WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin (POO'-tihn) about a potential plan for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international control.
Syria has welcomed an idea floated Monday for it to hand over chemical weapons for destruction to avoid a U.S. military strike. The public proposal from Russia followed what seemed to be an offhand remark by Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.N. secretary-general also backs the idea.
Obama tells PBS' "NewsHour" that he and Putin did speak about it last week while Obama was in St. Petersburg, Russia, for an economic summit. Obama and Putin had an impromptu chat Friday for about 20 minutes.
Obama says it was a continuation of previous conversations he's had with Putin about securing Syria's chemical weapons.
The Obama administration is insanely indecisive and they keep digging themselves a bigger hole. The US has lost some serious, serious credibility, power, influence across the board in the world from allies and enemies alike during the past couple years.
To sum up events:
1. Obama says Syria chemicals weapons red line 2. CW used multiple times, but apparently August 21 is the one that really crossed the red line. 3. US, UK, France make it seem like a strike is about to happen any second. 4. US, France ready for strikes, UK asks parliament. 5. UK parliament rejects intervention. 6. Obama backtracks and says he will ask congress for approval for unknown reason even though he said he was ready to strike and didn't need their approval 7. Obama's administration war rhetoric goes into full gear. 8. John Kerry says they won't strike Syria if they hand over their chemical weapons, most likely answering a reporters question which he didn't think much of. 9. Russian brilliantly puts him on the spot and says it will launch initiative to get Al-Assad to agree to it. 10. Syria agrees, knowing full well it is almost impossible for the Obama administration to follow through on the offer. 11. White House/ Susan rice go into damage control and say Kerry's remarks were rhetoric not an actual proposal. 12 Obama says he will consider a diplomatic solution and is considering russia's proposal.
As a primary backer of the Syrian government, Iran has argued vehemently against US airstrikes, warned that sectarian "fire" will spread, and that jihadi rebels may have been behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that US officials say killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus.
According to leaked diplomatic correspondence, Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.
In a letter acquired by The Christian Science Monitor that was sent sometime in the spring, Iran told American officials that, as a "supporter" of the rebels, the US would be held responsible for any rebel use of chemical weapons.
On September 10 2013 11:18 sekritzzz wrote: The Obama administration is insanely indecisive and they keep digging themselves a bigger hole. The US has lost some serious, serious credibility, power, influence across the board in the world from allies and enemies alike during the past couple years.
To sum up events:
1. Obama says Syria chemicals weapons red line 2. CW used multiple times, but apparently August 21 is the one that really crossed the red line. 3. US, UK, France make it seem like a strike is about to happen any second. 4. US, France ready for strikes, UK asks parliament. 5. UK parliament rejects intervention. 6. Obama backtracks and says he will ask congress for approval for unknown reason even though he said he was ready to strike and didn't need their approval 7. Obama's administration war rhetoric goes into full gear. 8. John Kerry says they won't strike Syria if they hand over their chemical weapons, most likely answering a reporters question which he didn't think much of. 9. Russian brilliantly puts him on the spot and says it will launch initiative to get Al-Assad to agree to it. 10. Syria agrees, knowing full well it is almost impossible for the Obama administration to follow through on the offer. 11. White House/ Susan rice go into damage control and say Kerry's remarks were rhetoric not an actual proposal. 12 Obama says he will consider a diplomatic solution and is considering russia's proposal.
i don't think its indecisive at all. its intentions are clear, they want to attack syria, for US interests. The problem is, how to justify it?? Its a game of chess bro, first claim that Syria used chemical weapons, now Russia comes up with a counter, oh we will just tell Syria to hand over control of chemical weapons. Obama administration : "Oh shit thats a great plan now what do we say? Well fuck we have to agree with it, lets just say yes and try to stall and see what next move we can come up with."
Seriously though am I the only one that doesn't really mind a couple of airstrikes that would cripple the Assad government? The country is already turned to shit, the fighting will already continue, and its not like its gonna cost us a shitload more money than we've already spent. If it is in the US interests to do it then at this point fuck it, just do it. We've gone this far already now we're gonna pull out and look weak as shit?? Thats the wrong idea. If we back out now we will lose influence, Russia will gain influence and we will make more enemies when Assad gains control of his country again. Its dumb, and if we back out and just fund the rebels more its just gonna be more bloodshed and more problems. Just intervene already and cut some more of Russia's influence from the middle east and Europe.
or just open the spoiler below to read, but the original link contains other links in the comment that provide sources as well as more interesting reads
I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.
permalink source save-RES hide child comments
[–]Arguss [score hidden] 8 hours ago*
EDIT: my original post was too long to go over these things in details; I'd appreciate it if people upvoted this post to the top so that others will see it.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, Iraq is also a Shia majority country. Its government is a coalition government which includes Shia in the governing power. Bahrain is also likely a Shia majority country. Finally, Azerbaijan is a Shia majority country, although it depends on how you define the Middle East as to whether it is a Middle Eastern Shia majority country.
