Obama’s Fatal Fatalism in the Middle East

Russia/Putin are lying again......

Syria No #Russia'n human corridor in #Aleppo's Bustan al-Qaser district
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF0Cxvc13fM …
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=36.194988&lon=37.146428&z=16&m=b …
#Putin propaganda

The Obama admin leaned on Russia to save its bacon in Syria repeatedly and was burned every time. No lessons learned https://www.commentarymagazine.com/f...russian-hands/ …

American Power in Russian Hands

Noah Rothman / July 14, 2016

You would think that Barack Obama would have learned his lesson by now. You would be wrong.

Quote:

According to reporting by the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin, the United States has proposed to cooperate with Russia in the skies over Syria. The proposed plan would create a new joint military command-and-control office where both nations’ militaries could coordinate their strikes on terrorist targets. What’s troubling in this proposal, however, is it would appear to prioritize Russian targets and, thus, Russian interests.

“Overall, the proposal would dramatically shift the United States’ Syria policy by directing more American military power against Jabhat al-Nusra, which unlike the Islamic State is focused on fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” read Rogin’s dispatch. The proposal would ostensibly allow the United States to draw Russia into making more strikes on ISIS targets, which it has been previously reluctant to do, jointly with American forces. In the event, however, that there was a substantial threat to its Assad regime allies from Nusra or the terror group advanced beyond unspecified “designated areas,” the Russian air force could act unilaterally.

How this proposal advances American interests in the region is subject to interpretation. The risks, meanwhile, are clear, present, and simply cataloged:

Kerry sees the proposal as a way to reduce the violence in Syria and ground the regime’s air force. The risk is that attacking Jabhat al-Nusra in conjunction with the Russians will spur terrorist recruiting, increase civilian casualties and put the United States firmly on the wrong side of the revolution in the eyes of the Syrian people. Also, there’s no enforcement mechanism if the Putin or Assad regimes violate their commitments — as they have consistently done until now.

Secondly, this pact would ratify what Russia partially achieved with its “de-confliction” agreement with the United States: the legitimization of its military intervention in Syria. And if Russia’s intervention in Syria is legitimate, then so are the interests it is defending: namely, the preservation of the genocidal Bashar al-Assad regime.

In the absence of a multinational coalition, Barack Obama has never been comfortable with anything more than pinprick precision displays of kinetic American military power. In Syria, the president has been losing members of that anti-ISIS coalition for some time, and Russia’s addition might suffice to mollify some of their concerns about the appearance of unilateralism. The president has, however, been relying on Russia to effectively manage American interests in the Middle East for years and has repeatedly been burned in the process.

In his desperation to avoid following through with his “red line” for action in Syria in the autumn of 2013, after a series of mass casualty chemical weapons attacks on civilian populations by Assad forces, the president leaned on Russia. In a prime-time address to the nation, Obama announced that Moscow had agreed to broker a third way in which they would oversee the removal of chemical weapons from Syria so that American airstrikes can be avoided. Today, chemical weapons stockpiles are still in Assad regime hands, as well as in the possession of terror groups like ISIS, and American airstrikes were not averted.

Russian support for Assad, welcomed by an American administration that continued to issue contradictory calls for the Syrian dictator’s abdication, was a great success. Russia bought time for his forces, which were beleaguered and collapsing by October of 2013, and they secured their last post-Soviet port on the Mediterranean at Tartus. But those gains could not be sustained forever without direct intervention. After weeks of importing support personnel and equipment, a Russian three-star general marched into the American embassy in Baghdad with a simple message. Federation air strikes on “terrorist” targets in Syria would begin momentarily. “If you have forces in the area we request they leave,” he reportedly said. Russian forces immediately began harassing American drones, shadowing Turkish fighter planes, and seeking to push the West out of theater by force.

Even after all this, the Obama administration continued to hope that Russia could somehow extricate itself from the Syrian nightmare it allowed to metastasize through inaction. Even as Russian forces reportedly deployed cluster munitions on civilian targets and targeted brick-and-mortar hospitals with airstrikes, the White House still begged the Kremlin to impose a ceasefire on the belligerents in Syria. Time and again, the administration has been disappointed by their Russian counterparts, but that disappointment never seems to dissuade them from taking another kick at the football.

It should be abundantly clear by now that this administration will never be comfortable with America’s prohibitive military power. They would prefer to be used and embarrassed by their erstwhile partners in the Russian government than to unapologetically pursue American interests and grand strategy. In Syria, in particular, the Obama administration’s reputation has been severely damaged. If only the White House could see it.

Congress to legally force Obama Admin to reveal hidden details of $1.7BIL 'ransom payment' to Iran http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-force-obama-admin-disc… …

Footage of the Russian-hit WasteTruck in Aleppo city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZeEXzgFRUs …

Cut diesel & fuel (->water supply), prevent food from getting in, cause death & injuries by bombings, hit the waste disposal system.

What Putin does in Aleppo now is called Biological Warfare, according to the Oxford Journal.

This is to speed up the spread of epidemics in the besieged areas ... Simply unbelievable ...

Unthinkable
After cutting fresh water supplies, #Russia dropped precision bombs on Turkish-delivered garbage trucks.

Air strikes on Aleppo have been non stop today this is the heaviest Russian attacks since their intervention, their priority is obviously not ISIS

REMEMBER..but maybe the Obama/Rhodes WH did not get the message...WHEN the Syrian Russian Ambassador recently stated Aleppo was not going to be attacked by Assad....?????

REMEMBER when Assad gave an interview where he stated he was going to recapture all of Syrian including Aleppo and the Russian UN Ambassador waved the comment off??????

NOW convince me that the "do nothing stupid" members of the Obama/Rhodes/Kerry/Russian WH do not have the same exact information...difference is they choose not to act on it.......

Syria is a catastrophe and on the verge of genocide — by @JulianRoepcke @BjoernStritzel
http://read.bi/29DCBU0

Julian Röpcke ‏@JulianRoepcke
Thank you so much @HadiAlabdallah, @JeffWhite25, @M_Alneser, @michaelh992 & many others in & outside Syria for making this article possible!

While the Obama/Rhodes/Kerry/Russian WH continues to "do nothing stupid"
...Rome is literally burning to the ground....around those "that do nothing stupid"....

Remember the "intl. community" demanding humanitarian access to #Daraya in February?!

It's half its size now due to the regime offensive.

