being deflected from its goals or the fundamental principles of the revolution.

Almost half a million Syrians have paid with their blood, and the bloodshed needs to stop. The opposition wants to ensure that barbarism doesn’t triumph in Syria, neither Assad’s nor Daesh’s, and that the country is returned to the Syrian people.

Man the critic of the current Syrian diplomacy by everyone in this article is not only brutal but accurate in it's assumptions....not even sure Obama and Kerry have a Plan Z......

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/the-guardian-view-…

Opinion

The Guardian view on the Syrian peace talks: fake diplomacy is no diplomacy

Editorial

Getting these talks wrong will not lead to peace. They could end up merely strengthening the hand of Islamic State

Thursday 28 January 2016 20.02 GMT

There can be no more urgent matter than putting an end to the terrible human tragedy and the lethal regional destabilisation produced by the Syrian conflict. This is a war in which 300,000 people have died, which has internally displaced half the country’s population and which has caused more than 4 million to flee the country altogether. Syria has become the worst humanitarian catastrophe of our time. The plight of its people is also dangerously destabilising Europe and exposing weaknesses in its institutions. If the humanitarian crisis were not enough on its own, then the need to resolve Europe’s refugee crisis at its source would be reason enough to pay close attention to the peace talks that are scheduled to begin on Friday in Geneva. Yet even getting everyone round the table is looking fraught.

In the current climate, the stated aim of the talks appears breathtakingly ambitious. Mandated by a UN resolution passed in December, their purpose is to organise a gathering of representatives of both the Assad regime and opposition groups, in the hope that it could eventually lead to the formation of a new government, and later, elections. At this stage of a devastating war, it is tempting to see the very possibility of talks as an achievement in itself. Yet for several reasons there is a danger that they amount to nothing more than fake diplomacy.

First, the question of protecting Syrian civilians has all but fallen off the agenda. There can be no progress without attention to their plight. Second, western powers seem to have made key political concessions to Russia and Iran, the main enablers of the Assad regime. As as result, the Syrian dictator will feel even more empowered to pursue the mass targeting of his own countrymen and to continue a war of attrition in the belief that he will ultimately come out the winner.

Diplomacy is invariably a slow process. There will always be setbacks, doubts and negative headlines. The Iran nuclear deal took years of patient effort; so did Barack Obama’s breakthrough with Cuba. But diplomacy is not just a talking shop, nor can it be reduced simply to putting people in a room, or scheduling summits. Ultimately, it hinges on substance, and there is a sneaking feeling now that the Obama administration may be elevating process over and above substance – in effect, marking time, as it enters its final year, rather than addressing the core reasons why the war has raged on for so long.

UN resolutions calling for the end of barrel bombing, to the sieges that left the people of Madaya and other towns at risk of starvation, and to the other mass atrocities that Syrians have been subjected to mainly by Assad’s army, have been all but swept under the carpet as the prospect of talks grew closer. Opposition groups have objected to holding talks if those demands are not met: that hardly counts as maximalist obstructiveness. Yet the US administration has reportedly tried to pressure them by threatening to cut off assistance. That is not a good backdrop to building trust, let alone to forging a sustainable agreement.

Meanwhile, Russia and Iran are demanding that the opposition’s delegation to Geneva is modified to include elements approved by the Assad regime and favourable to their own interests. If the US and its allies do not reject this demand, it will in effect kill the legitimacy of the delegation in the eyes of Syrians themselves, and thwart any hope of a genuine negotiation. What’s more, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, has spoken of a “national unity” government for Syria, not a “transitional” one. That vocabulary not only mimics Russia’s but runs counter to the very document on which the talks are meant to build: the 2012 Geneva communique calling for a political transition by mutual consent. Washington has even stopped saying Bashar al-Assad should not be allowed to run in elections.

If there is to be any hope for peace in Syria, talks must have a solid basis. After the setbacks it has recently endured, it must seem easy to pressure the opposition. But the proper place for pressure is on Mr Assad’s backers in Moscow and Tehran. Washington seems to believe that Russia will ultimately back a settlement in Syria that would sideline Mr Assad and that its cooperation must be sought under any circumstance. Yet Russia has so far appeared to be more intent on undermining talks than on enabling them. Worse still, letting Mr Assad get the upper hand will only fuel the Isis myth that it alone can defend Sunni Muslims. Talks for the sake of talks may give an illusion of progress but they come at a high price for Syrians, and western security too. Fake diplomacy is no diplomacy.

Now that Geneva 3 is dead and buried and the only boots on the ground fully capable of destroying IS and that is Sunni and Syrian blatantly does not trust either the UNSC and or Obama and Kerry.....

SO now what the Obama and Kerry Plan Z...as all the others have basically been facades.......

Syrian opposition backs off from Geneva talks, accuses U.N. envoy of adopting Russian-Iranian agenda - ARA News
http://aranews.net/2016/01/17953/

If you call for and pass an UNSC resolution to end bombing YET continue bombing THEN you are not serious in the least bit about peace and you simply misled/lied to the entire UNSC.....in order to continue your bombing....

If Russia not prepared to stop bombing for the sake of peace talks.. who can blame the Syrian opposition for delay
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0V61M4 …

Exact same Putin tactics in Minsk 2...talk, talk and more talk...all the while shelling and attacking the UAF BUT then claiming it is the UAF that starts it......

Typical Russian "it ain't me" tactic...it is the others"..."poor me everyone is beating up on me as I am doing nothing wrong......"...

where is Obama and Kerry in all of this...missing in action.....?

