Iran and Syria confront US with defence pact

[Dogboy]

from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1416319,00.html

Iran and Syria confront US with defence pact

Ewen MacAskill in Beirut and Duncan Campbell
Thursday February 17, 2005
The Guardian

Iran and Syria heightened tension across the Middle East and directly confronted the Bush administration yesterday by declaring they had formed a mutual self-defence pact to confront the "threats" now facing them.
The move, which took the Foreign Office by surprise, was announced after a meeting in Tehran between the Iranian vice-president, Mohammed Reza Aref, and the Syrian prime minister, Naji al-Otari.

"At this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges," said Mr Otari.

Regarded as rogue states by the White House, Iran is under pressure over its nuclear ambitions, while Syria came under renewed scrutiny over the assassination this week of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Yesterday's announcement came as the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, predicted that Tehran would have the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon within six months.

Speaking in London, he accused Iran of preparing nuclear weapons that would be able to target "London, Paris and Madrid" by the end of the decade.

"We believe the Iranians will never abandon their dreams" of nuclear weapons, Mr Shalom said. "It is not Israel's problem any more, it is the world's problem."

He said that "the question is not if Iran will hold a nuclear bomb in 2009, 2010, 2111, it is whether they have that knowledge. In six months, they will finish the tests to have the knowledge to produce weapons of mass destruction".

A British official cautioned that Israel has always put Iran's nuclear development "ahead of the estimates here and in the US".

"But no one knows for sure. We know the Iranians will not surprise us tomorrow, but whether it will be one year, or five or 10, we do not know."

The potential for further conflict in the region was highlighted yesterday by the reaction of the financial markets to speculative reports of an explosion near a nuclear facility in Iran. Oil prices surged by more than a dollar. It later emerged that the explosion had been caused during construction of a dam.

Though Syrian diplomats insisted the alliance with Iran was not a move to provoke the US, there was no qualification when the declaration was made in Tehran. Speaking at the end of the talks, the Syrian prime minister said: "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front."

Mr Aref added: "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats."

Syria and Iran do not have a natural affinity but are alleged by western governments to have engaged in covert military cooperation in the past.

The British official said the pact could just be rhetoric, "a marriage of convenience" for two countries feeling a need to bolster one another.

Syria has recently been engaged in a diplomatic offensive to try to ward off US criticism, and its ambassador to the UN, Imad Moustapha, reflected this yesterday, denying the pact was anti-American.

"Today we do not want to form a front against anybody, particularly not against the United States," he said.

But tension between the countries remains high.

Washington recalled its ambassador to Damascus on Tuesday after the assassination of Mr Hariri, who advocated the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

As well as withdrawal from Lebanon, the US has called on Damascus to close the headquarters in the capital of Hamas, the main Palestinian group responsible for suicide bombers; to end its support for Hizbullah, the Lebanese-based, anti-Israeli militia; and to block support for the insurgency in Iraq from within Syria. It has also called on Iran to end its support for Hizbullah.

Washington at present is focused on pressing the security council to introduce new sanctions against Iran and Syria.

Iran denies having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and claims its programme is for purely civil purposes.

Iran's intelligence minister, Ali Yunesi, claimed yesterday the US has been flying spy drones over Iran's nuclear sites and they would be shot down if they came within range.

Negotiations in Geneva between Britain, France, Germany and Iran aimed at resolving the crisis ended last week. Further talks are planned, but the US and Israel are sceptical about the value of these talks.

The Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, said in Berlin that the negotiations could succeed. "I believe there are possibilities ... to remove the concerns of the European side," he said.

 

[GENOMS Soilder]

Nice....
I don't think this is going to go over to well in Washington.
This and they way Russia is getting involved by suppling Iran with nuclear fuel.

Was Syria the other country labeled in the 'Axis of Evils'?

 

[DaveK]

Nope.  It was Iran, N Korea and Iraq.  Now with Iraq out of the picture Syria could take the empty spot. ;D

 

[Spazz]

hmm kinda freaky, the events happening here are similar to the events that started ww1 in a way. Not that im jumping the gun or anything...

 

[muskrat89]

... and the entire Government of Lebanon quit today.... interesting

 

[a_majoor]

The Syrians and Iranians are discovering it is harder to fight the power of ideas.