Additionally, the Middle East is not an absolute majority on US oil imports; according to recent figures, OPEC is actually a plurality of around 40%, with Middle Eastern countries of OPEC accounting for 21% of imports, and Canada accounting for about 30% of US imports. This is because of the rise in oil production in Canada owing, in part at least, to the Alberta Tar Sands[1] , which have brought a lot of jobs as well as controversy to the Alberta province. If you want to know more about this, there is probably a post on it over at /r/canada[2] or /r/canadapolitics[3] .
Lastly, there is some discussion as to whether Israel really wants the Syrian government, and al-Assad specifically, to fall. Several posters suggest that Israel would rather al-Assad stay in place because he's the 'devil we know' for Israel. That being the case, Israel may not be interested in regime change so much as stopping conflict from crossing over their northern border.
EDIT2: I can no longer keep up with all of the responses. I have tried to address all of the major points that are repeatedly being brought up, but until this slows down I won't be able to get through individual posts.
I will also thank /u/SENACMEEPHFAIRMA[4] for pointing out that the UN Security Council has 15 members, not 12. I misremembered. He/she goes over several good critiques of my post. You can read his/her post here[5] .
EDIT3: WOW FRONT PAGE! Thanks for all votes, guys, and whoever gave me those 2 Reddit golds.
As always my post is my opinion based on the facts that I have gathered, along with some inference on my part. Any readers should always keep an open mind to possible flaws in my logic or refuting evidence, and of course look up such matters themselves to be abreast of an issue.
Russia's diplomacy is working wonderful, their cool headed way of thinking this makes them great at this game.
Now that Obama can back out in a nice way, i hope that foreign strikes can be avoid. However the conflict goes on, bullets kill just as much as chemical weapons. What happens to the conflict? If Assad dodges the foreign strike bullet, i think he's on a path to win this one.
On September 10 2013 11:18 sekritzzz wrote: The Obama administration is insanely indecisive and they keep digging themselves a bigger hole. The US has lost some serious, serious credibility, power, influence across the board in the world from allies and enemies alike during the past couple years.
To sum up events:
1. Obama says Syria chemicals weapons red line 2. CW used multiple times, but apparently August 21 is the one that really crossed the red line. 3. US, UK, France make it seem like a strike is about to happen any second. 4. US, France ready for strikes, UK asks parliament. 5. UK parliament rejects intervention. 6. Obama backtracks and says he will ask congress for approval for unknown reason even though he said he was ready to strike and didn't need their approval 7. Obama's administration war rhetoric goes into full gear. 8. John Kerry says they won't strike Syria if they hand over their chemical weapons, most likely answering a reporters question which he didn't think much of. 9. Russian brilliantly puts him on the spot and says it will launch initiative to get Al-Assad to agree to it. 10. Syria agrees, knowing full well it is almost impossible for the Obama administration to follow through on the offer. 11. White House/ Susan rice go into damage control and say Kerry's remarks were rhetoric not an actual proposal. 12 Obama says he will consider a diplomatic solution and is considering russia's proposal.
i don't think its indecisive at all. its intentions are clear, they want to attack syria, for US interests. The problem is, how to justify it?? Its a game of chess bro, first claim that Syria used chemical weapons, now Russia comes up with a counter, oh we will just tell Syria to hand over control of chemical weapons. Obama administration : "Oh shit thats a great plan now what do we say? Well fuck we have to agree with it, lets just say yes and try to stall and see what next move we can come up with."
Seriously though am I the only one that doesn't really mind a couple of airstrikes that would cripple the Assad government? The country is already turned to shit, the fighting will already continue, and its not like its gonna cost us a shitload more money than we've already spent. If it is in the US interests to do it then at this point fuck it, just do it. We've gone this far already now we're gonna pull out and look weak as shit?? Thats the wrong idea. If we back out now we will lose influence, Russia will gain influence and we will make more enemies when Assad gains control of his country again. Its dumb, and if we back out and just fund the rebels more its just gonna be more bloodshed and more problems. Just intervene already and cut some more of Russia's influence from the middle east and Europe.
or just open the spoiler below to read, but the original link contains other links in the comment that provide sources as well as more interesting reads
I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.
permalink source save-RES hide child comments
[–]Arguss [score hidden] 8 hours ago*
EDIT: my original post was too long to go over these things in details; I'd appreciate it if people upvoted this post to the top so that others will see it.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, Iraq is also a Shia majority country. Its government is a coalition government which includes Shia in the governing power. Bahrain is also likely a Shia majority country. Finally, Azerbaijan is a Shia majority country, although it depends on how you define the Middle East as to whether it is a Middle Eastern Shia majority country.