Literally months ago Obama was in a press conference and basically admitted he had no strategy for combatting IS after they marched into Iraq....now we hear again that he "does have a strategy and it is highly successful ...just needs some messaging that is all...but it is working.

With Kerry basically carrying the Putin solution into the meetings with the anti Assad HNC and KSA and basically threatening them using the Putin argument much as he has done in Ukraine Kerry "wasted any creditability" the US had left in the ME.

So when the anti Assad front and the Sunni Front States both indicated that the US and Russia supported and passed a UNSC resolution that humanitarian aid was to flow and the bombing was to be stopped...BOTH were never going to be done if one has seen the Putin response to Minsk 2 in Ukraine...WHY Kerry assumed this would happen is beyond me.....WHAT was the first Kerry response..."these are unacceptable pre conditions"....WELL they were passed by the UNSC and sponsored by the US/Russia so the question...was it all a fake move supported largely by Russia?

Obama and Kerry now stand in front of the shambles of their so called Syrian strategy and BASCIALLY the US has now formerly abandoned the ME and fully sides with allowing the regional power in the ME to shift to Iran with the superpower sphere of influence going to Russia.

The US has never intended that the bombing actually stop, never intended to end toe war crimes of killing civilians, has never intended to end the starvation an another war crime even agreed to by Ban, and this is critical never really intended to remove Assad WHEN for four years Obama claimed he had to go......WHY he simply has no strategy nor foreign policy.

Brilliant...just brilliant...Wilson would be proud....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/syrias-most-important-peace-talks-2120562…
QUOTE:

For Syrian President Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers, "there is no peace short of victory," Issa, of the Middle East Institute, writes. In that sense, pro-government forces would benefit most from the talks being delayed indefinitely or derailed entirely.

That is increasingly becoming a reality. The UN, so far, has not reconsidered its position, and neither has the opposition.

"There must be a halt to the bombardment of civilians by Russian planes, and sieges of blockaded areas must be lifted" in order for conditions to be "appropriate" for meaningful negotiations, George Sabra, deputy head of the opposition delegation, told Reuters on Thursday.

The rebels claim that US Secretary of State John Kerry pressured them to attend the talks and threatened to cut off support to the rebels entirely if they did not show up in Geneva — a charge that Kerry has denied.

"The position of the United States is and hasn't changed. We are still supporting the opposition, politically, financially and militarily," he told reporters at a roundtable event on Tuesday.

Jaysh al-Islam, one of the largest groups in the HNC, was quick to point out that the rebels have other sources of support besides the US.

"We do not forget that there are sisterly states that support us and help us overcome these pressures, particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey," the group's spokesman, Islam Alloush, told Reuters in an email.

Russia has been preparing for this impasse, however — and arguably helped to create it. In December, a Russian airstrike killed Zahran Alloush, leader of Jaysh al-Islam, in what experts say was part of a larger strategy employed by Russia and the regime to turn military victories into diplomatic leverage ahead of this week's negotiations.

"It's all part of the rules of engagement Russia wants to set up," Tony Badran, a Middle East expert and researcher at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, told Business Insider in December.

He continued

Russia hits Jaysh al-Islam, forcing the group to decide between removing itself from the political process altogether — at which point it will be labeled a terrorist group — or coming to the table, emasculated, to talk to Assad. All while Russia reserves the right to strike the group.

Russia has reserved this right because Washington waffled in negotiating a definitive list of terrorist groups in Syria — a contentious process that Kerry delayed in order to ensure, ironically, that talks were not derailed before they began.

"Russia wants to establish a precedent to kiss a nationwide ceasefire goodbye," Badran said last month. "So it is putting pressure on these rebel groups to get them to say, 'The hell with this — if I'm going to get killed anyway, I'm not going to do it while negotiating with Assad.'"

Significantly, opposition sources told the daily pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat that the US had made "a scary retreat" in its position that the rebels would be unable to accept — namely, that Assad could run for reelection and there would be no set timetable for his departure.

That stands in contrast to the White House's previous position that, while Assad does not have to go immediately, the timing of his departure should be addressed during negotiations

I keep commenting here that moves that the US makes and or does not make in the ME creates "perceptions" and "perceptions" have always driven the ME for the last 70 or so years......

Right now the "perception" is Obama and Kerry fully support Assad, Iran and Putin.....and in some aspects....I even agree with this "perception" based on the recent Kerry "missteps in KSA".

Can anyone at SWJ explain just how this Iranian "perception got started"...open for suggestions....maybe this is what Obama and Kerry mean by a successful Syrian strategy.....

Quds #Corps Religious Commissar #Ayatlolah Shirazi today: Obama accepts Iran's position: #Assad to lead #Syria to end of his term in 2022.

NOW here is where the failure of any US info war strategy using the social media kicks in...if there is not a single pushback by the US via social media, a public Obama/Kerry statement and or via MSM...then this Quds statement will "stick" in the minds of the Sunni's and Sunni Front States as being a super valid Iranian statement.

Appears Kerry "asking" Lavrov to stop the bombing was a waste of time....even though Russia signed onto the latest UNSC resolution that was passed for the Geneva talks.....what a waste that was it appears.

This is only about 5% of all the postings concerning Russian and Assad air strikes today as there have been some comments that the Russians are running sometimes 200 sorties per day...the list is even longer from yesterday.....