Ariha, #Rastan, #Daraya, #Douma, #Aleppo etc.
#Assad and #Putin caused multiple massacres across #Syria today.

DAY4 of the total #Aleppo siege.
#FOOD markets stay closed.
#FAMILIES use their stocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZokCCpB4OlM …

Most #food shops remain closed in #Aleppo today.
Kilo price for eggplant and tomatoes went up to 2 €.
That's what ppl. earn per day.

Big event for #Assad/#Putin/#YPG-displaced children in #FreeSyria's #Azaz city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoXziC36hM …

Also in totally besieged #EastGhouta, ppl try to flee #Assad where there is nowhere to go...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThY8vt1vO0 …

Michael Weiss ‏@michaeldweiss

Bizarre to see Obama admin deny Iran-AQ connection.
http://tws.io/2a7SC02

They sanctioned this guy in 2011:

Somehow the Obama/Rhodes/Kerry WH seem to always forget the other players of the ME that are just as involved as are the Russians....notice they do not approach them ........

"Reconciliation with Assad"...
As I said before: Turkey learned from its past mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_K-7vYHx8A …

Kerry seems to forget that any US participation with Russia will signal to those players that they can now make their own moves in a much more open way and I do not think Kerry and Obama will like those moves...nor will Putin and Assad......

The Obama/Rhodes/Kerry Russian WH has no earthly idea of what they are exactly doing...and again this is their famous mantra of.... "not doing something stupid"....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-in-syria.html

07.13.16 7:00 AM ET

Pentagon Resists Obama’s New Plan to Work With the Russians in Syria

The White House is pushing to cooperate with Putin’s forces in the fight against ISIS. But many in the U.S. military are saying: No way.

Quote:

The Obama administration has increasingly warmed to a Russian proposal that allows U.S. forces to coordinate with the Kremlin in the ongoing war against ISIS in Syria. But the White House is facing major resistance to the idea from the U.S. military and those in the intelligence community who are working with local Syrian opposition forces—the very government officials who would carry out such a plan.

The pushback comes as the U.S. has reportedly sent a proposal to Russia to share information about specific targets to strike in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday in part to discuss the plan.

Some Pentagon officials already are saying it won’t work. They have suggested that should the U.S. and Russia agree to increased coordination, they will lobby to share as little with the Russians as possible.

There are discussions in the Pentagon about narrowing the extent of the coordination and the amount of intelligence shared, a U.S. defense official explained to The Daily Beast.

The Russians, two defense officials said, could not be trusted to honor any agreement, saying they believe Moscow would eventually exploit any agreement to bolster the regime—and weaken Syria’s beleaguered rebel fighters. As one U.S.official asked: “What do we gain?”

The internal debate about how much to expand U.S. coordination with the Russians has exposed perhaps the greatest schism within the administration this year over the way ahead in Syria.

Will it help end the war—and if so—for which side? Will it lead to a weaker ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria or an emboldened Russia and Syrian President Bashar al Assad?

The U.S. officials supporting increased coordination believe that ultimately Russia wants a political solution—an agreement between Assad and the rebels. Increased coordination could induce Russia to broker such a deal. On the ground, increased coordination could reduce civilian casualties and weaken terror groups like Jabhat al Nusra, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, one administration official explained to The Daily Beast.

“The regime needs to... end the indiscriminate use of weapons, including the targeting of civilians and civilian authorities, and including medical ones. And we look to the Russians to make a greater use of the influence that we know that they have to make that happen,” State Department spokesman John Kirby explained to reporters last week.

But for others in the U.S. government, there are concrete reasons, presented in just the last few weeks, not to trust the Kremlin. Russia is believed to have attacked Pentagon-backed and trained forces in southern Syria last month, even after the U.S. reached out to the Russians to alert them about who they were striking. Russia denied striking the rebels, stationed near the Jordan border.

For others at the State Department, Russia is not a partner in Syria but the country whose police forces attacked a U.S. diplomat entering the embassy in Moscow over the weekend, leading to an expulsion and counter expulsion of diplomats.

The State Department said Russian police “attacked” the diplomats. Last month, Kerry raised the issue of how diplomats are being treated with the very Russian officials he is now discussing a military coordination plan with.

And in the nine months since Russia began its strike campaign on behalf of Assad, there have been a series of broken agreements.

In May, for example, there was an agreed ceasefire between Russia and the United States in the Syrian city of Aleppo. And yet, despite those calls to stop fighting, just over the weekend, with the help of Russian air strikes, the Syrian army claimed control of Castello Road, a key rebel route out of Aleppo.

The U.S. has been trying to get its Syrian rebel allies to separate themselves from Nusra, so far without success, because the Islamist group is among the most effective anti-Assad forces. The Russians have said that with the moderate rebels interspersed with Nusra, it’s hard to bomb al Qaeda without also bombing the moderate rebels. Moscow says it needs to know where the American-backed rebels are so its forces don’t hit them by accident.

Opponents to such coordination sense a Russian trap. Two U.S. defense officials explained to The Daily Beast that they believe the Russians will use such coordination to shift the discussion about Syria away from Assad’s removal and toward weakening his opponents, like Jabhat al Nusra. Moreover, they fear that once Russia, with U.S. help, pushes back the al Qaeda affiliate, they will renege on promises to spare the U.S.-backed moderate Syrian opposition, thereby “eliminating the two greatest threats to the Assad regime,” the U.S. official explained.

“Russia is framing this offer in terms of counterterrorism and is proposing joint operations against both Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS, but of course Russia’s current campaign does not actually make such distinctions. The issue on the table, therefore, is whether it’s possible for the U.S. to redirect Russia into an actual counterterrorism alliance in which Russia halts targeting of acceptable opposition groups,” Jennifer Cafarella, a Syria analyst at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, explained to The Daily Beast.

U.S. defense officials said that working with Moscow would give credibly to a far less precise Russian military air campaign, one that has, by everyone’s measure, killed far more civilians in Syria than the U.S.-backed coalition.

“Why give [the Russians] legitimacy?” one defense official asked.

And perhaps most importantly to those working with local forces, they fear that any agreement could cost the U.S. credibility with local forces who are working with them.

The U.S. and Russia already communicate to ensure there are no accidents in the air over Syria and that U.S.-backed opposition forces are not struck. There is no coordination of attacks, but rather an exchange of limited information to prevent unintended strikes.

