Heads You Win... Tails I lose

So Syria has used Chemical weapons in its civil war… now what?

U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence all seem to be stating that the Syrian Government of Bashir al-Assad has used Sarin gas against rebels (and civilians) in its on-going civil war.

According to Israeli Military Intelligence:

“To the best of our understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons,” said Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of the Research and Analysis Division at the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Speaking at a security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun said further that based on the pictures of the victims — the size of their pupils, “and the foam coming out of their mouths” — the army believed that Assad’s troops had used the lethal nerve gas Sarin as a weapon.

 

The British have also reached this conclusion:

Britain's Foreign Office said on Thursday it had information showing chemical weapon use in Syria, and called on Assad to cooperate with international bodies to prove he had not sanctioned their use

"We have limited but persuasive information from various sources showing chemical weapon use in Syria, including Sarin. This is extremely concerning. Use of chemical weapons is a war crime," a Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement. 

And an un-named Israeli source had this to say:

A second senior Israeli military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said on Tuesday that chemical weapons appear to have been used in five cases. He said “dozens” of people were killed in the attacks when a “Sarin-type” chemical was dispersed.

So now Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have weighed in with the following commentary:

US intelligence has concluded "with some degree of varying confidence," that the Syrian government has used Sarin gas as a weapon in its two-year-old civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck

Both the U.S. and Britain are now doing assessments to see if indeed the intelligence matches with actual events, though for this to come out so definitively means that both the U.S. and the British are inclined to believe the Israeli report.

 But all this said… What next? 

Syrian resistance calls on the U.S. to act decisively here and actively enter the fray to take out the Assad dictatorship. Now certainly this dictatorship ranks amongst the worst in human rights violators on the planet (though strangely enough human rights groups are remarkably silent about this). Estimates have the placed over 70,000 deaths in the course of the two year civil war.

This information seems to create a fairly compelling case for U.S. involvement to help end the misery that the Syrian people suffer at the hands of the murderous Assad dictatorship. After all, how could we “sit on our hands” while watching the Syrian government use Chemical weapons on its’ own populace.

But, the decision in this case is not that easy due to the fact that the Syrian resistance is littered with and to a large degree influenced by Salafist and al-Qaeda elements. Active U.S. and Western European involvement in this conflict on the part of the rebels could in fact cause a worse set of outcomes.

How?

1. Should the U.S. and Europe get involved there is no doubt that this would change the course of fighting in Syria, and that the regime in Damascus would be seeing its last days. But what of the government afterwards? Right now rebel groups are split amongst themselves as far as “end results”, the majority of them certainly want nothing to do with the West and an alliance with us. There is a strong Salafist presence in these groups and what would they do once they won? It is my opinion that we could be looking at the recreation of a second Taliban like government in Syria.

Remember, these groups are heavily supported and funded by Conservative / Reactionary Wahabite regimes. In this case our involvement would be creating a more problematic regime than the brutal Assad dictatorship. Given the presence of al-Qaeda in the ranks of the rebels, I am not sure that this would be any kind of improvement over the current situation.

2. Should the rebels win, they have promised to spread their “Jihad” to U.S. ally (and one of the last remaining nations at peace with Israel) Jordan. Though some rebel elements are training in Jordan (supposedly with the help of U.S. Special Forces and the CIA), parts of the Jihadist elements of the rebel forces have threatened to take the fight to Jordan in an effort to create a Muslim Brotherhood sponsored “wall” (for lack of a better term) around what they like to call the “Zionist Entity” (Israel to you and I).

The Jordanian regime is not that powerful that they can fight off a sustained and asymetrical jihadist effort, particularly one backed by a State government, without radically changing their political orientation (away from the West and certainly OUT of their Peace treaty with Israel). They are already facing hardships from inside their own polity. So, as we can see…. a rebel victory could put a Salafist, Neo-Jihadi government in place of a reliable Western ally.

3. With respect to Israel, a rebel win means that on the Northern border Israel would face Lebanon / Hizbollah (Iran’s last and strongest client in the area), and an unstable Islamist Syria. Should the rebels win there would be strong regional pressure on Jordan (or see above total collapse) to abrogate its peace agreement with Israel, a move that would certainly de-stabilize the Central Front. And in the South of course there is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government that while sticking to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty (they would lose all that needed aid from the U.S. if they didn’t) certainly could change that at any time.

