US Govt's Assessment of Assad's Chemical Weapons Attack

Here's the damning U.S. government report on Assad's chemical weapons attack on August 21, in full. The report contains all of the declassified intelligence collected about the attack.

The questions now are: how forceful will Obama's response be? What targets will the U.S. hit and why? Obama has already stated today that his response will be "a narrow act." What exactly does that mean? Why is Obama tipping his hand? So that Assad's wife can continue swimming in the presidential pool?

I believe there is an overwhelming need for the U.S. to decimate the capabilities of the Syrian Air Force. It is time to shut down Assad's air power. I say this not because I believe the U.S. should pick sides in this civil war, but instead, because it is time to level the playing field. If Syria's civil war is truly a popular uprising, then a levelled playing field should reveal the true extent of the support for the (disparate) rebel opposition groups. Otherwise Assad will continue bombing the rebels into oblivion, and the bloodshed will continue unabated.

This is a horrific scenario in which the West is rightfully reticent to get involved. But the reality is that Assad has just committed an unthinkable atrocity, in a region fraught with men willing commit atrocities on a daily basis. The precedent that the UK's Parliament just set -- of sitting out of the action when the U.S. and France are ready to attack Syria -- is simply untenable and cowardly. The West has a moral duty and imperative to act and react when a nation crosses all international mores and norms, such as through the use of WMD's.

The impending U.S. attack on Syria (however limited it might be) is designed to convey one message: the use of WMD's is wholly, completely and eternally unacceptable, and will always be universally condemned by the West. Importantly, this is a crucial message that will be heard loud and clear in Tehran. You can be sure that the Iranians are watching and waiting with wide eyes to see whether or not the West has the backbone and resolve to stop reckless regimes from using WMD's (as Iran has promised to use on Israel, numerous times).

As Iran races to complete its nuclear weapons program, the world is witnessing the opening acts of what will eventually become a broader war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria makes certain that the Iranian regime will not hesitate to do the same. Hence the need for the West to punish Assad. However, Russia's intransigence and blind support of Assad, even in the face of nearly incontrovertible evidence of Assad's chemical attack, also sends a signal to Israel that Russia will similarly stand behind Iran until the very end. These are complex times.

Should the day ever come when Israel feels it must act to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, unilaterally, Russia's unwavering support of Iran is indeed a brutal reality that the entire world will have to face. We are certainly in for some fireworks. Bring your gas mask.

U.S.-Iran War Deadline: March 2013?

It is often argued that the 2003 War in Iraq was a "war of choice". But in fact it was a war of last resort. As Micah Zenko puts it in the article below, "After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options."

Almost a full decade later, the United States has begun to shift its strategy with respect to Iran. As with Iraq in 2003, the United States and its allies recognize that negotiations with Iran cannot drag on ad infinitum. Zenko explains, "Last week... the United States made a significant shift in its strategy. This move, if it plays out, could finally result in the long-rumored and much-debated military attack on Iran's known nuclear sites. In a prepared statement to the agency's Board of Governors, Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA, said:

Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations by attempting to make negotiation of a structured approach on PMD [possible military dimensions] an endless process. Iran must act now, in substance.... If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA, the United States will work with other Board members to pursue appropriate Board action, and would urge the Board to consider reporting this lack of progress to the UN Security Council."

This is certainly a development to watch in the months ahead. The world cannot allow the fanatical Iranian authoritarian Islamic theocracy, driven by 7th Century eschatology, to obtain nuclear weapons. Zenko's article is below. - R.O.

Headlines to watch:

- Iranian nuclear bomb would trigger arms race: Iran ex-official

- US, allies said to be prepared to ‘rapidly’ intervene if Assad utilizes chemical weapons

- USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier arrives off Syrian shore
- Israeli Intelligence Official: Border With Syria Will Soon be “the Hottest Border in Israel”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Countdown: Did the U.S. just set a March deadline for war with Iran?

By: Micah Zenko - December 4, 2012 - Foreign Policy.com

Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA. Credit: Foreign Policy.com

If you have followed the covert and diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon over the past five years, you know that new or noteworthy movements from Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Washington are few and far between. Iran makes fantastic claims about advances in its civilian nuclear program, many of which are subsequently confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Israel threatens to attack Iran in a thinly veiled effort to impel the P5+1 negotiating group (China, Russia, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) to increase economic and diplomatic sanctions; and American officials repeatedly pledge to prevent a nuclear Iran, while the U.S. military gradually strengthens its capabilities in theater and deepens its cooperation with Gulf states in order to contain Iran.