The pressure on the Pentagon to embrace increased Russian coordination has begun to creep into the public discourse. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who once flatly closed the door to increased Russian coordination, opened that door ever so slightly late last month.

“If the Russians would do the right thing in Syria, and that’s an important condition, as in all cases with Russia, we’re willing to work with them,” Carter told reporters at a June 30 briefing.

The U.S. has been divided for years about how to deal with Nusra, which the U.S. declared al Qaeda in December 2012. The U.S. now sees the ongoing expansion al Qaeda affiliate as dangerous.

“In Syria, as [ISIS] is losing territory in the east, its terrorist rival—Jabhat al-Nusra—is gaining ground in the west,” Brett McGurk, the U.S. special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter IS, said June 28 in written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry arrives in Moscow Thursday, in part, “to test how serious the Russians are about using their influence in a constructive way in Syria,” a second U.S. official explained.
Remember this is the same exact Obama/Rhodes/Kerry WH that stated in 2014...."we will judge the Russians on their actions not their words"....AND YET Kerry states again..."we will see if they are serious"...the same exact words he used to entice the anti Assad opposition to Geneva....

The Russians have held to not a single thing they have stated they would do in eastern Ukraine and in Syria so why is Kerry even trying?????

AND it just keeps getting worse ...on what is coming out of the so called Obama/Rhodes/Kerry Russian WH for US FP......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...517_story.html

As Kerry pushes for coordination with Russia in Syria, others in administration cry foul

By Karen DeYoung July 12 at 7:32 PM 

Quote:

The Obama administration’s offer to coordinate air attacks in Syria with Russia has opened a deepening rift between senior national security officials who insist it could quiet Syria’s civil carnage and further larger counterterrorism goals, and those who consider it a counterproductive sellout to the Kremlin.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who said last month that reaching an “understanding” with Russia was “the most important thing” in moving Syria forward, plans to push the deal when he meets Thursday in Moscow with President Vladi#mir Putin.

The U.S. proposal, which has not been made public, calls for the establishment of a “Joint Implementation Group” with Russia, through which the two countries would initially exchange intelligence and operational information on the locations of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, and “synchronize” their independent operations against the Islamic State. Once al-Nusra targets have been agreed, they would determine what action to take and “deconflict” their air operations.

In exchange, Moscow would use its leverage to effectively ground Syria’s air force, limiting its operations to non-combat humanitarian and medical-evacuation missions. Both the United States and Russia would recommit themselves to pushing for a political settlement to Syria’s civil war.

Kerry is “extremely frustrated,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “And that’s one of the reasons why we’re going to Moscow, to see if that change is actually going to be possible — if the Russians are going to do what they’ve said they were going to do.” Administration officials have declined to discuss details of the proposal.

Despite a cease-fire ostensibly in effect since February, Syrian planes have kept up a steady bombardment of both civilian and opposition sites — where they have argued that al-Nusra forces, exempt from the truce, are mixed with rebel groups covered by the accord. After observing the early weeks of the cease-fire, Russian planes joined the Syrian forces, including in an offensive last weekend that took over the only remaining supply route for both rebels and civilians hunkered down in the northern city of Aleppo.

After days of air bombardment riddled an area only a few miles wide, Syrian forces and allied militiamen from Iraq, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group took up positions above what is known as the Castello Road leading to Turkey. Artillery, rockets and surface-to-surface missiles have struck dozens of passenger cars and minibuses that attempted to drive the route, rebel spokesmen said. The area is so dangerous, they said, they have been unable to retrieve scores of bodies still trapped in the destroyed vehicles.

On Monday, rebel forces shelled government-held areas of the city, killing scores of residents, according to Syrian state media.

With government forces now virtually surrounding the city, the United Nations on Tuesday expressed concern about a prolonged siege. U.N. officials estimated that 300,000 civilians stuck inside the area would be cut off from dwindling supplies of food and medical care, as well as from their only escape route.

A new coordination agreement with Moscow, supporters within the administration argue, would save lives by stopping air attacks on civilians and opposition fighters, while simultaneously increasing the focus on al-Nusra, a shared U.S.-Russian enemy. Al-Nusra forces are amassed south of Aleppo, but their scattered presence among rebel fighters to the north has been used as an excuse for both Syrian government and Russian attacks.

But as Kerry and Robert Malley, the chief White House point man on Syria, negotiate with the Kremlin, a growing chorus of defense, diplomatic and intelligence officials have voiced objections.

“We do this, and then what?” said a U.S. official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue and feared identification as internal critics.

“You need to solve the Assad problem, because as long as Assad is in power, Syria is a failed state. And as long as it’s a failed state, it will be a breeding ground for extremists,” including the Islamic State and al-Nusra, the official said.

This official and others, in comments that were echoed across a wide range of outside Syria experts, said that the proposed deal does not appear to affect Syrian or Russian ground operations — including extensive Russian artillery being used in the Aleppo offensive — and does nothing to force Assad to negotiate a political end to the war, something both he and Russia agreed to as part of the original cease-fire arrangement.

“I don’t understand how Kerry walks away from this saying he got something,” said Andrew J. Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s all in the name of saying . . . that they’re saving lives and targeting terrorists. But what it will do strategically will mean the regime will simply stand by while we hit the terrorists, and the regime will benefit from that.”

“This is defeat,” Tabler said. “I think everybody is beside themselves because this is all being done in the name of a cease-fire . . . the best thing we can do to reduce the violence. But in effect, it’s crafted in such a way that it strengthens the regime, the opposite of what we say we want.”

Frederic C. Hof of the Atlantic Council, who served as the administration’s special adviser for Syria until resigning in late 2012, advised the administration to “take a deep breath and think things through very carefully.”

“As desirable as it is to damage a loathsome al-Qaeda entity, military collaboration with Russia could also exact long-term costs to America’s reputation and the broader fight against extremism, costs potentially far exceeding the benefits of a here-and-now body count,” Hof wrote in the Huffington Post on Tuesday.

Internal disagreement over Syria policy has plagued the administration for years. In 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued for the use of military force against Assad and for the establishment of opposition safe zones. In addition, then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus recommended arming and training anti-Assad opposition forces.

President Obama rejected both proposals and, to the consternation of most of his national security cabinet, pulled back in 2013 from an agreed plan to bomb Syrian military targets to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons.