4. The Assad regime is a last stronghold of Russian influence in the Middle East, not too mention an outpost for the Iranian theocracy. While Iran couldn’t step into the war in any effective manner (the Revolutionary Guard already is on the ground there) against Western Military forces, Russian military involvement (through advisors not ground troops) could complicate matters. The Russians have provided the Assad regime with cover in the U.N. but if the Russians saw their interests in the Mediterranean threatened I would not be surprised to see their military advisors begin to get involved.

5. Finally, should the rebels win, there are two places that these chemical weapons can end up. The first is in the hands of the rebel military, basically this would mean that al-Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood factions in Syria would end up with a stockpile of Chemical Weapons. OR the weapons would end up in the hands of Hizbollah as the Syrian government would reward their allies with some choice military technology. Either way, that is incredibly bad news for both the U.S. and Israel.

Basically, what I am saying is that a rebel win in Syria could very easily destabilize the entire region and cause a much larger than regional problem.

BUT at the same time… the Assad regime is using Chemical Weapons on his own people. How can anyone sit back and watch that when they have the power to change it? In reality, how can our consciences rest at ease watching the slaughter of men, women, and children at the hands of a brutal dictatorship? Given our history, how can we as Jews do anything but stand against this kind of horrific behavior of a government against its own citizens?

Honestly, there are no good answers here. On one hand the Assad regime cannot be allowed to stay in power given their heinous use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they have indeed done this, there is really no way that they can be allowed to stay in power. At the same time as amply showed above, any active move to take them out doesn’t necessarily improve the situation for anyone, including the Syrian people.

Personally, I can’t think of any good solutions, just solutions that are less bad and none of them involve “sitting on hands”. If we do nothing we are faced with either a victory by Iran, Hizbollah and one of the worlds worst offenders of Human Rights, the Assad regime…. OR we are faced with the likely creation of an al-Qaeda / Jihadi client state.

It’s head’s You win or tails.. I Lose.

President Obama... Stand up for Egyptian Democracy, Now is your chance

Though the initial Arab Spring protests received a great deal of coverage, except for a few diaries, the recent turmoil in Egypt has generated little discussion here. But now things in that nation have taken a turn for the worse.

After successfully navigating a minefield in the flare-up of violence (with the help of U.S. Secretary of State Clinton) between Israel and Hamas, Egyptian President Morsi was on the way towards helping Egypt regain it's role as a regional power broker. But then... the other foot came down.

President Morsi, then went on to try to change the Egyptian revolution and subsequent elections which had swept him (and his religious cohorts) into power in the wake of the deposing of Egyptian Dictator Hosni Mubarak. Morsi, decided that to "save democracy" he had to destroy democracy. More to the point, he declared himself free of constraints in ruling and had a new constitution drafted.

However, many people in Egypt didn't particularly like this action and have taken to the streets in an attempt to defend their newly found democratic rights. In recent days, pro-Morsi demonstrators and anti-Morsi demonstrators have clashed with a number of people winding up dead, over 700 people injured, the Presidential palace barricaded, and the Presidents family evacuated from their home.

So here is the news from today:

Egyptian protesters broke through a barbed wire barricade keeping them from the presidential palace in Cairo on Friday and some climbed onto army tanks and waved flags. Up to 10,000 protesters had been penned behind the barrier, guarded by tanks that were deployed on Thursday after a night of violence between supporters and opponents of the Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, in which seven people were killed.

The two camps in the country's divide appeared at a deadlock, after President Mohammed Morsi gave a fiery televised speech Thursday night denouncing his opponents and refusing to call off a referendum on a draft constitution promulgated by his allies, even as he appealed for dialogue. The opposition rejected talks, saying he must first cancel the referendum and meet other demands.

Both sides seem to be seeing this as a fight for Egypt's future. Pro-Morsi demonstrators had this to say"

"Egypt is Islamic, it will not be secular, it will not be liberal," the crowd chanted in a funeral procession filling streets around the mosque. During the funeral, thousands chanted, "With blood and soul, we redeem Islam," pumping their fists in the air. Mourners yelled that opposition leaders were "murderers." 

One hardline cleric speaking to the crowd denounced anti-Morsi protesters as "traitors." Another declared that they will not allow Egypt to become "a den of hash smokers."

"We march on this path in sacrifice for the nation and our martyrs," a leading Brotherhood figure, Mohammed el-Beltagy, told the crowd. "We will keep going even if we all become martyrs. We will avenge them or die like them.