Additionally, the Middle East is not an absolute majority on US oil imports; according to recent figures, OPEC is actually a plurality of around 40%, with Middle Eastern countries of OPEC accounting for 21% of imports, and Canada accounting for about 30% of US imports. This is because of the rise in oil production in Canada owing, in part at least, to the Alberta Tar Sands[1] , which have brought a lot of jobs as well as controversy to the Alberta province. If you want to know more about this, there is probably a post on it over at /r/canada[2] or /r/canadapolitics[3] .
Lastly, there is some discussion as to whether Israel really wants the Syrian government, and al-Assad specifically, to fall. Several posters suggest that Israel would rather al-Assad stay in place because he's the 'devil we know' for Israel. That being the case, Israel may not be interested in regime change so much as stopping conflict from crossing over their northern border.
EDIT2: I can no longer keep up with all of the responses. I have tried to address all of the major points that are repeatedly being brought up, but until this slows down I won't be able to get through individual posts.
I will also thank /u/SENACMEEPHFAIRMA[4] for pointing out that the UN Security Council has 15 members, not 12. I misremembered. He/she goes over several good critiques of my post. You can read his/her post here[5] .
EDIT3: WOW FRONT PAGE! Thanks for all votes, guys, and whoever gave me those 2 Reddit golds.
As always my post is my opinion based on the facts that I have gathered, along with some inference on my part. Any readers should always keep an open mind to possible flaws in my logic or refuting evidence, and of course look up such matters themselves to be abreast of an issue.
It's awesome that you are reading more into the situation. A few cruise missles to what end? No Objective No Victory. Looking weak has been a pro-war talking point all week, sooo are you selling or buying? As Jon Stewart put it, are we in seventh fucking grade?
In your opinion, why has Syria turned to shit? Is the U.S. and it allies culpable for any developments? Nearly a year and a half of covert/overt and political cover for the rebels make a difference. Why support Syria protestors and not Bahrain for example(Answer:Realpolitik, not humanitarian, or moral, or international law or any other contrived reason)
Do U.S. politicians commit criminal acts in supporting associated forces of Al-Q contrary to the letter of the law (Patriot Act/AUMF2001). Ask the American who was charged with use of a WMD in Syria what he thinks.
If Syria turns over it 'stocks' will international pressure turn on Saudi/Qatar trafficking?
Just a few questions to help your characters story arc.
On September 10 2013 20:49 Ghanburighan wrote: France (and the US) calling Russia's bluff on destroying Syrian CW with a UNSC resolution. Link.
US still wants to strike. According to the article proposed resolution will include putting blame for chemical attack on Syria. While Russian offer was about international control of chemical weapon, not about finding guilty. So Russia and most likely China will reject resolution with commentaries about the text. Commentaries that will be ignored by U.S. and western media. Russia will be blamed for bluffing and outright lie.
The plan for Syria to turn over it's chemical weapons for destruction is a good idea that will allow everyone to save face. It's a smart move and Syria has agreed to it.
On September 10 2013 11:18 sekritzzz wrote: The Obama administration is insanely indecisive and they keep digging themselves a bigger hole. The US has lost some serious, serious credibility, power, influence across the board in the world from allies and enemies alike during the past couple years.
To sum up events:
1. Obama says Syria chemicals weapons red line 2. CW used multiple times, but apparently August 21 is the one that really crossed the red line. 3. US, UK, France make it seem like a strike is about to happen any second. 4. US, France ready for strikes, UK asks parliament. 5. UK parliament rejects intervention. 6. Obama backtracks and says he will ask congress for approval for unknown reason even though he said he was ready to strike and didn't need their approval 7. Obama's administration war rhetoric goes into full gear. 8. John Kerry says they won't strike Syria if they hand over their chemical weapons, most likely answering a reporters question which he didn't think much of. 9. Russian brilliantly puts him on the spot and says it will launch initiative to get Al-Assad to agree to it. 10. Syria agrees, knowing full well it is almost impossible for the Obama administration to follow through on the offer. 11. White House/ Susan rice go into damage control and say Kerry's remarks were rhetoric not an actual proposal. 12 Obama says he will consider a diplomatic solution and is considering russia's proposal.
i don't think its indecisive at all. its intentions are clear, they want to attack syria, for US interests. The problem is, how to justify it?? Its a game of chess bro, first claim that Syria used chemical weapons, now Russia comes up with a counter, oh we will just tell Syria to hand over control of chemical weapons. Obama administration : "Oh shit thats a great plan now what do we say? Well fuck we have to agree with it, lets just say yes and try to stall and see what next move we can come up with."