Among the many arguments against the currently proposed deal with Russia, the Pentagon has insisted that Moscow has demonstrated — in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere — that it simply cannot be trusted.

The stated purpose of airstrikes that Russia began last fall was “to fight ISIL and . . . assist the political transition in Syria towards a post-Assad government,” Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said late last month. “They haven’t done either of those things.”

ISIL, along with ISIS and Daesh, is an alternative term for the Islamic State.

While Kerry has long advocated for U.S. military action against Assad, he believes that the highest priority now must be to stop the violence generated by Syrian government airstrikes. He feels that any downside to cooperation with Russia would be mitigated by the pressure Moscow could bring on Assad and gains against an al-Nusra organization that remains a vital component of al-Qaeda’s international operations.

OUTLAW 09 is online now Report Post

Thanks to Russia & international silence, Assad cuts last road to Aleppo, moving in for the kill http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/12/assad-cuts-the-last-ro… …

This is the perfect example of doing something "stupid" while not trying to do something "stupid".....

Proves to the entire ME Arab Sunni world as well as the global Sunni community the US and Russia did in fact have a "golden handshake"....

Finally discovered the actual highly successful Obama/Rhodes/Kerry WH Syrian/IS strategy.....

Strengthening and directly supporting the Syrian AQ JaN...as what many ME subject matter experts had warned them would in fact happen with their not wanting to do anything "stupid".........

THIS is the direct result of the non interest by the Obama/Rhodes WH that some have predicted will occur......non Western interest is actually strengthening JaN (AQ)....

Situation in #Syria: Only hard line Islamists left to defend anti regime civilians against regime. We're watching it grow in strength and with every new combat success.

How do you expect hundreds of thousands of civilians to reject #Nusra as "too extreme" when they keep fighting for the lives of the ppl. ...

Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Zanki capture positions inside Malah north Aleppo & advancing. No signs of Jaish al-Fath.

Aleppo : Heavy fighting continues in #Al_Mallah as Opposition advance on the #Talat_Al_Mayasat area and #Breij.

Drone footage of storming Assad army positions in Malah farms y'day.
https://youtu.be/faP4k_I5xm0

Footage from #Mallah shows despite Regime claims last km b4 Castello Rd is no man's land. 1st def line: Arab Selloum

Combat footage: Zinki assault on #Mallah front, N. #Aleppo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1Fsv4C1oc …

Rebels in heart of Arab Selloum, 2.1 km from Castillo Road, #Aleppo
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36....134326&z=16&m …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faP4k_I5xm0 …

JaN and the other anti Assad groups are doing their best to defend Aleppo and 300,000 Sunni's from Assad, Iran and Putin AND yet the Obama/Rhodes/Kerry WH remain totally silent...and by that silence they are actually signaling their support for the Assad/Iranian and Putin attacks on Aleppo.....

Appears Kerry, Obama, Rhodes are not quite so well informed on Russian intentions.....especially killing of civilians...

Russian bombers targeted IDP camps east Syria instead of #IS killing 17 ppl according to FSA
https://youtu.be/gPPtkohR5NM

Russian carpet bombing (probably on #ISIS positions) in Eastern Desert filmed by Rebels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPPtkohR5NM …

Seems Russia concerned over #ISIS inching closer to #Palmyra as 6 long-range Tu-22M3 bombers reportedly struck ISIS
http://tass.ru/en/defense/887758 …?

17 civilians killed, 40 wounded they say ...
So #Russia sends its Tu-22 thousands of km to bomb displaced refugees instead of #ISIS?! ...

NOW we can see exactly how Kerry has blown it again ......this is not the first time he has misspoken to the point that it makes one think he actually works as the DoS for Putin....BUT again maybe he is just channeling the Obama/Rhodes WH thinking on Syria......

Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister
Kerry buying #Russia's position?
Appears so

John Kerry labeled Ahrar al-Sham & Jaish al-Islam "subgroups" of AQ & #ISIS last week.

By Josh Rogin July 12 at 7:01 AM 

Quote:

While the United States and Russia inch closer to more military cooperation in Syria on the ground, Secretary of State John F. Kerry is sounding more and more like he agrees with the Russian view of the Syrian rebel groups fighting against the Assad regime.

Late last month in Aspen, Colo., Kerry said the most important thing the administration is doing to ramp up the effort to defeat extremists in Syria is to “reach an understanding” with the Russian government about how to deal with the terrorists there, which he names as the Islamic State, often referred to as Daesh, and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch. As I reported, Kerry and President Obama have proposed to Moscow increased cooperation against those groups, especially Jabhat al-Nusra, in exchange for Russia convincing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to abide by the crumbling cease-fire and lay off bombing the other rebels.

But then Kerry, perhaps accidentally, threw two other Syrian rebel groups under the bus by calling them “subgroups” of the terrorists.

“There are a couple of subgroups underneath the two designated — Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra — Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham particularly — who brush off and fight with that — alongside these other two sometimes to fight the Assad regime,” he said, referring to two rebel groups that the United States has not named as terrorist groups until now.

The remark, which went largely unnoticed by the media in Aspen, nonetheless set off alarm bells inside the Obama administration. Two administration officials who work on Syria told me that Kerry’s naming of the Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham as “subgroups” of the terrorist organizations was not only inaccurate but potentially harmful to U.S. government efforts to convince the Russians and the Syrian government not to attack them.

“For months, we’ve been arguing to make sure the Russians and the Syrian regime don’t equate these groups with the terrorists,” one senior administration official told me. “Kerry’s line yields that point.”

Another U.S. official simply emailed, “Baffled. SMH[Shaking my head].”

State Department spokesman John Kirby told me that there has been “absolutely no change” in the U.S. government’s support for the policy that only groups designated by the United Nations as terrorists groups should be excluded from the cease-fire, also known as the “cessation of hostilities.”

“Secretary Kerry was simply trying to describe the complexity of the situation in Syria, noting that we aren’t blind to the notion that some fighters shift their loyalties,” he said.

Even if Kerry misspoke, some Syrian groups see his comments as an example of how the Obama administration has slowly but steadily moved toward the Russian view of Syria, which includes painting all opposition groups as terrorists.

“Russia considers all revolutionaries and rebel groups as ISIS or al-Nusra to justify its indiscriminate shelling of civilians and the moderate opposition,” said Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nongovernmental organization that works with Syrian rebel groups.

