Back in August, just after the false flag chemical weapon attack in Syria, we showed that despite all the posturing by the Obama administration (and, of course, France's belligerent, socialist leader Francois Hollande), the nation behind the entire Syrian campaign was not one of the "democratic", Western nations but none other than close neighbor Saudi Arabia, and the brain orchestrating every move of the western puppets was one Bandar bin Sultan, the nation's influential intelligence chief. We also explained the plethora of geopolitical and mostly energy-related issues that Saudi and Qatar had at stake, which they were eager to launch a regional war over, just to promote their particular set of selfish interests. A month later, in clear confirmation that this was precisely the case, the WSJ reported that the recent overtures by Obama, brilliantly checkmated by Putin, to push for a peaceful resolution with not only Syria, but suddenly Iran as well, has managed to infuriate Saudi Arabia: traditionally one of the US' closest allies in the region and the key source of crude oil to the western world.

From the WSJ:

The Obama administration's handling of overtures on Syria and Iran have outraged regional ally Saudi Arabia, which is signaling it wants to do more to boost the power of armed Sunni rebel groups on the ground in Syria as the U.S. pursues diplomacy.

Saudis fear that Syrian President Basher al-Assad will use the time afforded by U.S.- and U.N.-backed diplomacy on Syria "to impose more killing and to torture its people," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Thursday night in New York, in a warning that was overshadowed by the attention paid to the weekend's first public contacts in three decades between the presidents of Iran and the U.S.

...

Two developments have particularly alarmed Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, another Gulf state: U.S.-backed diplomacy that is giving Mr. Assad an opportunity to surrender his chemical weapons, heading off a U.S.-military strike against the Assad regime; and warming relations between Messrs. Obama and Rouhani.

On Sept. 12, as Mr. Rouhani was tweeting some of the first Iranian overtures in decades to the West, former Saudi diplomat Turki al Faisal was telling a London defense forum that Iran's leaders should stand trial for war crimes for supporting Mr. Assad.

"The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious, and designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down, but also to help Assad butcher his people," Prince Turki said then.

Oh yes, it is the inequitable treatment of Syrian people that has outraged that paragon of humanism and civil liberties, Saudi Arabia, whose oligarchs are best known for paying billions in petrodollars to bribe their own populace in 2011 to avoid the same swift and terminal fate that befell all other regional dictators during the Arab Spring. Surely the transit of local commodities, either crude or primarily LNG under Syria, has nothing to do with Saudi outrage at the US betrayal of its national interests.

So with the main western ally out of the picture, it means Saudi Arabia will have to brave it alone.

The Saudi foreign minister's declaration is significant because Saudi Arabia, while one of the main suppliers of Syria's predominately Sunni opposition, up to now has heeded U.S. fears throughout the conflict that aid to Syrian rebels could strengthen armed, anti-Western Sunni factions. Shiite Muslim Iran backs Mr. Assad in the Syrian conflict, while most Sunni Muslim-ruled Gulf Arab states support the rebels fighting to overthrow Mr. Assad.

Saudi Arabia, for example, long held off on supplying Stinger-style missiles to Syrian rebels because of U.S. worries the missiles could be used against Western targets, security analysts briefed by Saudi officials say. Saudi Arabia increased pressure on the U.S. to allow arming the rebels with antiaircraft weapons this summer, as larger numbers of Hezbollah fighters entered the conflict on the side of Mr. Assad's regime.

Ironically, in now desperately trying to make it appear that Obama (and John Kerry) is a pacifist after nearly launching World War III (while simply playing a minor role in a script designed by Vladimir Putin), the Nobel peace prize winner has succeeded in alienating a key strategic allywhile gaining absolutely nothing in return.

Saudis now feel that the Obama administration is disregarding Saudi concerns over Iran and Syria and will respond accordingly in ignoring "U.S. interests, U.S. wishes, U.S. issues" in Syria, said Mustafa Alani, a veteran Saudi security analyst with the Geneva-based Gulf Research Center.

"They are going to be upset—we can live with that," Mr. Alani said Sunday of the Obama administration. "We are learning from our enemies now how to treat the United States."

Why with friends like these, who needs to create false flag attacks against US enemies...