Notice the victims are mostly all civilians and includes a large number of women and children...but hey for Lavrov and Putin they are "terrorists" because they rebel against a genocidal dictator.

And yet Obama and Kerry say not a single word about it in public.....IMHO it appears they simply do not care what the image of the US is any longer in the ME as their creditability is just about zero with the Sunnis' and the Sunni Front States as no one takes them seriously any more due to their constant statements and course changes and yet no real action is ever taken.

SAA helicopters dropped almost 40 Barrel Bombs so far since morning on #Darayya
#Damascus #Syria JAN 28

#SAA helicopters dropping explosive cylinders over #Teir_Maela
#Homs #Syria JAN 28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3lE6Yxwkmg …

Children victims of #SAA bombardment using #Russia Cluster Bombs on #Douma
#Damascus cs #Syria JAN 28

SAA warplanes bombarding #alMarj area
E #Ghouta #Damascus cs #Syria JAN 28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsJJJCL6LXo …

2 #Russia warplanes flying over villages of #Latakia countryside
#Syria JAn 28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QX4_KXxI1Q …

GRAPHIC
What left of the children victims of #Russia airstrike on #alGhanto
#Homs #Syria JAN29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLFfXW2onUM …

Seconds after #Russia airstrikes on #Talbiseh
#Homs #Syria JAN 28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg1f7kb_3-M …

AND virtually no IS positions were even targeted and or hit today by Assad and Russian air strikes......

NOW after that surreal drone footage this is the utter reality of a deliberate Russian air strike on civilians which might require Kerry to do more than simply "ask".....and Kerry wonders why the HNC makes "pre conditions" that he himself via the UNSC has already agreed to BUT cannot fulfill......come on it is not rocket science...just humanity...

The footage is extremely #graphic as you might be able to imagine, before clicking on it ...GRAPHIC

News
10 civilians, mostly women and children, killed in Rus/Assad air strike on Al-Ghantu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj-Bo4yRIqk&feature=youtu.be&oref=https… …

Another day of merciless terror vs. the civilians population by two air forces over #Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVhQAd6xRkE …

RuAF drops parachute bomb on al-Bab. Crimes vs civis pass unnoticed cuz its ISIL held town.
https://youtu.be/MtApxFCyaEw

A core question that is sitting in the room and the WH needs to pay attention....at what point will the defenders of the Sunni global community ie KSA and Turkey feel that they have been humiliated enough by Putin in his killing of Sunni's that they become far more active in the actual defense of Sunni's in Syria....more of these videos and we are slowly getting to that point of no return OR they release the MANPADs and argue the need to defend defenseless civilians from Assad and Russian AFs.....we are almost at that point.

THEN they will tell Kerry you signed off on the UNSC resolution yet did nothing other than "ask nicely".....

Maybe this can help the Obama WH and Kerry fully understand the effects of Russian air strikes and just why the rebel HNC Geneva team demands they stop...this town had roughly 24K before the Russian groups attacked with Spetsnaz and Shia militia, Iraqi Shia militia, IRGC and Hezbollah....and over 800 Russian air strikes and that included carpet bombings with the Tu-122.

Worth watching over and over and over.........so the next time do not simply "ask".....

See #Syria's future through the eyes of a #Russian drone.
"Liberation" of #SheikhMaskin...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCScw4g52Y …
pic.twitter.com/yqXsrhrrui

And for the SWJ commenters who can now tell me with a straight face this grand Syrian strategy of the WH is working......it is an utter failure as simple as that.......

This video is a bitter commentary on the failure of the Obama ME foreign policy in general and specifically Syria....

Okay Obama WH while you were looking at Syria you forgot Ukraine....

Smells urgently like is War is close at hand....

Weather is clear and little snow and the Russian troops and mercenaries have moved virtually all of their troops and heavy weapons up close and personal right next to the front contact line in full violation of Minsk 2 YET Obama and Kerry have said nothing.

Russian elite 4th Guards Kantemir Tank and 2nd Guards Taman Motor Rifle Divisions are on full alert/combat readiness !!

An exercise or prelude to a February offensive against Ukraine? Russian 20th/1st Armies Western Military District are on full alert as well now.

*** Alarm raised: Russian 20th Combined Arms Army + 1st Tank Army tank units in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod regions

Moscow Laying Groundwork for Another Invasion of Georgia http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/01/moscow-laying-groundwork-f… …

Part of the Obama WH and his NSC problems are they simply do not know how to handle civil societies that stand up and demand the rule of law, good governance and transparency.....whether in Syria or in the Ukraine....

Reminder: Jan 2015, heroic Cyborgs sang Ukraine's national anthem before the final Donetsk Airport battle and death
https://youtu.be/yzkIALFKGQk

The airport combat lasted 242 days......longer than Stalingrad did....and the final battle was against a large contingent of Russian regular troops the GRU Spetsnaz...and massive artillery strikes and totally out numbered and the Minsk 2 agreement was fully in effect and did Russia honor that agreement no...they sent in Spetsnaz.....and any comments from the West particularly from Obama absolutely nothing.

BUT WAIT while the UAF was facing over 13.5K Russian troops and 500 tanks the Obama WH refused the UAF request for ATGMs that were urgently needed why...because they could have been used as an "offensive weapon"....now I know the WH has never fired a TOW ..it is bulky and heavy and far from an "offensive weapon". OR the myth "if we supply them then Russia will escalate"...well at the airport they escalated and the US had sent nothing.