Ahrar al-Sham is made up of Islamic and Salafist units and does not believe in a secular, democratic Syria, but it is not an al-Qaeda subsidiary and doesn’t take direction from Jabhat al-Nusra, Moustafa said. Jaysh al-Islam is supported by U.S. allies including Saudi Arabia and has been part of the opposition negotiating team in the Geneva process.

Russia’s obligation, under the new proposed cooperation deal, is to stop bombing Syrian rebel groups the U.S. declares are not terrorists. It’s true that the groups fighting Assad are hard to distinguish and often co-mingle, but U.S. policy is based on knowing which are which. Kerry muddied the waters. That’s typically Moscow’s job.

So continues the Obama/Rhodes WH "sell out" of US FP ...sorry meant to say..."outsourcing of US FP to Putin".........

Western Betrayal Redux?

To be fair, Outlaw has been on this since Minsk I...

According to Vladimir Socor at the Jamestown Foundation:
1.http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_...c#.V4QgWlYrKUk
2.http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_...4#.V4QgXFYrKUk

•“Quietly but summarily, the administration of President Obama has informed Kyiv that it wants to see elections in Donbas before Obama leaves office”

•Nuland is urging compliance with Ukraine’s political “obligations” under the Minsk “agreement.”

•Kerry and Nuland’s joint visit on July 7, however, has added urgency and even impatience to Kerry’s tone, reflecting the Barack Obama administration’s rush to show results before the November presidential election in the United States

•By the logic and sequence of steps proposed, Ukraine would make pre-emptive, irreversible sacrifices of sovereignty, without any assurance that Russian forces would withdraw or that the two armed “people’s republics” would abdicate. Almost certainly they would not.

•The West may help Russia enforce those political provisions on Ukraine, but the same Western powers cannot help Ukraine enforce those military provisions on Russia.

NOW...a challenge to any SWJ commenter to prove to me the Obama/Rhodes WH, Kerry and Nuland have not "officially" sold out US FP....to anyone that will provide them a "great legacy event".......

This is one of those moments I hate to say this....but "I told you so two years ago....."

The "outsourcing" of US Syrian FP to Putin is actually IMHO even worse as it has led to over 500,000 killed, millions of refugees and IDPs and entire areas of Syria totally destroyed....ALL in the name of not doing something "stupid"......

After siege on Rebel-held #Aleppo, #RuAF trying now to create fuel shortage in Idlib prov. destroying fuel tankers.

Footage
Number is up to 20 killed in #Russian cluster bomb attack on vital fuel convoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGBgmC2rB2k …

Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister
International community still holds out hope that #Syria political process is alive & will move forward soon.

#Aleppo siege will end that.

Unconfirmed reports rebels gained serious ground in the ongoing offensive inside Aleppo city. So far there is a media black out to confirm.

Except for "deep concerns" here and there, US, EU & Turkey seems to have approved Russia/Assad plan to siege Aleppo.

A heavy Russian airstrike on central #Aleppo killed 10 people & injured 4 more around noon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyUFdEVMmLc …

Children among dead in Sunday's west #Aleppo airstrikes
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNxwX7r4A555-9dkKRfX-c26UsMkHTwb2 …

Footage
Russian secondary air strike on firefighters in #Idlib province.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niBhtsPTC9o …

Burning inferno and heinous attack on first responders by #Russia in #Idlib province.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcsPhjzcxNA …

Ah.....those so called "moderate" Iranian supported Iraqi Shi'a militias.....who fought as well and are still fighting inside Syria BUT not against IS....

Fallujah refugees hesitant to return home for fear of Shiite militia
http://goo.gl/k7Lm2x

Same militias the US government assured us were not going into Fallujah.

It is a shame that this ME SME along with three other ME SMEs who really know and understand Syria were never invited to join the discussions inside the Obama/Rhodes WH...maybe then they would not be doing literally hundreds of "stupid things" when it comes to Syria....

http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/co...time-and-again …

How Assad has outfoxed his foes time and again

Hassan Hassan

July 10, 2016

Quote:

I remember when I heard that Baghdad had fallen to the US-led coalition in 2003. I was on my way back to university in Damascus from a visit to my home town in Albukamal, in eastern Syria. The news came as we stopped in Palmyra for a half-hour break. For the rest of the trip, gloom and doom dominated among travellers.

For many, such feelings of deep anger and frustration later turned into action. The next time I returned home for another visit, a taxi driver told me that volunteers were flowing from Syria into Iraq. Syrian authorities, the driver said, were not stopping people. Noticing my disbelief, he said that he would drive me to the other side of the border any moment.

The story did not make much sense to me. After all, the Syrian regime was secular and would not tolerate any form of activism, much less one that was expressed in jihadi terms. I asked relatives at home about what the driver said, and they confirmed that two people in my town had travelled to fight with the Iraqi resistance. Albukamal came to be known as the gateway for jihadists pouring from the region into Iraq through Syria.

Rashad Al Kattan, a security risk analyst and a fellow with the Centre for Syrian Studies at the University of St Andrews, was a witness to this activity from his neighbourhood too. Volunteers heading to Albukamal would travel from Damascus.

“My family’s house is near the US embassy in Damascus," recalled Mr Al Kattan. “A few months after the invasion, I started seeing the large green buses used for public transport parked outside the Iraqi embassy, which is opposite the US embassy. It continued for some time but the buses moved to Sumarieh coach station, on the outskirts of the capital, apparently after the Americans complained it was happening under their watch, literally."

In September 2009, former Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al Maliki said that “most terrorists came from Syria". Bashar Al Assad replied that the accusations were “immoral". Less than two years after the Damascus-Baghdad escalation, Mr Al Assad issued an amnesty for jailed jihadists a few months after the eruption of the Syrian uprising. What happened between 2009 and 2011? Did the Assad regime stop seeing jihadists as a useful tool?

I am reminded of the story after the debate that followed the release of the Iraq inquiry report in the Uk. The discussions largely overlooked the cynical game played by Damascus, and seem to have learnt the wrong lessons from the Iraq war. Many of those fired up after the report’s release are guilty of repeating the same mistakes that led to the unimaginable suffering in Iraq today.

For example, those who voted in favour of the Iraq war in the British parliament are arguably no worse than those who voted in the same place against punitive air strikes against Mr Al Assad’s regime after it used chemical weapons against civilians several times. Ideally, the West has no business intervening in the Middle East. But the reality is that western forces are entrenched in the region and therefore have the capacity to play a leadership role. This is called leverage. Those who do not want that leverage to be utilised, in the name of anti-imperialism, are complicit. They are overcorrecting history.