At the end of the day, however, Saudi knows that it can not jeopardize
its key customer relationships and certainly not the Petrodollar, so
while it is worried about the religious and political implications of
what a failure in Syria means, there is little it can actually do on its
own.

Sunni-dominated Gulf Arab governments, especially Saudi Arabia, deeply fear that Shiite Muslim-ruled Iran wants to use Shia populations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen to destabilize Gulf Arab governments and try to throw the regional balance of power toward Iran.

Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. and Iran to improve relations for the sake of Middle East stability, but no longer trusts the Obama administration to look out for Saudi Arabia's fears of perceived Iranian expansionism, said Mr. Alani, the analyst with the Gulf Research Center.

In truth, Saudi and other Gulf Arab countries have little leverage to advance their aims in any U.S.-Iran diplomacy, Gulf security analysts said. Beyond revving up support for rebels in Syria, Saudis have only a few other means, such as directing more of their arms or energy deals to Asia, said Michael Stephens, researcher at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in Qatar.

"They feel a little bit powerless in all this," Mr. Stephens said. "The fact that this process is going on…it directly affects them and they have no say in it."

But while Saudi Arabia, tremendous diplomatic manipulator that it is, will behave rationally, it is far less certain what Israel will do and how it will respond to the sudden and very much unexpected US detente in the middle-east: an unpalatable peaceful outcome to the two nations, and one where Israel and Saudi bellicose interests are very much aligned.

More on the great game.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-300913.html

Page 1 of 2
Obama moves on Iran, Putin keeps Syria
By M K Bhadrakumar

The euphoria over the Syrian chemical weapons resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council on Friday is swirling around making the headlines, but a sense of dark foreboding also lurks below the surface threatening to spoil the party.

True, after an inordinately long interval when nothing seemed to be going well between them, the United States and Russia agree on something. That calls for celebration. But then, details are emerging that there was much wrangling between the two foreign ministers, John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, including some tense moments. The trust deficit is palpable.

Potentially significant step
To be sure, there is testiness in the air. President Barack Obama hasn't spoken a word with his Russian counterpart, VladimirPutin, since their 20-minute chat during the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg almost a month ago.

In his statement on Saturday, Obama was conspicuously modest. The eloquence was lacking. His understanding of the resolution probably needed a clarification by Lavrov on Russian state television the next day.

Obama viewed the resolution as "legally binding, that would be verifiable and enforceable, where there will be consequences for Syria's failure to meet what has been set forth in the resolution", and to that extent he saw that the resolution "actually goes beyond what could have been accomplished through any military action".

Obama noted the resolution's "explicit endorsement" of the Geneva process on Syria. He was "very hopeful" about the prospects but immediately voiced concern "whether Syria will follow through on the commitments" and agreed with "legitimate concerns" as to how the implementation of the resolution will be possible in civil war conditions. All things concerned, however, Obama cautiously estimated that the Security Council resolution "represents potentially a significant step forward". What probably was not audible was the sigh of relief on his part that a military action against Syria was not necessary - for the present, at least.

Obama's reticence stands in comparison with the triumphalism with which Lavrov claimed the resolution as a victory of Russian diplomacy, which "did not come easy". Lavrov listed the gains:

Russia made sure the professionals of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons will be the main actors in the implementation of the resolution rather than the UN Security Council;

Russia "achieved its goal" of ensuring there are "no pretexts or loopholes" for the use of force, bearing in mind the Libyan experience and "the capabilities of our partners to interpret the UN Security Council resolutions".

The possibility of any military strike against Syria within the ambit of the resolution is "out of question." Whereas Obama put the onus of implantation of the resolution on President Bashar Al-Assad and his government, Lavrov underscored that the mentors and sponsors of the Syrian rebels bear a special responsibility by ensuring that their "fosterlings" do not indulge in provocative acts.

Lavrov has every reason to be satisfied that Moscow negotiated an optimal resolution. The fact of the matter is that the resolution does not contain any mechanism allowing for sanctions against Syria in the event of non-compliance, leave alone military action by foreign powers.

Russia has blocked any sort of condemnation of the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons. In effect, the American side has tacitly allowed a watering down of its self-defined "red-line- doctrine," while the resolution puts the onus on both the regime and the rebels. Fooling ourselves
Lavrov glossed over the civil war conditions in Syria and indeed the resolution's major lacuna insofar as it lacks a roadmap towards a ceasefire.