Seriously though am I the only one that doesn't really mind a couple of airstrikes that would cripple the Assad government? The country is already turned to shit, the fighting will already continue, and its not like its gonna cost us a shitload more money than we've already spent. If it is in the US interests to do it then at this point fuck it, just do it. We've gone this far already now we're gonna pull out and look weak as shit?? Thats the wrong idea. If we back out now we will lose influence, Russia will gain influence and we will make more enemies when Assad gains control of his country again. Its dumb, and if we back out and just fund the rebels more its just gonna be more bloodshed and more problems. Just intervene already and cut some more of Russia's influence from the middle east and Europe.
or just open the spoiler below to read, but the original link contains other links in the comment that provide sources as well as more interesting reads
I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria.
Realpolitik
refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.
permalink source save-RES hide child comments
[–]Arguss [score hidden] 8 hours ago*
EDIT: my original post was too long to go over these things in details; I'd appreciate it if people upvoted this post to the top so that others will see it.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, Iraq is also a Shia majority country. Its government is a coalition government which includes Shia in the governing power. Bahrain is also likely a Shia majority country. Finally, Azerbaijan is a Shia majority country, although it depends on how you define the Middle East as to whether it is a Middle Eastern Shia majority country.
Additionally, the Middle East is not an absolute majority on US oil imports; according to recent figures, OPEC is actually a plurality of around 40%, with Middle Eastern countries of OPEC accounting for 21% of imports, and Canada accounting for about 30% of US imports. This is because of the rise in oil production in Canada owing, in part at least, to the Alberta Tar Sands[1] , which have brought a lot of jobs as well as controversy to the Alberta province. If you want to know more about this, there is probably a post on it over at /r/canada[2] or /r/canadapolitics[3] .
Lastly, there is some discussion as to whether Israel really wants the Syrian government, and al-Assad specifically, to fall. Several posters suggest that Israel would rather al-Assad stay in place because he's the 'devil we know' for Israel. That being the case, Israel may not be interested in regime change so much as stopping conflict from crossing over their northern border.
EDIT2: I can no longer keep up with all of the responses. I have tried to address all of the major points that are repeatedly being brought up, but until this slows down I won't be able to get through individual posts.
I will also thank /u/SENACMEEPHFAIRMA[4] for pointing out that the UN Security Council has 15 members, not 12. I misremembered. He/she goes over several good critiques of my post. You can read his/her post here[5] .
EDIT3: WOW FRONT PAGE! Thanks for all votes, guys, and whoever gave me those 2 Reddit golds.
As always my post is my opinion based on the facts that I have gathered, along with some inference on my part. Any readers should always keep an open mind to possible flaws in my logic or refuting evidence, and of course look up such matters themselves to be abreast of an issue.
And what do you propose if Syria retaliates after being attacked by the US?
Attacking Syria is a highly risky move, that could trigger a major escalation of the conflict. It's not that simple.
I listened to an expert on strategy and chemical weapons (FRANCE 24) and he was explaining that Assad has a very important stock of chemical weapons. It would take at least a decade to actually destroy them, and this is not taking into account all of the steps to get there (inventory, ratifying Geneva text, etc.). This is definitily a way to win time, but damn it's a pretty smart one.
Can't wait to see what's going to happen next, especially with Ban Ki Moon backing russia up!
Btw an interesting article is the story of Domenico Quirico, who was recently released by Syrian rebels. He underlines several parallels with Somalia and, if you go behind the emotional part ("I saw the country of evil"), it shows there is no such thing as a united Rebellion. SOURCE: TEXT in french --> I'm still looking for the equivalent in English.
Americans are reduced, also, when an off-the-cuff remark by Mr. Kerry becomes the basis of a Russian diplomatic initiative—immediately seized by an Assad regime that knows a sucker's game when it sees one—to hand over Syria's stocks of chemical weapons to international control. So now we're supposed to embark on months of negotiation, mediated by our friends the Russians, to get Assad to relinquish a chemical arsenal he used to deny having, now denies using, and will soon deny secretly maintaining?