Underpinning this rhetorical bluster is the recognition that negotiations to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA -- to demonstrate that the Iranian civilian nuclear program does not have possible military dimensions, forbidden by the NPT Safeguards Agreement signed by Iran in 1974 -- are not sustainable. Experts predict that the nuclear dispute between the P5+1 (predominantly the United States) and Iran will ultimately be resolved -- either through negotiations or the use of force.Some (including yours truly) have speculated this resolution will come this year, or the following year, or the year after that. During a press conference on Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged this enduring forecasting problem: "I think that it will happen during 2013, but I thought that it will happen during 2012, and saw what happened -- and 2011."

Last week, however, the United States made a significant shift in its strategy. This move, if it plays out, could finally result in the long-rumored and much-debated military attack on Iran's known nuclear sites. In a prepared statement to the agency's Board of Governors, Robert A. Wood, chargé d'affaires to the IAEA, said:

Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations by attempting to make negotiation of a structured approach on PMD [possible military dimensions] an endless process. Iran must act now, in substance.... If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA, the United States will work with other Board members to pursue appropriate Board action, and would urge the Board to consider reporting this lack of progress to the UN Security Council.

Later that day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about Wood's mention of a March deadline. Her reply contained several interesting points:

What was meant about the March reference was either about the IAEA and its continuing work or the fact that we finished our election and now would be a good time to test the proposition that there can be some good-faith serious negotiations before the Iranians get into their elections, which are going to heat up probably around the March period, heading toward a June election.

It's a difficult matter to predict, because it really depends upon how serious the Iranians are about making a decision that removes the possibility of their being able to acquire a nuclear weapon or the components of one that can be in effect on a shelf somewhere and still serve as a basis for intimidation...We'll see in the next few months whether there's a chance for any kind of a serious negotiation.

Here, Clinton implies that the reason to "test" Iran now is not because of progress toward alleged weaponization, but because there is a window for negotiations, after the U.S. election and before the Iranian election. It is interesting that the Obama administration deemed it wrong to "test" Iran during the heat of the U.S. presidential elections but thinks it plausible that, during similar electoral uncertainty, Iranian leaders will reach a broad strategic agreement limiting the country's uranium-enrichment program.

Then, Clinton introduces a vague new goal for negotiations. Until now, Obama administration officials have repeated three claims about U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

First, Iran has not decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. In February 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified, "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." But, he added, "We do not know...if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." The following February, Clapper stated, "We don't believe they've actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon."

Second, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will make the final decision. As Clapper phrased it: "The decision would be made by the Supreme Leader himself, and he would base that on a cost-benefit analysis in terms of -- I don't think you want a nuclear weapon at any price."

Third, because Iran's nuclear program is an intelligence collection priority, U.S. officials would know when the Supreme Leader made this decision and what sort of evidence would reveal his intentions. Clapper: "[A] clear indicator would be enrichment of uranium to a 90 percent level." The declared nuclear sites where such enrichment occurs are subject to IAEA physical inventory verifications, which track progress in Iran's low-enriched uranium stockpiles and are published in quarterly reports.

Why did the Obama administration decide to set this new March deadline? Perhaps, like the Bush administration, it has simply become tired of confronting Iran. Here, the Bush administration's approach to Iraq is worth recalling. In a recent Foreign Policy piece reviewing U.S. policy options toward Iran, Steven Hadley, deputy national security adviser during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, wrote:

The U.S. military action [in Iraq] was not, as many suggest, either a war of choice or a war of preemption. It was, rather, a war of last resort. After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options.

It is difficult to understand why the Bush administration decided to abandon a successful containment strategy of Iraq that cost $14.5 billion a year and no loss of life, for another that will ultimately cost over $3 trillion and the lives of 4,422 U.S. troops. Undertaking a war of choice without definitive evidence of an active chemical or biological weapons program -- let alone a nuclear program -- or threats to the U.S. homeland was an enormous strategic miscalculation with dire consequences.

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program dates back to August 2002, when it was first revealed that Iran had begun a covert uranium-enrichment program in the late 1980s. Since then, the IAEA has repeatedly stated what its Director General Yukio Amano declared last week: "Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

At some point in February or early March of 2013, there will be two significant events relating to a potential countdown to an attack on Iran. Clapper will testify before the House and Senate as part of his annual threat briefings, and the IAEA will release its next quarterly report. Unless there is new intelligence, it is likely that Clapper will maintain his assessment that the Supreme Leader has not made the decision to pursue a bomb -- meaning to enrich enough uranium to bomb-grade level that can be formed into sphere that could be compressed into a critical mass. Meanwhile, absent breakthrough in the P5+1 negotiations or a decision by Tehran that unprecedented transparency with the IAEA will make things better, Amano will again report that there is inadequate cooperation.

In that case, the IAEA Board of Governors could refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which might pass a more robust version of Resolution 1929, which imposed sanctions. But then what? If the Supreme Leader does not make a decision to pursue a bomb (which the United States claims it would detect), and if Iran does not produce sufficient highly-enriched uranium for a bomb at a declared site (which the IAEA would detect), then what would trigger an attack by the United States and/or Israel? What would the "redline" be?