The likelihood of the implementation running into difficulty in a few months down the road is exceedingly high. If that happens, the possibility of the Security Council passing a second resolution under Charter VII of the UN Charter is very remote, given the acrimonious nature of the US-Russia relations at present.

Simply put, Syrian regime's cooperation is entirely voluntary. What needs to be factored in is that the resolution deprives the regime of several billions of dollars worth of military goods, which constituted its strategic deterrent against external aggression.

In the prevailing climate with the protagonists in the civil war locked in mortal combat and looking for outright victory, Syrian regime cannot even be faulted if it chooses to hide away for any emergency a portion of its chemical weapons stockpiles. It could be 10% of the stockpiles, as Henry Kissinger thinks; it could be more; or, it could be less. But the high probability is already being discussed openly.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul was candid in his interview with the CNN over the weekend, warning "we should not fool ourselves" that Assad would comply without the threat of military force. He said, "If it's going to be real cleaning, that will be wonderful. That'll be good for everyone. But if it's going to be given some time, that at the end still there will be some chemical weapons there [in Syria], so that would be a loss of time."
Gul is one of the most moderate voices from his part of the world. Now, coming from a country that is neck deep involved in the Syrian civil war, his words are ominous.

In fact, the attitude of the Syrian opposition groups - and, more important, the regional states sponsoring them - is going to be highly critical. Interestingly, no one is celebrating out there in Ankara, Amman, Doha or Riyadh that on Friday there has been a Security Council resolution on Syria.

These regional capitals, who are power brokers in Syria, feel uneasy that the regime change agenda is being superseded by the chemical weapons initiative.

As for the opposition groups, the picture is even more dismal. They are hopelessly divided and are increasingly at each other's throats but the one thing that brings them together is their common rejection of the whole idea of the chemical weapons initiative.

General Salim Idris, the relatively moderate head of the military council, which notionally supervises the Free Syrian Army, was plainly dismissive, saying all this "does not interest us". The onus lies on Washington to bring on board the ilk of Idris. But, as a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty commentary admitted,

With the opposition so negative, an enormous amount of diplomacy now must be done to assure rebel groups do not find it in their interest to sabotage the deal in hopes of still getting Western military intervention. But that diplomatic job is complicated by the fact that the fastest rising opposition groups in Syria today appear to be Islamist groups that have few or no ties to Western powers.

When it comes to the hardline groups, the scenario is actually frightening. Last week, 13 major rebel factions rejected the leadership of the Western-backed exiled opposition to announce the formation of an "Islamic Alliance". The 13 groups are estimated to control tens of thousands of fighters and, as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty noted, "if the [Islamist] coalition holds, it could mean Western powers would have no influence over what happens on the ground over a large part of the north as well as parts of Homs and Damascus".

Suffice to say, if the Islamist groups find it in their strategic interest to seize the chemical weapons or in any other way to sabotage the Security Council resolution, the US and its Western allies (and Israel) will get sucked into the affair. Cynics may even say that such a specter may just be the alibi needed for a Western military intervention - with or without a second UN Security Council resolution.

Page 2 of 2
Obama moves on Iran, Putin keeps Syria
By M K Bhadrakumar

A diplomatic pirouette
Where Russian calculations can go wrong is in the confidence that Moscow has veto power in the Security Council. But, on the contrary, there is a widespread indignation today about the credentials of the council's five permanent members (P5) - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. This has become the leitmotif of the speeches by the world statesmen at the ongoing UN general assembly. To quote John Key, New Zealand prime minister,

We now seem to have a practice whereby the permanent members can not only block council actions through the veto. They also appear to have privileged access to information and can stop the council from meeting if it does not suit their collective purposes.

Key told the media that the Security Council's functioning is so
farcical that the P5 diplomats haggle and then reach some consensus only to turn to Twitter first to relay it before even sensitizing the non-permanent members of the Security Council.

In sum, the incredible diplomatic pirouette performed by the US and Russia over Syria has largely enabled these two great powers for the present to escape a tricky situation. The US has been extirpated from the use of force (which it probably wasn't looking for in the first instance), while Russia no more could be lampooned in the West as "Mr Nyet". To be sure, there has been a marriage of convenience that resulted in the Security Council resolution.