The Assad regime wanted Iraq to turn into hell, and it helped achieve that. The reward the regime wanted was that foreign powers would think twice before they intervened in Syria. It won the Iraq war, with the help of jihadists. When the same regime released extremists from prisons in 2011, it wanted to pull off the same trick. As the uprising turned into a civil war, the regime forces avoided jihadists and targeted the rest. It struck deals with jihadists, and ignored the rest. It traded with jihadists and hit the rest.

The policy worked. Today, the US is seeking a formula of cooperation against those extremists with the Russians in Syria. The circle is complete. The US that failed to rule effectively in Iraq partly because of Mr Al Assad and his allies has, once again, to seek indirect cooperation with Damascus.

For Iraqis and Syrians, much of the discussion about the Iraq inquiry report is beside the point.

Many of the loudest voices after the report was released are fighting a different fight that has little to do with Iraqis. Whether leftists or anti-imperialists, they are fighting the Iraq war through Syria. They do not want to consider the differences between an invasion of a country and the use of force to put an end to continuing butchery. Mr Al Assad wanted them to think twice before intervention, but they do not want to even think about it. They blindly oppose.

Russia's terrorism is only the 2nd worst.
Worst is EU/US silence and inaction on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhVWIt3QdE …

BREAKING FOOTAGE
ALEPPO CITY A SHORT WHILE AGO.
RUSSIA AIR FORCE JET DROPS CLUSTER BOMBS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbJ1G7N9qQ …

BTW..this also applies to eastern Ukraine......where the UAF has had their highest loses since Sept 2015 and the Russian army/militants are constantly attacking the Minsk 2 front line.

The killing of civilians which fulfills the definition of genocide and war crimes just continues...with utter silence from the Obama/Rhodes WH......

Just north of #Aleppo today.
Imagine that was your hometown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ulfpY4M-8 …

Aleppo city shortly ago.
More #Assad/#Putin air strikes on civilians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWaBHPhtyYw …

That's the "islamist terrorists", #Assad and #Putin are obliterating in #EastGhouta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITmPS31E1Os …

Can anyone explain this to me.....seriously ...........????

DoD’s New Program for Syrian Rebels Includes Just Air-Dropping Weapons into an Open Field

http://www.themideastbeast.com/penta...52b4-313496349 …

Still not a single response from the Obama/Rhodes WH to the continued killing of civilians......

BreakingFootage
#Rastan some minutes ago.
Endless #Assad/#Putin air strikes / war crimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4VMI7H5ccg …

And today the terror continued inside #Aleppo. Many air strikes.
2 kil, 10 wou in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DeTbPPmzW8 …

Countless #RUS incendiary strikes on towns along the last supply route to #Aleppo last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKGbZSBbcZE …

For those serious SWJ commenters who truly believe that the Obama/Rhodes WH Syrian/Is FP is really working and saving Syrian lives.....

And for those, doubting.
This video only contains the bearable footage ...
Other is much worse (example below) ...

22 civilians killed & 35 wounded in Assad/Putin ballistic missile attack on Darkush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMO_6K0aXfw …

Madaya today
Newborn child died hours after being born due to malnutrition of mother.
ALEPPO NEXT!

Over the last mins, RUS war planes attacked the last entrance to Aleppo with cluster bombs, supporting combined pro-Assad troops.

Pro-Assad sources confirm,regime troops + allies from Russia and Iran are in the last stage of besieging Aleppo.

BUT WAIT....the Russian Syrian ambassador lied again when he stated Assad was not going to attack Aleppo....BUT WAIT Assad did not attack Aleppo...it was the US supported Kurdish proxy YPG/SDF/PKK......

Just how does the Obama/Rhodes WH "spin" this bit of news?????

The @OCHA_Syria euphemism for the developing horrific 300.000+ civ pocket of eastern Aleppo.
http://aranews.net/2016/07/un-relief...r-torn-aleppo/ …

France and Germany claim that Iran's ballistic missiles program is violation of "nuke" deal brokered by Obama. Washington rejects claim.

The Iran Deal strengthened the regime in Iran and made its foreign policy more aggressive.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/i-used-supp...-wrong-1569480

I used to support the US-led nuclear deal with Iran – I was wrong

Iran's nuclear deal with the US and Europe has made the Middle East more divided, unstable and violent.

By Iyad el-Baghdadi July 7, 2016 15:22

Quote:

Last week I sent out a tweet about the state of the Middle East after the Iran nuclear deal, in which I argued that the agreement "has made the Middle East a more violent, unstable, and dangerous place".

The tweet – viewed over 35,000 times at the time of writing – engendered many responses, a few in support, but many in outrage: 'How can you be against an anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-sanctions deal?' they asked. 'Do you not want peace and prosperity for the Iranian people?'

I didn't always feel this way about the Iran deal. Although I had occasional doubts, I was mostly supportive, even optimistic. I had never bought into "nuclear Iran" scare stories, considering them to be warmongering propaganda. I had never believed that the Iranian regime was close to having nuclear weapons, and that even if it had them it would ever use them.

I understood the Iranian regime's core need as a need for international legitimacy – this is a regime that was born in 1979 ringed by enemies, and almost immediately engaged in a devastating and prolonged war (with Saddam Hussein's Iraq) that sought to uproot it. The regime, I understood, needed the deal for the same reason it needed the nukes: To ensure that its existence was no longer threatened.

But I also never saw the deal to be simply about nuclear weapons vs sanctions – I consider that view rather myopic. Put in its historical and geopolitical context, the deal is about more than just the lifting of sanctions. It is about the final legitimisation of the Iranian regime and the normalisation of its relationship with the world as an acceptable and valid partner.

My optimism about the Iran deal was based upon two main reasons - the first being the potential economic and political liberalisation it would bring, and the second being the belief that it would catalyse a wider regional drive to reduce violence and war.

Economic and political reform

I thought that the momentum created by the lifting of sanctions would be used by Iran's regime reformists to push for economic and political liberalisation. Sanctions rarely change the behaviour of a committed regime and instead punish and weaken society, critically reducing its ability to push against its own regime, and hence leading to entrenchment rather than change.