The answer depends greatly on whether the timeline to attack Iran is based on Israel's national interest and its military capabilities, or those of the United States. Israeli officials have stated at various times that redlines should be "clear" (without providing clarity) and that they "should be made, but not publicly." One also said, "I don't want to set redlines or deadlines for myself." Since November 2011, Israeli officials have also warned about a "zone of immunity," which Barak has described as "not where the Iranians decide to break out of the non-proliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place where the dispersal, protection and survivability efforts will cross a point that would make a physical strike impractical."

It is unclear how dispersed, protected, or survivable Iran's nuclear program would have to be, but Secretary Clinton's warning of "components...on a shelf somewhere" could indicate that the Obama administration is moving toward the zone of immunity logic. But what are these components, how many would be required to assume "weaponization," and how would this new intelligence be presented as a justification for war? In addition, it is tough to make the case for going to war with Iran because it refused to concentrate its nuclear sites (that are under IAEA safeguards) in above-ground facilities that can be easily bombed.

Previously, U.S. officials have been less eager than the Israelis to define a specific redline, largely because the two countries have different perceptions of the Iranian threat and vastly different military capabilities. Setting a March deadline provides some certainty and perhaps coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. But declaring deadlines also places U.S. "credibility" on the line, generating momentum to use force even if there is no new actionable intelligence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. Based on what we know right now, that would be a strategic miscalculation.

By: Micah Zenko

UK leads calls to 'shape' Syria opposition - Al Jazeera

Very interesting development within hours of Barack Obama's re-election: the UK is now saying it will "deal directly with rebel military leaders" in Syria. Is this the right move for the West? Should Western governments escalate the conflict there? Were Western nations simply waiting for the US election to finish before deciding their next move? 

The answer to the latter question seems obvious, as NATO allies (such as the UK) are now openly advocating for an escalation of support for Syrian rebels. The question is: what is the West's end game in Syria? After Assad is toppled, who will take control? Will they take control? Are the "rebels" people that the West can trust? What about the extremist factions within the Syrian rebellion?

My fear is that, like Iraq, the West will entrench itself in another intractable sectarian conflict, one that this time borders Israel. This is certainly a story to watch. - R.O.

UK leads calls to 'shape' Syria opposition - Al Jazeera

British Prime Minister David Cameron said UK and allies should do more to open direct communication with rebel leaders.

Western efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad have shifted dramatically, with Britain saying it will deal directly with rebel military leaders and Turkey saying NATO members have discussed protecting a safe zone inside Syria with Patriot missiles.

The developments came within hours of President Barack Obama's re-election on Tuesday, which US allies said they have been waiting for before implementing new strategies to end the deadlocked civil war that has killed more than 36,000 people over the past year and a half.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, visiting a camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan, said the US, Britain and other allies should do more to "shape the opposition'' into a coherent force and open channels of communication directly with rebel military commanders.

Previously, Britain and the US have acknowledged contacts only with exile groups and political opposition figures inside Syria.

And a Turkish official said Turkey and allies, including the United States, have discussed the possibility of using Patriot missiles to protect a safe zone inside Syria.

The foreign ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of ministry prohibitions on contacts with the news media, said planning for the safe zone had been put on hold pending the US election.

He said any missile deployment might happen under a "NATO umbrella'', though NATO has insisted it will not intervene without a clear United Nations mandate.

"There is an opportunity for Britain, for America, for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and like-minded allies to come together and try to help shape the opposition, outside Syria and inside Syria,'' Cameron said. "And try to help them achieve their goal, which is our goal of a Syria without Assad.''

International pressure
Cameron is currently on a tour of the Middle East and speaking on Obama's re-election said: "I am hearing appalling stories about what has happened inside Syria so one of the first things I want to talk to Barack about is how we must do more to try and solve this crisis.”

The news comes as the Syrian National Council's (SNC) general assembly of nearly 420 members met on Wednesday to choose two leadership bodies and a president during a conference in the Qatari capital Doha.

Syria's main opposition bloc has succumbed to intense international pressure from critics and begun electing new leaders to appease critics who say the exile-dominated group does not represent those risking their lives on the frontlines to oust the regime.

The SNC, largely made up of exiles, has been criticised as ineffective and out of touch with those trying to topple Assad.

The US has called for a more unified and representative opposition, suggesting an end to the SNC's leadership.

SNC officials say the internal election may not be enough to deflect such criticism and halt US-backed efforts to set up an alternate leadership group.

Al Jazeera's Omar Al Saleh, reporting from Doha, said: "The new leadership will discuss an initiative given by an opposition member who is also a current of the SNC.