But then, has Russia assumed a disproportionate share of responsibility to nurture the offspring? Consider the following.

Obama is clearly taking a back seat on Syria for the present and concentrating on the Iran question, which is fraught with profound, direct and long-term consequences for the US' vital interests and the core concerns and those of its allies in the West and in the Middle East - in a way that Syria never has been or can be.

So, is Russia holding a can of worms? Difficult to say, but the danger is very much there. On balance, the US has allowed the Russian side to prevail at the UN Security Council. Prima facie, the prospect of a US-led military strike is receding so fast and so far to the background that it cannot be taken seriously anymore as in Obama's consideration zone.

It seems Russian diplomacy has scored an extraordinary success, which, anyway, is how it is being perceived by the international opinion, and in turn it embellishes Russia's "arrival" as a global power on the Middle Eastern theatre.

However, on closer look the danger arises that the Russians could be pressing ahead with their impressive diplomatic successes over Syria in recent weeks and might well be outstripping the rest of the world community already, including its best friend China. This is one thing.

Secondly, Russian officials have offered that the Moscow-led Collective Treaty Security Organization (CSTO) is willing to deploy forces in Syria to provide security cover for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and also to guard the chemical weapon sites. The CSTO is a fig leaf; it'll be veritably a Russian contingent. Now, what if the Syrian rebel fighters draw Russian blood at some point?

Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who mentored these fighters, especially the Salafist fighters, are having a bad taste in their mouth at the sight of Russia being on a roll on a turf that spy chief Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar Sultan fancied as his playpen. In the womb of time
Not that it is a trap being set for the Kremlin by Washington, but sometimes it so happens that what may appear grit and decisiveness to push enterprises with all good intentions in diplomacy may end up having tragic consequences. At the end of the day, through the coming months, Russia is pitted against the "jihad" in Syria.

Meanwhile, Obama is moving on. After giving the Russians a relatively free hand to exercise the privilege of walking through the mine fields of Syria, Obama is able to concentrate on a much more productive front that will ultimately impact on the politics of the Middle East in a far more significant way than the fate of Bashar Al-Assad - the United States' normalization with Iran.

The speed with which Obama moved last week on Iran is simply breathtaking. Following up on Obama's UN General Assembly speech, Secretary of State John Kerry met his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Zarif, and seemed to have discussed a one-year timeline for a road map to sort out the nuclear issue.

And, during the Kerry-Zarif pow-vow, a wonderful idea was born that Obama and Rouhani might as well have a phone conversation. Which, of course, they eventually got around to doing just before Rouhani left to catch the long flight to Tehran.

What stands out from Obama's account of the historic phone call as well as from Rouhani's is that the tree of hostility between the US and Iran is about to shed its fiery red leaves like the autumn trees.

Rouhani turned to Twitter as he was leaving American soil after the 15-minute phone conversation with Obama. This is his version on Twitter:

@BarackObama to @HassanRouhani: I express my respect for you and ppl of #Iran. I'm convinced that relations between Iran and US will greatly affect region. If we can make progress on #nuclear file, other issues such as #Syria will certainly be positively affected. I wish you a safe and pleasant journey and apologize if you're experiencing the [exasperating] traffic in #NYC.

@HassanRouhani to @BarackObama: In regards to #nuclear issue, with political #will, there is a way to rapidly solve the matter. We're hopeful about what we will see from P5+1[the P5 plus Germany] and your govt in particular in coming weeks and months. I express my gratitude for your #hospitality and your phone call. Have a good day Mr President.

@BarackObama to @HassanRouhani: Thank you, Khodahafez. [literally, Persian for "God be with you"]

Make no mistake, Obama hopes to return to the Syrian question at a future date - holding Rouhani's hand. Until then, it's all - well, mostly - Russia's privilege to hold the can of worms.

The fact that Obama hasn't cared to speak to Putin regarding Syria in this entire month since G-20 summit in St Petersburg on September 5-6, but touched on Syria in his very first conversation with Rouhani gives away what lies in the womb of time. It not only gives away the drift of the US' priorities, but also exposes the poor alchemy of US-Russian relations.

Catharsis Ours

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Saudi Arabia "Outraged" At Obama's Peace Overtures With Syria, Iran

No comments:

Post a Comment