Even after signing the Minsk 2 agreement Russia escalated the fighting over Debltseve again using regular Russian troops and yet the West also said nothing

Remember basically during that 242 days the West kept saying BUT we have a ceasefire in effect......and the Obama WH said nothing.

Notice the similarities to Syria??

Maybe when it comes to Syria Kerry should be replaced with the former Ambassador to Syria...at least he calls a spade a spade.......

QUOTE:

Robert Ford, a former ambassador to Syria, said the United States has relatively little leverage in the talks, in part because of the Obama administration's unwillingness to play a larger military role in Syria — even if that means just sending more support to moderate armed groups fighting Assad.

Assad, on the other hand, is playing such hardball that he won't even allow the United Nations to send in humanitarian aid to some areas, Ford said.

"The Americans have to realize they have a credibility problem," said Ford, now a senior fellow with the Middle East Institute. "Words don’t mean much. What are the Americans doing on the ground to help put pressure on both sides to help make concessions? That’s what matters. It is just hot air from Washington to talk about the need for a political deal without actions taken to make it happen."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-syria-opposition-leaders-21…

If the Obama grand Syrian strategy is working then why do we see articles like this suddenly appear before Geneva....??

First publicly stated proposal to cantonize Syria ie the Swiss model where ethnic/language and culture make the shifts......

Appears the ethnic cleansing that is ongoing in Syria is being recognized...interesting if the same concept is being proposed for Iraq and there the sectarian cleansing is well progressed and it is brutal on the part of the Shia militias toward just common Iraqi Sunni's.

http://www.the-american-interest.com...int-for-syria/

New Middle East?

A U.S. Blueprint for Syria
Henri J. Barkey

Quote:

Why does Russia always seem to be a step ahead of the U.S. in Syria? The answer is simple: Moscow knows exactly what it wants, and the U.S. doesn’t.

A friend who works in the Obama Administration recently lamented that the Russians are always a step ahead of us when it comes to Syria and the Middle East. If we are wondering why this is the case, the answer is simple: Moscow knows exactly what it wants in Syria and we do not. The time has come for the U.S. government, with selected allies, to publicly offer what it thinks a comprehensive solution to the Syrian crisis should look like. As suggested below, even if the proposition put forth here does not end up as the ultimate outcome, it is important for the U.S. government to assert a leadership role to start the process going.

The Russians, along with the Iranians, want Assad to remain in power. He offers Russia a strategic window with the base in Tartus and elsewhere. Syria’s mafia-like regime structure has deep links with its counterparts in Moscow whereby a small elite benefits economically. For the Russians, Syria is where they can make a stand against their dreaded nemesis: Western-inspired soft regime change.

By contrast, the U.S. position is all over the place. It first wanted Assad to leave and supported rebels, perhaps not enthusiastically. With the emergence of the Islamic State, it has shifted priorities to fight it.

Washington has been contemplating an arrangement with Moscow whereby Assad would remain in power for a “transitional” period so that everyone can focus on ISIS. Russia is unlikely to deliver in the long run. Its air force is helping Assad consolidate power along the heart of Syria, the Damascus-Aleppo axis. This will be completed when Aleppo is taken from the opposition. For the Russians and Assad, the rest of Syria does not really matter.

This could produce a stable equilibrium even if the opposition refuses to accept it and continues fighting. But this opposition, squeezed between regime and ISIS forces, is weaker and therefore incapable of changing the facts on the ground. All it can do is inflict casualties on the government side, but then this is does not appear to be much of a burden.

The U.S. government has no convincing alternative vocabulary to offer. The Sunni majority does not trust Washington, especially since the failure to live up to its chemical weapons ultimatum. By not employing force after a clear and justified reason for doing so, it has forfeited all credibility. In other ways, too, the Obama Administration has been more of a spectator than an activist. Regime supporters have little reason to look to the United States since Washington has ignored their concerns by focusing solely on Assad and conflating the regime with the bulk of beleaguered Alawi and Christian population. The Syrian Kurds are the only ones cooperating, but they too are cognizant of the unreliable U.S. policy record on the Kurds and are wary of Turkey’s natural influence on its long-standing American ally.

On the eve of a possible Syria meeting in Geneva, a forward-looking U.S. proposal could be as straightforward as the following: The U.S. government commits itself to the creation of a confederal democratic Syria that is divided along confessional and ethnic lines. In its most elementary form, the new Syria would be divided along three main areas, Alawi/Christian, Sunni, and Kurdish, with Damascus remaining as the capital although temporarily run by a UN administration. Each of these regions would send representatives to a governing council where they would exercise veto rights over certain types of legislation, such as defense, foreign policy, and natural resources, but certainly not on all. This would encourage cooperation across regions. Other, smaller groups such as the Druze and the Turkmen, provided their numbers add up, could get subsidiary regions.

The underlying principle behind this proposal is that after five years of war and its accompanying atrocities the lack of trust that permeates Syrian society will not abate anytime soon. Therefore, citizens will feel safer and more willing to reconstruct their societies if they are governed by their own kind.

Such an American announcement may elicit strong reactions from Turkey, which abhors the idea of any Kurdish autonomy and would rather see Sunni Arabs rule Syria, or from Russia and Iran who may rightly see that the areas that would be under the control of Alawis would be much less than what they now control. The main objection would be that this could be the beginning of the redrawing of boundaries in the region. Maybe so. But the people in the region should decide these boundaries, though not through war.