As prime benefactors of Egypt, the U.S. can and does have a role to play here. As we did during the overthrow of the Dictator Mubarak, and with the subsequent Egyptian elections we need to put our weight behind the democratic process that the Egyptians set in motion in the first place. While one can understand why the President would "play his cards close to the vest", what with things in the Middle East Region taking continually more dangerous turns, it is also important that the President let the Egyptian people know that he (and the United States) stands on the side of Democracy. 

President Morsi was and still maybe the democratic choice by the people of Egypt, however, just because that happened does not mean that as the democratic choice of the nation he has the power or right to destroy the very democracy that put him into power. I would bet, that had people known what he was going to attempt to do (though history should have been a guide given his background with the Brotherhood) he would not have been able to forge the coalition of liberals AND Islamists that he did to win the election in the first place.

So for President Obama, I believe the administration (and our nation) should stand up forcefully and publicly and be counted as a voice urging President Morsi to reconsider the path he seems to be on and to scrap his new constitution and attempts to destroy the budding democracy that Egypt is trying to build. Just as we fought voter suppression here in the U.S. when Republicans tried it, shouldn't we reflect that in our relationships with our allies? I urge everyone here to write to congress and let the Egyptian people know that we stand with them in their desire to preserve Democracy in their nation.

BRILLIANT!!!

Here is a great piece of information from the Obama Administration about it's relationship with Israel.

Despite what those with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) screech, the President has been a true friend to both the Israeli and Jewish people.

Please take a look at this video and pass it along

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/izUkZpTft2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It is hard to argue with the facts in this case.

One thing I noticed in the film was the speech from Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Betainu). I admit that I had a hard time believing that he would be in praise of the President. SO I searched for that speech and found it. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post.

"Obama remains committed to Israel as a Jewish state and even demanded answers from the Palestinians regarding the reconciliation deal with Hamas," Ayalon said at a cultural event in Holon.

"The president stood up for Israel's right to self-defense," Ayalon added, as well as "the need for defensible borders and the end to [all] claims."

The deputy foreign minister continued, "It is clear from Obama's speech that no agreement will be forced upon Israel and that unilateral measures will fail."
With yesterday's victory of the hardline Islamists in Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood got 38% and Salafist al-Nour got 29% of the popular vote), Israel's security needs become that much more paramount. Ensuring that the new rulers of Egypt adhere to the Peace Treaty (which no one is sure yet what they will do) is of Prime Importance. Particularly with Hamas/Egyptian ties growing and Hamas/Iran-Syria ties diminishing. Hamas is most likely going to try to provoke something unless the Egyptians rein them in.

The President and his administration have done everything possible to affect this - though American leadership has not met with the Salafists (who have been compared to the Taliban). According to the administration, their course of action (and this makes perfect sense) is to judge what the Egyptian Government actually does and base policy decisions on that. But unless they are "in the game" they have no way to affect change. As the article cited below mentions... the U.S. is heavily involved for precisely this reason as well as has been involved in getting assurances from the Egyptians.

Referring to a recent on the Muslim Brotherhood member interview with Al Hayat, where he said that the treaty with Israel is not binding, Nuland said: "We’ve seen this press report. I would say that it is one member of the Muslim Brotherhood. We have‬ had other assurances from the party with regard to their commitment not only to universal human rights, but to the international obligations that the Government of Egypt has undertaken."
         
The U.S. official added by saying that, "as we’ve said again and again, not only with regard to Egypt but with regard to other states in that region in transition, we expect that legitimate parties will not only support universal human rights, but will also continue to support international obligations made by their governments they have made commitments to us along those regards, and as I said, we will judge these parties by what they do."

Nuland's comments came after last month top Egyptian opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei told Iran's Fars news agency that the United States is engaged in secret talks with Egypt's ruling military council geared at ensuring that the country's democratically elected regime will maintain its peace treaty with Israel.

"The negotiations were completely secret and confidential," ElBaradei told Fars, adding that what the ruling military indicated "said was that the talks were about bilateral and mutual relations, but I believe that Americans wanted to ensure that the deals signed between Egypt and Israel will remain intact if Islamists ascend to power."
Anyhow, Please take a look at the video - or the link that is posted. It is campaign material and so should be viewed in that light - but it is very effective and it is all true.

WELL DONE BY TEAM OBAMA!