The United States has lots of ideas, but two loom over Assad and the Mullahs: the first being "F**k with the United States and you're dead meat". This is known to be a valid idea and demonstrably true, just ask Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein. The defense pact is an attempt to deal with this idea, since it is simple and relates to the sort of reality these people deal with. They saw how fast Pakistan shut down A.Q. Khan and Libya dropped the WMD program once the American Eagle actually struck at Afghanistan and Iraq, and do not wish to have their options constrained.

Unfortunatly for Assad and the Mullahs, there is another idea the Americans have; "Liberty", and it will be much harder to stamp out with Afghanistan and Iraq having elections, not to mention doubling the consensual democracies in the region (they join Turkey and Isreal). Although they may blame the Crusaders and the Jews for all the problems in the region, each year that a consensual government exists next door is a year for more people to see and say "yes, but..."

 

[Blue Max]

The Americans have a fine line to walk with regard to Iran. Most Iranians seem to have a nationalist tilt on the question of Nuclear energy, believing their govt that they only wish to produce Nuclear power. At the same time most Iranians despise their autocratic ruling elite Mullah's and would wish for nothing better than to be rid of them and have a true democracy.

The balancing act in policy for the Americans is precarious:
If the Americans are too aggressive at this time they will cause a nationalist surge that will move the populace towards the Mullah's camp.

If democracy does not take over the Iranian govt soon enough, then the Mullah's will develop Nuclear energy, and their psychopath followers will try and build a bomb, probably without telling their own people.

MHO,

B M.

 

[a_majoor]

On other threads, I have argued that the Americans are leaving the heavy lifting to the pro democracy forces for now, but have a realistic option to deliver a "head shot" to the ruling elements of Iranian society should the Mullahs attempt some sort of nuclear provocation.

A full scale invasion is at the very extreme end of probabilities, although I wouldn't bet a lot of money against it either.

 

[DaveK]

Here is an excellent article on this subject.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/01/do0102.xml

 

[Blue Max]

DaveK, maybe a little too flippant but still a good article.

Ever since the US invaded Iraq and did not find an WMD's I have argued countlessly with my friends that the real reason the Americans wanted to take out Saddam was to plant the seed of democracy and see how the ideas germinated around the reagion.

B M.

 

[GENOMS Soilder]

Speaking of an invasion, who do you think is on the top list; Iran or North Korea?
If the US did have another invasion, do you think that they can have 'All Major Operations' over by the end off Dubya's term?
Also, how much oil does Iran have? I kinda had the suspicion that Dubya went in to secure oil.
My words.

 

[Kirkhill]

This just in from the Daily Telegraph

More about Saddam's half-brother being "arrested" by the "Syrians" and turned over to the Iraqis.

The title though is a little misleading if the text is right.

Syrian Kurds caught the guy and handed him over to Iraqi Kurds.

That doesn't suggest to me that the Syrian "authorities" had anything to do with the arrest, and if you read the Iraqi statement carefully it doesn't say anything about Syrian authorities.

Syria losing control of its borders and being threatened by a Kurdish insurgency of its own?
 
Syria cooperating with Iraq authorities
(Filed: 01/03/2005)

Syria has started cooperating with Iraqi authorities trying to stop insurgents crossing over from its territory and has helped arrest Saddam Hussein's half-brother, Iraq's defence minister has revealed.

 
Sabawi Ibrahim
The announcement is the first official Iraqi confirmation of Syria's role in the arrest of Sabawi Ibrahim, a former spy chief and senior adviser to Saddam. He was number 36 on the US military's list of 55 most-wanted people in Iraq.

"Recently a form of cooperation has begun and, truth be told, Sabawi was seized through cooperation with the Syrian side," Hazim al-Shaalan, the Iraqi Defence Minister, said on Al Arabiya television.

Iraqi government sources said this week that Syrian Kurds had seized Ibrahim in Syria and handed him to Iraqi Kurds before he was taken into custody by Iraq's security forces.
A former head of Iraq's feared Mukhabarat domestic security service, he was repeatedly accused by Iraqi officials in recent months of financing and directing Iraq's insurgency from Syria. Damascus denied the accusations.