Whatever the merit of the idea, it will serve three purposes. First, it will consolidate American thinking along a concrete end-state and bring coherence to the policymaking enterprise. Second, and most importantly, it is a way to signal to Syrians everywhere that there is a definite plan out there to end the fighting. For the Sunnis, the knowledge that they will obtain the majority of Syria might also galvanize them ultimately to take on ISIS. Third, it has the added advantage of overturning the negotiating table where, to date, Washington has been discussing the issue almost entirely on the basis of Russian terms.

To be sure, trying to implement a confederal solution would be messy, and, as always, the devil is in the details. All actors would be tempted to game the proposal. Some population movements are likely to occur as a result, but it is better that this happen by design and not though ethnic cleansing, which is what is going on now in selected parts of the country.

Still, this is possibly the only constructive option out there: Not everyone will get what they want and drawing the lines separating communities will require tough give and take. But at least one can visualize an end to the fighting and, with the U.S. government taking the initiative, begin to think about how to organize the day after.

BUT this article is tempered by this.......one simple but highly important fact......

Read Syrian history in the 1925-40, Syrians will not accept such solutions

This is just a short example of what the Russians did after Kerry "asked to please stop bombing civilains"........

One of the heaviest loss days for civilians killed by Assad and Putin air strikes.
147 MARTYRS..
[29 Fighters, 11 women, 10 children]
52 DeirEzzor
43 Aleppo
8 Damascus
6 Homs
4 Hama
3 Daraa
2 Idlib
#Syria JAN 27

Russia is now back to bombing Syrian hospitals...this is a deliberate move by Russia...kill one doctor and 10K cannot be treated......

Dr. Abdul Rahman Obeid burned to death by #Russia TERRORIST airstrikes in #Anadan Hospital
#Aleppo cs #syria JAN 27

SCD @SyriaCivilDef extinguish fire aftermath #Russia airstrikes with Cluster Bombs on #Anadan Hospital #Syria JAN27

6wounded from #Anadan Hospital were transferred to 2nearby hospitals; #Al_Houda Hosp & #Bab_alHawa Hosp
#Syria JAN27

Destruction aftermath #Russia airstrikes targeting Syria Charity Hospital of #Anadan
#Aleppo cs #Syria JAN 27

Little boy was inside the #SyriaCharity Hospital of #Anadan wounded by previous #Russia airstrikes..
#Syria JAN27

Russian AF still bombing Syrian Sunni mosques.......

Destruction of Masjid Abu Bakr alSadiq aftermath #Russia bombardment in #AlBab city
#Aleppo cs #Syria JAN 27

Wow...Kerry even asked and the emphasis is on the word "asked" could he not find a tougher diplomatic word than "ask".......or was he just going through the motions....why not haul the entire charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity straight into a specific UNSC meeting focusing on Russian and Assad bombing actions...that might get the attention of Lavrov..but "to ask" never will.....

Kerry asked Lavrov to stop bombing civilians. Lavrov declined, according to Lavrov http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw… …

A CIA and or Obama move OR KSA pressure....actually confirmed by the unusual spike in TOW hits the last three days...TOWs gone wild in Syria should be the title of the battle videos coming out of Syria.....

Levantine Front now receiving TOWs. Program expands as Geneva approaches - reaction to RuAF/IRGC escalations? https://twitter.com/lummideast/status/692300875696594944 …

Just an update...the Syria Arab Army "SAA" has now been actively renamed and rebranded as the following;

'Soleimani's Afghan Army' as there are virtually no Syrians to be found in it just Shia.....

Question is did the new Obama Syrian strategy take that into their thinking....probably not.

Appears right now that the Obama WH can not respond to virtually anything Russia says and or does these days.......or maybe they simply do not care with the 13 months are just over the horizon......

Social media push back on a statement yesterday by the Russian FM that Russia did not violate the Budapest Memorandum……notice not a single comment by US MSM nore the DoS nor the WH…why is that?

As this is a blatant Russian disinformation attempt .

WHERE is the BIG US government agency that is to handle information warfare..nowhere to be seen nor heard……

Russian Embassy, UK ✔ @RussianEmbassy
Lavrov: Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only 1 obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes
pic.twitter.com/yR25Y6SaGP

Social media response.....

Hey @RussianEmbassy I followed the link on top of your screenshot and found all 6 obligations, care to explain?

SO if Russia lies about Budapest what will they lie about with Assad, Iran and Geneva....????

WHEN Brits start making comments about your FP then you are in serious trouble.....

Tough words frm UK #Syria Envoy @garethbayley pre-#Geneva.
Accuses #Russia of “hypocrisy” & "massive destruction"

BUT WAIT is not Kerry attempting to force the anti Assad forces and the Sunni Front States to accept the Putin Geneva demands......??

So is in fact the Kerry/Obama FP "hypocrisy" as well....??

Was the Iran Deal really worth the destruction of any kind of US FP in the ME..or for that matter in Europe as well??

Notice the highly touted Obama Syrian strategy appears to have forgotten the Iraqi Shia militias, IRGC troops, Hezbollah (Lebanon and Iraq), and Shia mercenaries from over 12 countries....wonder why that is as the Syrian Arab Army is neither Syrian NOR Arab.