I had hoped that the lifting of sanctions and the return of foreign trade could create a momentum that can lead to an "opening up" of economic and political space within Iran, allowing civil society and native reformers some breathing space.

I now see I was wrong in that hope.

Iran deal Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Palais Coburg
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif waves from the balcony of Palais Coburg, the venue for nuclear talks, in Vienna(Reuters)

Iran's regime – even its presentable faces – continue to mock those who call for human rights or political liberalisation. In this astounding clip (recorded last month in Oslo), Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif responds to a question posed by an Iranian academic with accusations of "Iranophobia".

It's almost tragicomic and reminds me of sympathisers with the Egyptian regime responding to criticism of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's dismal human rights record with accusations of "hating Egypt".

Well – perhaps the human rights situation won't immediately improve, but maybe the renewed economic dynamism can lead to an economic liberalisation that can improve the lot of many Iranians? Unfortunately, it now looks increasingly more likely that the prime benefactors of new business contracts will be none other than Iran's Islamic Republican Guards Corps (IRGC), which control an increasing sector of Iran's economy, especially in heavy industry and infrastructure (the very industries that will probably see the first, and largest, business contracts).

The IRGC, created in 1979 to "protect the Islamic system", increased their power during Ahmadinejad's term, and helped crush Iran's Green Revolution in 2009. Their expanding role has led several Iranian friends to comment that their country seems to be gradually transitioning from a theocracy to a military dictatorship. This may seem ironic if not for historical precedents – a force established to protect a ruling establishment, ending up controlling, dominating, and overshadowing that establishment.

In short, I had initially hoped that the Iran deal would give Iran's entrepreneurs, reformists, and civil society at large more breathing space, but I now see that it's more likely that we'll see exactly the opposite, with existing powers entrenching themselves even further.

Reducing war and violence

I was also initially optimistic about the Iran deal due to my belief that it would lay the groundwork for a wider regional agreement that would reduce violence and defuse war.

Iran's regime, as I have mentioned, was under siege for most of its lifetime and regularly threatened with war or regime change. The deal removes the existential threat of a Western-led invasion, in effect giving the Iranian regime immunity against foreign-led regime change. My initial optimism was grounded in a belief that the regime's aggressive foreign policy will become far more moderate if it no longer feels existentially threatened.

Additionally, I thought that the United States would use the diplomatic momentum created by the deal to lead a regional effort to reduce tensions; primarily by getting Iran to help a Syria transition or resolution, and "rebalancing" the region through a US-led Iran-GCC détente. There were some early signs of this, with the UAE's Foreign Minister visiting Iran in late November 2013, after which there was talk about an Iran-UAE presidential summit (which unfortunately never materialised).

I now see that I was wrong about this as well. The region, post Iran deal, has become even more unstable and more violent, due to choices made by both Iran and its regional competitors, the GCC block.

We cannot be prosperous unless we are also at peace, and we deserve better than to be cannon fodder in a regional war.

Iran's foreign policy was not at all tempered by the deal – it only became more aggressive, ramping up support for Syria's Assad and with the IRGC even going to the extent of recruiting and training Afghani refugees to fight in return for asylum for their families. Simultaneously, the GCC countries felt so threatened by the Iran deal that they intensified the regional conflict in Syria, and opened a new front in Yemen.

Whether it's the Iranian regime or the GCC that are more responsible for the increased violence is debatable; but the point stands that the Iran deal contributed to an atmosphere of insecurity, instability, sectarianism and violence. It created a situation which empowered (rather than moderated) aggressive foreign policy among both Iran and the GCC. The Iran deal could have made the region better – but it ended up making it worse.

Is there a better deal?

So what is the alternative? It's commonly argued that to reject the Iran deal is tantamount to advocating war – but I reject this view. The alternative to a short-sighted deal is a better and wider deal, one that is sustainable and that stands to empower the region's societies rather than precipitating further war and empowering tyrants and terrorists.

It is of course too late, in a way – the deal has already been concluded, and the regional situation has mutated and has become far more complex since.

We can only hope that Western players – especially those that played a role in creating the region's mess – would use their diplomatic capital for a better outcome for the region's societies. I say this with bitterness, because the region's own players do not seem to be interested in de-escalation, and seem to find sectarianism the convenient and even pragmatic thing to do.

It is the average Iranian and the average Arab who will suffer the most in an atmosphere of rampant terrorism, sectarianism, and war. We cannot be prosperous unless we are also at peace, and we deserve better than to be cannon fodder in a regional war.

132 days into the"cessation of hostilities"
60 hours into a "3 day ceasefire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PTwl4Y9mWs …

No 'jihadi / FSA' shelling can justify YPG's attempt to help besiege eastern Aleppo, encircling 300.000+ civilians.

BUT WAIT.....YPG is the US supported Kurdish proxy....so why is it not fighting IS......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-on-syria.html

Al Qaeda Reaps Rewards of U.S. Policy Failures on Syria

Charles Lister 6/7/2016

Unless America addresses the chaos Assad has wrought, it can’t stop the rise of jihadism in Syria.

Quote:

Warfare and diplomacy are intrinsically linked, except when it comes to the Obama administration’s policy on Syria. While a negotiated settlement remains the only viable pathway out of the Syrian crisis, currently existing facts on the ground do not in any way allow for a meaningful process, let alone a solution. As things stand, there is no reason for Bashar al-Assad to view a political process as anything less than a game in which to taunt and kill his adversaries, while compelling his allies to double-down in defense of his regime.

Nevertheless, the principal benefactor of Assad’s survival is not Assad, nor Russia, Iran, Hezbollah or even ISIS—it is Al-Qaeda. Having spent the past five years embedding itself within broader revolutionary forces and strategically choosing to limit and very slowly reveal its extremist face, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra is reaping the rewards of our failures to solve the Syrian crisis. According to sources close to the group, al-Nusra has accepted more than 3,000 Syrians from Idlib and southern Aleppo into its ranks since February alone. That is an extraordinary rate of recruitment from within a territory roughly the size of Connecticut.

It is desperately unfortunate and painfully ironic that for increasing numbers of Syrians, Al-Qaeda appears to have been a more loyal protector of their lives than the United States. Civilian protection is therefore key, and widespread perceptions of the moral bankruptcy of U.S. policy on Syria in this regard has unquestionably and directly stimulated Al-Qaeda’s growth. Even our fight against ISIS has provided an opening for Al-Qaeda, which exploits the fact that most of our chosen anti-ISIS partners maintain an ambiguous relationship to the Assad regime and an open one with Russia. Our fight against the scourge of ISIS is indeed securing us consistent gains, but these are tactical gains fought in such a way as to produce long-term secondary sources of instability that Al-Qaeda will chiefly exploit.