"That initiative is backed by the international community, France, US as well as Qatar, KSA and other countries. According to that initiative, a new council might emerge," he said

"The SNC fears that that council might be a replacement to them and this is for the political wrangling and negotiations will be decisive for the fate of the Syrian revolution" he added.

Europe Volunteers Churches to Become Mosques

More than a little troubling, to say the least. What does this mean for the future of Europe? -R.O.

Europe Volunteers Churches to Become Mosques
Wed, October 24, 2012

by:  Giulio Meotti

The writer Emile Cioran cast a sad prophecy on Europe: “The French will not wake up until Notre Dame becomes a mosque.”

This is now a reality. But unlike the Middle East, where non-Muslim sites were razed or violently converted to Islam, in Europe this process is voluntary.

The church of Saint-Eloi in the French region of Vierzon will soon become a mosque. The diocese of Bourges has put on sale the church and a Muslim organization, l’Association des Marocains, made the most generous offer to buy the site.

The church of Saint-Eloi is located in an area inhabited by Turks and Moroccans. It’s the “de-Christianization” of Europe, which is naturally followed by its gradual Islamization and increasing anti-Semitism. Of 27.000 inhabitants in the town of Vierzon, only 300 go to church once a week.

In the past decade, French Catholic bishops formally closed more than 60 churches, many of which are destined to become mosques, according to the research conducted by the newspaper La Croix.

According to a recent report of the U.S. Pew Center, Islam is already “the fastest-growing religion in Europe,” where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years. One-third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025.

Demography is the most important symptom of exhaustion: Without a cradle, you can't sustain a civilization.

To understand this historic process, one has to see the number of churches converted into mosques.

In the Netherlands, more than 250 buildings where Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists have prayed for centuries, have changed owners. Like the Fatih Camii Mosque in Amsterdam, which once was Saint Ignatius, a Catholic church. Or the church of S. Vincentius, which was put on sale along with the benches, the crucifixes and the chandeliers. Today more than half of the Dutch population is buitenkerkelijk, free from any religious affiliation. Catholics have decreased by 70 percent.

Islam is now considered the “most widely practiced religion” in the Netherlands. The Oude Kerk, the oldest church in Amsterdam, built in 1309, stands solidly in the heart of downtown. Around it is the red-light district with the South American and Eastern European prostitutes knocking on the glass to attract the attention of passersby.

The Neuwe Kerk, the church where the Dutch kings were crowned, is a museum. The only "church" in the city that is crowded is that of Scientology, which offers free stress tests.

4,400 church buildings remain in the Netherlands. Each week, two close their doors forever.

In Duisburg, Germany, the Catholic church closed six churches. In Marxloh, the only church that survives, that of St. Peter and Paul, will close at the end of 2012. In Germany 400 churches have been closed.

The municpality of Antwerp, Belgium proposed to transform the empty churches into mosques. Scandinavia lives the same phenomenon. To cite one case, the Swedish church of St. Olfos is used by the Muslims. The main mosque in Dublin is a former Presbyterian church.

In England, 10,000 churches have been closed since 1960. By 2020, another 4.000 churches will close while another 1,700 new mosques will be built, many of which will arise on sites of former churches.

“God is dead” declared Friedrich Nietzsche and Europe obliged. Now, Europe is poised to adopt the Koranic, “There is no God but Allah.” And the old Gregorian chants will be substituted by the muezzin.

Europe's tragedy is embodied by the sterile blocks of concrete and glass of the European Union in Bruxelles. Symbols of the moral emptiness within. Meanwhile the top seven baby boys’ names in Brussels are Mohammed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.

A couple of years ago I visited Rotterdam, the Dutch industrial polmon. Everywhere are casbah-cafes, travel agencies offering flights to Rabat and Casablanca, and posters expressing solidarity with Hamas. Most of the population are immigrants, and the city has the tallest and most imposing mosque in Europe.

When arriving in the city by train, most striking are the mosques framed by the green, luxuriant, wooded, watery countryside. Rotterdam has the tallest minarets in Europe. The city was buzzing when the newspapers published a letter by Bouchra Ismaili, a city councilmanwho declared, "Listen up, crazy freaks, we're here to stay. You're the foreigners here. With Allah on my side, I'm not afraid of anything. Take my advice: Convert to Islam, and you will find peace."

A French friend showed me one of Rotterdam's main squares, where there is a mosque with Arabic writing outside proclaiming, "This used to be a church.”

Is Islam the destiny for the world's most affluent, relaxed and pacified societies which opted for self-liquidation?

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist with Il Foglio. He is the author of the acclaimed book, A New Shoah, that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims (published by Encounter). His writing has appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage, Makor Rishon and Jerusalem Post. He is working on a book about the Vatican and Israel.