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/iran-wont-surrender-militias-…
Taken from 27 Jan 2016 first published 10 Jan 2016

Iran won’t surrender militias that conduct Assad’s war

Hassan Hassan

January 10, 2016

[QUOTE]
Not long before the Riyadh-Tehran diplomatic row that followed the execution of Saudi Shia cleric Nimr Al Nimr, a showdown between the two countries unfolded in New York. While it is difficult to draw a direct correlation between the two events, the incident can help us understand the depth of the continuing crisis.

On December 18, heated debate ensued between representatives of the two countries at a meeting in New York over the listing of armed groups operating in Syria for possible determination as terrorist organisations. The list, which Jordan was asked to develop, would name extremist groups that must be defeated as part of the UN-sponsored political process for Syria.

A month earlier in Vienna, Saudi Arabia had insisted on including in the list foreign Shia militias fighting on the side of president Bashar Al Assad. Riyadh argued that all foreign fighters must leave Syria, regardless of which side they supported. In New York, Iran, joined by Russia, strongly objected to the demand and the standoff caused a deeper rift between the two countries.

For now, the designation of terror groups in Syria has been referred to a committee comprising several European and regional countries. They first determined indicators and criteria of what constitutes a terrorist organisation, then named armed groups currently fighting in Syria. There is a preliminary list of more than 160 Sunni and Shia organisations.

Iran categorically rejects including any Shia groups in the list. For Tehran, the fate of the Assad regime it supports is critically tied to the presence of those Shia militias. It is a fact that adds to the many issues that compound the conflict in Syria – issues that the international community would seemingly rather sweep under the carpet instead of deal with head on.

The Syrian regime controls about 30 per cent of the country, though it probably controls over 50 per cent of the population. According to the defence think tank IHS Jane’s, the regime lost 16 per cent of its territory over the past year. These figures are particularly damning if one considers that foreign Shia militias were on the front line of key battles against the rebels – in the Qalamoun region, Aleppo and central and western Syria – over this period.

The growing role of these militias last year came as the Syrian army showed signs of internal weakening, something that Mr Al Assad has admitted. During his most recent speech, almost exactly a month before the Russian intervention in September, the president said that the army lacked “manpower”. Also last year, paramilitary fighters with the National Defence Forces (NDF) began to focus on their local areas rather than deploy in the front lines elsewhere – a task that foreign fighters took on.

Youssef Sadaki, a Syrian researcher who closely focuses on Shia militias, says those foreign fighters acted as the main strikers in battles outside the regime’s heartlands, while the NDF fighters defended their areas or secured and held newly-captured areas.

According to Mr Sadaki, foreign militias lead the regime’s battles in southern Aleppo, and the front lines between Idlib, Aleppo, Latakia, Homs and Hama. Hizbollah has spearheaded key battles in southern Syria near the Lebanese borders, while other militias guard the front lines in Damascus and fought in Deraa.

Phillip Smyth, a close observer of Shia militancy, says that most of the regime’s offensives over the past two years were led by foreign forces, including in areas where the regime’s elite units operate, such as in Damascus.

“When we look at Aleppo, the entire offensive there was spearheaded and planned by the Iranians, it was their Shia militia proxy forces which showcased the entire campaign,” said Mr Smyth, from the University of Maryland. “It’s quite clear that they are a – if not the main – fighting force in many areas.”

Continued……..
[/QUOTE]

Really worth to read the entire article.......as it reflects on the fact that in the recent fighting in Sheikh Miskin 2/3rds of the fighters were Shia mercenaries, Iraqi Shia militias and Hezbollah WHICH are definitely not Syrian the last time I checked WITH BIG help from over 800 RuAF air strikes and GRU Spetsnaz.

BUT not a single comment out of the WH, Kerry or the NSC on this Shia aspect of the Syrian fighting as they are only interested it seems in IS and JaN....shortsighted if one asks me......maybe rocking the Iranian boat is now virtually impossible under the new Obama Iranian FP.

Matter of fact they are not mentioned anywhere in the Kerry/Putin Geneva concept .....so are they to remain inside Syria after a settlement is reached....actually think that is both the Putin and Obama intentions especially in light of the unrestricted SOFA Putin has for Syria.

Think about it....Iran controls now four Arab capitals....in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.......interesting is it not?

From two days ago...an interesting short article that reflects something Obama and Kerry are not getting with their shift in getting closer to Iran and Russia.....

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/only-the-gulf-countries-can-d…

Only the Gulf countries can deliver a stable region

Hassan Hassan

January 24, 2016 Updated: January 24, 2016 03:53 PM

QUOTE:

Saudi foreign policy, as an Emirati friend once told me, is like a diesel car. It might be slower to take off than petrol cars, but its torque makes it more powerful and effective for heavy-lifting. This analogy might be fitting to describe a drive for change in the kingdom’s foreign policy as a response to recent developments.

There is recognition, not only inside Saudi Arabia but also in the countries surrounding it, that while the Gulf states’ responses to recent geopolitical events have been slow, change in how these countries conduct their foreign policy is under way.

This change towards a more active foreign policy, primarily by Saudi Arabia, will have marked consequences in a neighbourhood already unrecognisable five years after uprisings swept the Middle East and North Africa.

This change is also not driven by domestic insecurities as some analysts have suggested. More often than not, it echoes domestic demand for more effective countering of Iran’s increased activities and to show leadership and independence, rather than revolve in the US strategic orbit.

These attitudes were reflected in the wide support for military intervention against ISIL in Syria in the summer of 2014, and in Yemen in March.

As one Gulf official told me, the environment in the region favours the Gulf states despite Iran reaching a nuclear deal with the international community and the subsequent lifting of economic sanctions.