Enough is enough. It is not sufficient to wait for a new administration in 2017. Events are unfolding too quickly and ISIS is far from the only issue needing urgent resolution. Based on its current trajectory, the conflict in Syria will almost certainly continue and indeed worsen, lasting for a decade or more. Extremists on all sides will benefit the most, meaning we will face an Afghanistan on steroids, on Europe’s borders. ISIS may be defeated territorially in the near-term, but it will live to fight another day. Al-Qaeda meanwhile may come to represent a terrorist actor far more intelligent, more deeply rooted and offensively capable than anything we have faced until now.

While it remains feasible to defeat ISIS in Syria independently from attempts to solve the country’s broader crisis, Al-Qaeda’s fate is intrinsically linked to the conflict’s outcome and how it ends. Moreover, unlike ISIS, undermining and ultimately defeating Al-Qaeda in Syria cannot and should not be done primarily through military means. Russia has consistently pushed for a bilateral campaign against Jabhat al-Nusra alongside the U.S. Air Force and though this is still some way off from being realized, it is being actively considered by President Obama. Far from being helpful, this is precisely the wrong thing to do. Jabhat al-Nusra’s entire modus operandi has been designed to insure itself and ultimately benefit from just such a scenario.

At the end of the day, Al-Qaeda has increasingly thrived in Syria due in part to two realities: consistent conflict, instability and the regime’s unchallenged mass killing of civilians; and an insufficiently supported mainstream, moderate civil, political and armed opposition. If and when reversed, these two factors could come to represent Al-Qaeda’s greatest and likely crippling vulnerabilities.

To challenge the first reality, the U.S. has an opportunity to grasp back some credibility by prioritizing a determined and if necessary, aggressive protection of civilians. Whether through the creation of limited ‘safe’ or ‘no-bombing’ zones along border areas, or through the use of punitive strikes to punish the bombing of civilian, humanitarian or medical facilities, the U.S. must demonstrate a willingness to draw more discernibly upon its might to punish war crimes. An escalatory menu of ‘softer’ options—expanded sanctions, naval interdictions in the Mediterranean, or challenging Syria’s role within the UN General Assembly—could be considered prior to military action, although these take time, which we do not necessarily have.

While military action does indeed carry with it risks, pre-warning Moscow of such plans would minimize any chance of counter-escalation, while realistically, Russia has absolutely no interest in, nor a capacity for entering into a war with America. It is long past time to call Vladimir Putin’s bluff. After all, beyond its aggressive military actions in Syria, Russia’s biggest investment has arguably been in exploiting its bilateral relationship with the U.S. in an attempt to acquire an outward appearance as a ‘constructive partner’ in solving Syria. Russia will not be shooting down American jets or cruise missiles anytime soon, especially if our targets are non-critical regime infrastructure.

Consequently, by using civilian protection as a mechanism for limited and targeted aerial intervention, the U.S. would simultaneously contribute towards saving human lives; de-escalating the most deadly aspect of Syria’s conflict and providing a more stable environment in which the moderate civil opposition could thrive. Most importantly, the Assad regime will lose its principal source of escalation, while its backers will face less reason to stand so aggressively by his side. Paired with hard diplomacy, such conditions would be at least more potentially favorable to lead towards meaningful negotiations. In September 2013, merely the threat of limited punitive U.S. strikes sparked a temporary collapse of regime confidence in Damascus, as dozens of figures fled to Beirut with their families. It is by no means unthinkable that a similar situation could be replicated.

To challenge the second reality, the U.S. must acknowledge that while the vetted opposition is far from perfect, they remain the best and only viable option on the table for securing a mainstream Sunni Arab role in Syria’s future and undermining Al-Qaeda’s pseudo-revolutionary narrative. There are currently at least 50 such vetted opposition factions across Syria, who have received assistance through the CIA’s covert ‘Timber Sycamore’ program since late-2012. Such assistance has only ever been enough for each faction to sustain a role within Syria’s complex conflict dynamics. That it has never been sufficient enough to produce genuine moderate opposition dominance is exactly what has allowed Al-Qaeda to step in so strongly. To continue our current policy of providing ‘just-enough’ support to the vetted moderate opposition means nothing short of indirectly enabling Al-Qaeda’s continued growth.

This must change. While weaker than some conservative Islamists, all 50 vetted opposition factions remain deeply rooted within the exact Syrian communities we need most to reject extremist alternatives. Using external force to combat Al-Qaeda will feed the jihadist group’s existing narrative, as occurred in late-2014 when U.S. strikes against its forces were quickly labelled by the opposition as “counter-revolutionary” for they served only to weaken opposition lines against the regime. Allowing Assad and his external backers to take the fight to Al-Qaeda would likely have even worse mobilizing effects. The only solution is local and the mainstream, moderate opposition is the only game in town. But the only feasible scenario in which such forces can and would take on their long-time military ally of convenience is if we appeared more assertively ‘on-side’ in challenging the Assad regime’s continued brutality and obduracy in the face of an internationally-backed political process.

Al-Qaeda is not a problem that can be merely contained in Syria. At its current rate of growth, it could feasibly command close to 20,000 fighters by the time a new President steps into the Oval Office. Moreover, the establishment of an Islamic Emirate in northwestern Syria is now very much on the cards. Its creation will bring the initiation of complex and centralized foreign attack planning, from Europe’s doorstep. Letting Syria burn itself out while trying to contain its consequences is not only a fantastical policy, but an astonishingly dangerous one.

Nevertheless, the principal benefactor of Assad’s survival is not Assad, nor Russia, Iran, Hezbollah or even ISIS—it is Al-Qaeda.

Continued....

Ever wonder what those Obama/Rhodes WH "moderate Iranians are up to these days"?????

How about that? Iran's already-high level activities to procure nuclear and missile technology got even higher.

In German.....German Defense of the Constitution Agency equal to say the British MI5.....clearly stated Iran still wants their nuclear bomb.....

http://m.bild.de/politik/ausland/atomprogramm-iran/verfassungsschutz-wa…