Americans are reduced, also, when an off-the-cuff remark by Mr. Kerry becomes the basis of a Russian diplomatic initiative—immediately seized by an Assad regime that knows a sucker's game when it sees one—to hand over Syria's stocks of chemical weapons to international control. So now we're supposed to embark on months of negotiation, mediated by our friends the Russians, to get Assad to relinquish a chemical arsenal he used to deny having, now denies using, and will soon deny secretly maintaining?
I don't believe for a second that Assad will hand over willingly every single capsule filled with poisonous gas. But I also don't think the deaths of a few hundred Syrians, as barbaric as it is, is the true reason for a western intervention. Both sides lie. It's all about who lies omre effectively to cover up his true reasons.
If chemical weapons were a red flag for the US, why do they have them? Why did THEY use them in Vietnam? If Syrian citizens were any concern to the president of the US, why would he fund the rebels and give them weapons to kill with?
Americans are reduced, also, when an off-the-cuff remark by Mr. Kerry becomes the basis of a Russian diplomatic initiative—immediately seized by an Assad regime that knows a sucker's game when it sees one—to hand over Syria's stocks of chemical weapons to international control. So now we're supposed to embark on months of negotiation, mediated by our friends the Russians, to get Assad to relinquish a chemical arsenal he used to deny having, now denies using, and will soon deny secretly maintaining?
Of course he denied having them. Just as Israel denies having nukes, and Holland and a number of other NATO countries deny having silos filled with foreign nukes in their territory. However, everybody knew he had them, and thus when it was diplomatically convenient to concede that public secret in order to prevent bombs falling on his head, he took that opportunity. Whether he USED them or not, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, except allegedly in top secret documents that the US won't show to anybody. And that's one of the main reasons everybody is balking at taking any action, because the last time the US claimed they had sufficient reason to start a war, they were lying through their teeth.
Of course Russia jumped at the opportunity; it was a brilliant strategic move. Kerry made an off-hand remark about how to prevent war and Russia turned it into both a diplomatic snub AND a way out of this quagmire.
On September 10 2013 22:10 Ghanburighan wrote: A bit sarcastic, but...
Americans are reduced, also, when an off-the-cuff remark by Mr. Kerry becomes the basis of a Russian diplomatic initiative—immediately seized by an Assad regime that knows a sucker's game when it sees one—to hand over Syria's stocks of chemical weapons to international control. So now we're supposed to embark on months of negotiation, mediated by our friends the Russians, to get Assad to relinquish a chemical arsenal he used to deny having, now denies using, and will soon deny secretly maintaining?
Of course he denied having them. Just as Israel denies having nukes, and Holland and a number of other NATO countries deny having silos filled with foreign nukes in their territory. However, everybody knew he had them, and thus when it was diplomatically convenient to concede that public secret in order to prevent bombs falling on his head, he took that opportunity. Whether he USED them or not, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, except allegedly in top secret documents that the US won't show to anybody. And that's one of the main reasons everybody is balking at taking any action, because the last time the US claimed they had sufficient reason to start a war, they were lying through their teeth.
Of course Russia jumped at the opportunity; it was a brilliant strategic move. Kerry made an off-hand remark about how to prevent war and Russia turned it into both a diplomatic snub AND a way out of this quagmire.
Apparently a Kremlin spokesperson confirmed that it was spoken about between Obama and Putin at the G20, with Obama already claiming he propose it. Not sure how seriously you should take it, but I figure if Putin could reasonably deny it he would to take all the credit, or its a gift to Obama as a way out.
I'm not sure however what you're asking for in terms of proof. I think what we have been told so far paints a pretty damning picture already. German, french, UK and US intelligence all released independent assessments that Assad's forces, if not Assad directly, did it. HRW has just come out and said they did it. We've seen pictures of missiles, we've seen pictures of the effects, we know Assad's forces are the ones in control of the chemical weapons. What more do you want?
I understand that people are wary after Iraq, but this is nothing like it. During the Iraq war, there were plenty of reasonable sceptics without having to refer to Russian evidence, and we knew about them even during the decision making leading to the invasion. The failure with Iraq is that the government pushed intelligence services to produce the information they wanted, even replacing parts of the intelligence process with a political process. Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq. Obama doesn't want to bomb Syria, if he really felt it was the right thing he would have done it already.
Lord of Lies promised to close that one prison where the inmates experience simulated drowning. He also claimed to know more about Judaism than any other president.Source
http://www-youtube.com/watch?v=GEGMzQjd-dc Looks like the Free Syrian Army are not using their explosives right. One Arab was standing right behind the guy with the RPG.
Al Jazeera correspondent was rushed out of Syria via Turkey, when it was discovered she was raped by the commander of Al-Nusra Front in Aleppo. She was transferred to Qatar later, she is emotionally in shock.
EPT