In addition to popular support for a more assertive engagement in regional affairs, the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran over the past decade undercut economic interdependence between countries on the two sides of the Gulf.

Before the sanctions were imposed on Iran, and even during the initial years of hesitant implementation by some Gulf countries, Tehran attempted to weaken the Gulf’s ability to have a unified economic front against it by diversifying its trade and economic policy towards each member. Much has changed since then and Iranian economic activities in the Gulf have been substantially reduced.

Regardless of how the current crisis with Iran and the relationship with the US will be managed, the Gulf states’ foreign policies are well poised to become more activist, collaborative and assertive, a shift that will undoubtedly shape the region.

In this context, a question must be asked about what happens if this scenario plays out.

For many years, Iran’s activities in the neighbourhood undermined western policies and pushed some to consider alliance with Iran in the hope that it would put out some of the fire it had started in countries such as Iraq and beyond. These calls sometimes went further, suggesting that the US should consider an alliance with Iran at the expense of its traditional Arab allies.

But these voices overstate Iran’s ability to influence events and at the same time underestimate the Gulf’s capacity to inflict greater damage if they follow similar tactics.

If Iran has the power to destabilise the region, only the Gulf states have the power to stabilise it. The concern should remain about what to do about Iran to prevent it from playing an arsonist’s role in surrounding countries.

The last thing the Middle East needs is the disruption of the current order in favour of testing out new alliances and turning friendly allies into disruptive forces.

The US must build bridges without losing sight of the achievements that have taken place over the years and the risks of seeking out fundamental changes often based on wishful thinking and naive understanding of reality.

On the Arab side of the Gulf, such insinuations, even if they are necessarily followed by action, are viewed as a betrayal of constructive efforts they have exerted over the years.

These efforts include the imposition of the very sanctions that led to the nuclear deal with the international community, sanctions that were once resisted by some Gulf countries for their impact on trade with their neighbour.

For now, many in the Gulf states still believe that a fundamental political shift on the part of the US is not feasible. Rather than trepidation and panic, officials in the Gulf express confidence about how dynamics play out in the vicinity.

Change in the way they conduct their foreign policy is nonetheless necessary, not least because of Washington’s diminished regional commitment and in some cases, convergence of interests with Tehran, such as in Iraq and more recently in Syria. They simply cannot count on the US in some places, as many Gulf insiders agree, and they are ready to raise the stakes.

Foreign policy change in the major powers in the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, seems under way and probably unstoppable.

This prospective shift comes as the Gulf states become the centre of gravity for much of the politics in the Middle East and North Africa as countries such as Egypt, Syria and Libya look internally.

Contrary to what outsiders say, this change brings with it immense clout for the Gulf states that will render them more entrenched in the region than ever before.

This newfound influence can be an opportunity or a liability for the international community, depending on how it is utilised.

Hassan Hassan is a resident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, a think tank in Washington, DC, and co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror

An interesting series of comments between someone inside Aleppo and someone outside Syria.....

Kerry and Obama are chasing a peace deal that will never work. Do you even know what this deal is?

They somehow think a "Unity government" can formed between Assad and rebel leaders. How will that ever work?

Russia allowed in to support Assad. West is trying to force peace by giving the FSA no other option.

The answer is not to kill off those who are fighting for their rights independence & force them to surrender

Obama stops weapons flow to FSA WHO stops Russian weapons and bombs?

NO difference between Obama and Putin for Syrians getting killed daily

Unlike other people, the west sticks their nose in everyone's business and tells us how to live then the west complains about Islam, Arab backwardness, their games are the cause.

I agree... After generations under Dictatorships we finally stood up, took responsibility

100% agree. When Arab Spring started west kept attacking it & calling it a failure. No one gave the young ppl credit

Wow...that was quick...thought Obama told the US public and Congress that the Iranians with the Iran Deal would become "moderates"......OR at least more moderate.....

BUT WAIT......

#Breaking Iran stages large naval drill near #StraitofHormuz, orders foreign forces to leave
http://toi.sr/1PAmE8k
pic.twitter.com/BipIsFiNjf

Iran reportedly warned a US warship to leave the area of an Iranian naval drill
http://read.bi/1NA427i
pic.twitter.com/MlK7hqFCox

Minor declaration of war by the IRGC is it.....? NO in fact they are exercising their newly recovered and thanks to Obama 100B USD....by holding a "naval party" just to celebrate it's return......it is just we the US Navy with full transit rights as are the other naval forces there WERE not invited to the party.

Wonder what Obama will and or will not do since it appears he is now fully engaged in what is clearly a two front non linear war......??

We have long ago left the "Grey Zone"......this is in your face and up front and personal now....

This is just one example of the Obama Kerry Syrian unilateral appeasement policy towards Putin that many in the US simply do not to truly address....

News
A #Russian jet attacked a fruit market in #Arihah today, slaughtering 9 civilians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHy-si6xDx8 …

I have raised a serious and provocative question here in SWJ a number of times with some urgency.....if the leader of a western nation state who claims is the cradle of democracy, the rule of law and good governance knowingly and willfully allows genocide to continue when evidence of that genocide is on the net hourly is this actually then being "complicit" in "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity".

OR better yet WHEN does the US FP kick in when there is blatant indiscriminate and deliberate air strikes against civilians that is resulting in hundreds being killed including a large number of children, when air strikes are contributing to an ever increasing number of refugees and WHEN starvation is being used as a weapon against a civil society.