The Iraqi government has repeatedly accused Syria of allowing insurgents to cross its borders to carry out attacks.

Syria is also under mounting pressure from the United States over Iraq as well as its presence in Lebanon where the opposition blamed Damascus for the assassination two weeks ago of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in Beirut.

Syria condemned the assassination and denied any involvement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/01/usyria.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/01/ixportaltop.html

 

[a_majoor]

Speaking of an invasion, who do you think is on the top list; Iran or North Korea?
If the US did have another invasion, do you think that they can have 'All Major Operations' over by the end off Dubya's term?
Also, how much oil does Iran have? I kinda had the suspicion that Dubya went in to secure oil.
My words.

If I could get a dollar off everyone who said "its about oil"; I'd be a wealthy man indeed. If the Americans wanted to invade a country for oil, they would choose one that is close by to reduce costs, had large proven reserves (so it is worth while), and had limited military potential; sort of like, you know, us. Alberta is sitting on top of about one trillion barels of heavy oil, is only a short pipeline away from the "heartland", and is not defended by any military forces which would register as more than a speed bump on the way.

If you look at the "oil for food" scandle in the UN, or the elaborate non action about the Sudan, it is about the oil; for France and the multi-billion dollar contracts the Total Group signed with Saddam Hussein, or the oil contracts China has with the Sudanese.....

Anyway, look at the prices of oil befor and after OIF, and tell me how there is a connection between the operation and American access to oil?

 

[Spazz]

If I could get a dollar off everyone who said "its about oil"; I'd be a wealthy man indeed. If the Americans wanted to invade a country for oil, they would choose one that is close by to reduce costs, had large proven reserves (so it is worth while), and had limited military potential; sort of like, you know, us. Alberta is sitting on top of about one trillion barels of heavy oil, is only a short pipeline away from the "heartland", and is not defended by any military forces which would register as more than a speed bump on the way.

If you look at the "oil for food" scandle in the UN, or the elaborate non action about the Sudan, it is about the oil; for France and the multi-billion dollar contracts the Total Group signed with Saddam Hussein, or the oil contracts China has with the Sudanese.....

Anyway, look at the prices of oil befor and after OIF, and tell me how there is a connection between the operation and American access to oil?

I hope you are just joking. The US would never attack Canada, even if they wanted oil really bad. They would target Countries that have a Poor reputation or are considered a "threat" by other Countries. But then again I think the chance of the US attacking another Country just for oil is slim.

 

[a_majoor]

Out of Lebanon
Ending Syrian control could change the Middle East â ” but it won't be easy.

By Nir Boms and Aaron Mannes

The car bomb that assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri rocked Beirut, but the political aftershocks could shake the entire region. The assassination has galvanized Lebanese anger towards their Syrian occupiers. But Lebanon is the crutch propping up the weak Assad regime, so the Syrians will not give up easily. If Lebanon is to be free, its people will require strong outside support. If the United States is committed to building a democratic Middle East, it should take advantage of the opportunity created by the tragedy of Hariri's assassination and assertively support Lebanon's democrats.

When Lebanon descended into civil war in the mid-1970s, the Syrian army entered the country, officially as peacekeepers. But they never left. In 1989, the Taif Agreement established a mechanism for their eventual withdrawal. But since then, Damascus has increased its hold in Lebanon, disarmed all of the Lebanese militias except its Hezbollah allies, placed loyalists in key positions in Lebanon's security services, and established a network of financial deals between the elites of Damascus and Beirut. Ultimately Syria's control rests on the combination of over 15,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon and the enormous Syrian intelligence network that permeates Lebanese society.

Billionaire Hariri made his fortune in construction in Saudi Arabia and was the architect of Beirut's reconstruction in the 1990s. He was a central player in the web of corruption binding the Syrian and Lebanese regimes. But when Syria forced Lebanon's parliament to amend the constitution, allowing current president (and Hariri's rival) Emile Lahoud to hold power for another three years, Hariri resigned. He remained in parliament as the opposition leader and called for Syrian troops to withdraw from Lebanon. With his wealth and international stature â ” including a close friendship with French president Jacques Chirac (who echoed U.S. demands that Syria leave Lebanon) â ” Hariri could have severely undermined Syria's control over his country.

Hariri's murderers remain unknown. Syria and Arab pundits claim the assassination was an Israeli plot, but the Lebanese people have little doubt that Syria was responsible. Mourning ceremonies became anti-Syrian rallies. While Hariri's assassination has united the Lebanese, it also demonstrates how far Syria will go to hold on to Lebanon.

Controlling Lebanon is integral to the Syrian regime's survival. The Syrian economy stays afloat by plundering Lebanon and controlling the Beqaa Valley drug trade. But the Damascene stranglehold over Lebanon may be even more important ideologically. Syria's Baathists derive their legitimacy from the concept of Bilad al-Sham, or "Greater Syria," which includes Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and part of Turkey. Relinquishing control of Lebanon would deprive the shaky Syrian regime of its raison d'etre, as well as its preferred venue for attacking Israel. This blow to Syria would also be a blow to Iran, particularly by denying Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah its base of operations. Consequently, Iran and Syria announced their "united front." Wresting Lebanon from Syria would change Middle Eastern geopolitics and advance democracy. But it will not be easy.

Syria is already subject to harsh U.S. sanctions for its decades of support for terrorism â ” most recently manifest in the last bombing in Tel Aviv and in Syria's ongoing support for the Iraqi insurgency â ” leaving the U.S. with limited additional options. Also, the Syrian regime is capable of subtlety. When U.N. Resolution 1559, calling for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, caught Damascus by surprise last September. they quickly staged a number of military convoys for al-Jazeera to portray a withdrawal that never really happened.

Handing over Saddam's half-brother to Iraqi security replays the classic Syrian gambit of providing the U.S. with some intelligence cooperation to deflect the consequences of its role as a regional troublemaker.

The upcoming spring elections will be a crucial opportunity for Lebanon's opposition. Inspired by the free elections in Ukraine and Iraq, the Lebanese opposition is launching a "peaceful uprising for independence."

Meanwhile, Damascus has also taken its lessons from the Ukraine example and is calculating how to shape this spring's Lebanese parliamentary elections through their unfettered access to official Lebanese institutions. The present pro-Syrian government's resignation is a short-term maneuver to defuse the situation and buy time until internal and international pressures fade.

If the Lebanese are to shake off Syria's occupation, the U.S. and the international community must use every means at their disposal to ensure that Lebanon's elections are truly open and to press for a complete withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence operatives. To do any less would miss the opportunity created by Hariri's assassination, consign the Lebanese to more occupation, and betray the American vision of a democratic Middle East as being mere rhetoric.

â ” Nir Boms is the vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East. Aaron Mannes is the author of Profiles in Terror and the Terrorblog.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/boms_mannes200503010745.asp

 

[Blue Max]

Great piece to read a_majoor.
Seems to sum it up perfectly.

B M.

 

[Dogboy]

I hope you are just joking. The US would never attack Canada, even if they wanted oil really bad. They would target Countries that have a Poor reputation or are considered a "threat" by other Countries. But then again I think the chance of the US attacking another Country just for oil is slim.

well I hate to draw a comparison to Germany of pre. WW2 but if got a funny felling that we are like Austria before the takeover
quick clean bloodless and very very scary.
but thats (IMHO)
and I'm a conspiracy nut at times

 

[a_majoor]

I hope you are just joking. The US would never attack Canada, even if they wanted oil really bad. They would target Countries that have a Poor reputation or are considered a "threat" by other Countries. But then again I think the chance of the US attacking another Country just for oil is slim.

The people who make accusations about WW IV being "for oil" do not apply elementary logic to their accusations. Given the facts: Canada has lots of oil; Canada is very close; Canada has no effective military capability to prevent a take over; there should be only one outcome.

Since it is demonstrably true that the United States has not invaded Canada, or installed a procouncel to collect taxes and tribute for the American government (as much as George W probably wants to right now, I can imagine Dr Rice trying to give him a briefing on Canada while Laura massages his neck....), then the hypothisis is false, the United States does not invade coutries for oil.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can imagine Dr Rice trying to give him a briefing on Canada while Laura massages his neck....),

Arthur - your mind wanders into some VERY strange places at times........

 

[a_majoor]

A political briefing!!! Who has the wandering mind Kirkhill ;D