When does the extensive use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons against civilian targets RATE a FP response.

Is it not ludicrous that a country ie the US claims the a civil society should strive for the rule of law, good governance and transparency WHEN THEN that same US ignores war crimes and crimes against humanity when that civil society strives for exactly those three same goals that Obama just keeps talking about??

Does the Obama FP make sense to anyone outside of DC??? It sure does not when one is sitting in Europe or the ME.

Appears than even Obama and Kerry do not read their own propaganda they publish...........why the term "propaganda for internal consumption"...it has to be when there is nothing behind the words and there is nothing behind these words.

The National Security Strategy accurately outlines the responsibility and interest of the United States to respond to and prevent atrocities.

The mass killing of civilians is an affront to our common humanity and a threat to our common security. It destabilizes countries and regions … [and] creates grievances that extremists exploit. We have a strong interest in leading an international response to genocide and mass atrocities when they arise. … [It is] less costly when we act preventively before situations reach crisis proportions.

"mass killing of civilians is an affront to our common humanity and a threat to our common security" or better yet....."creates grievances extremists exploit".......

For Obama and Kerry...evidently not. Why is that my assumption...right now the US/Russia is on official record for stopping the bombing of civilains and to provide humanitarian aid into Syria with no controls....three separate UNSC resolutions and YET Obama and Kerry refuses to call a spade a spade in the UNSC as it would rock Iran and Putin....just how bad has FP under this President gotten....valid question.

Concerning the attempt by Kerry to get Geneva talks going even to the point of the use of threats......NOTICE the very last sentence...sums up the so called highly successful Obama Syrian strategy it seems....

QUOTE:

The Saudi-backed HNC has so far refused to expand its delegation, insisting that it represents all legitimate opposition players. In response, Bloomberg reported, the US and Russia are considering inviting a separate opposition delegation to the talks made up of rebel leaders Moscow has proposed and endorsed.

Middle East analyst Kyle Orton, an associate fellow at UK-based think tank The Henry Jackson Society, tweeted a grim analysis: "With the way things have stacked up, it's hard not to see it as Obama and Kerry consciously working for the defeat of Syria's opposition."

Hassan Hassan put it bluntly: "US officials are telling Syrians what extremists have been telling them for years — the US isn't your friend.

UNQUOTE:

I have a very provocative question...does Obama and Kerry really want the entire Sunni civil society in Syria to drift into the arms of IS...they are making a serious effort to to do just that.....

Second provocative question as we have seen the Kerry do the same exact moves in Ukraine.....is in fact the current US FP being pushed by Obama and Kerry one of unilateral appeasement at all costs and no demands whatsoever for Russia to reciprocate at all on.

Appears so...IS there some serious worries in DC that in fact Russia stands in front of a total implosion economically and politically thus the fear that the West cannot rock the Putin boat.....out of then being accused of "forcing regime change".??

WHY not allow Russia to collapse again as it did in 1998....one of the major problems with Russia is it's own refusal to clearly, concisely and accurately address their own failures and those failures of Communism, the creation of the oligarch/criminal/State Security classes. Until that happens the ability to blame others is a given....thus they will never address their own problems.

We saw this week just how Putin is now virtually accusing Lenin for the Crimea eastern Ukraine problems..not a single word wasted on his own role.

Who said the life of a social media blogger who takes on the Russian info war machine is easy these days.......

Sorry for offline the past days & weeks - some semi profs hacked my hw & mobilies of my family
-greets 2 russian IPs-

This is probably the major mistake Obama and Kerry are making when dealing with both Putin and his FM Lavrov.

Major decision makers become seriously dangerous when they have drunk their own koolaid meaning that their own generated propaganda has even convinced them that what they are doing is correct even though the propaganda is truly false and has been proven false. This is called "an altered state of reality" which I have pointed out repeatedly on the Ukrainian thread. We could go further and state that it is a cognitive dissonance event.

Example.....
Rus Security Council Secretary Patrushev: US intends to achieve disintegration of Russia for accessing to resources https://twitter.com/FastSlon/status/691955507003793409 …

Narratives are easy to create but extremely hard to forget especially if you are the creator of the narrative.

That is serious especially when the nuclear trigger sits loose and easy with Putin....remember Putin truly and seriously believes NATO led by the US is out to destroy Russia and is into the regime change of Russia meaning eliminate him and his estimated wealth of over 50B USDs.....this has been a major Russian info warfare narrative since 2008 and Putin seriously believes it..there is a certain fear in this as his wealth is tied directly to him remaining in power.

This statement today by Lavrov seriously questions his own mindset as the German media has called this story a blatant falsification and an outright lie and the German legal system is pressing potential charges against RT for inciting hatred a major violation of German law...

NOTICE not a single word about this was mentioned by Lavrov.....

#Lavrov accuses Germany of cover up rape and false imprisonment of a Russian girl by migrants. Story´s a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvJMYYDlGL8 …

Social media even identified the actors Russia had recruited for the video, and had found out the girl never existed nor was even by that name in Germany AND RT even went further to offer a free trip to Moscow for any other Russians experiencing the same thing to be interviewed...not a single taker from the Russian community in Berlin took up the RT offer...they knew better.

Now we all can fully understand what Russia means by "non linear warfare"???

Lavrov warns of a "world of anarchy and chaos", calls on countries to follow "common rules of the game"

"Non linear warfare" equals "common rules of the game".....naturally as defined by Russia.......