West Asia News and Discussions

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Jun 2013 23:02

Edited - double post

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Jun 2013 23:03

Austin , ask the Saudis or Sunni Bahraini what they think about the US. They are absolutely f*cked off, so much so that the Bahraini cabinet issued a condemnation of US just last month! Go on YouTube and see how many videos there are of US officials hobnobbing with the Shia opposition. A royal who met the
incoming US ambassador to Bah - first comment by US amb was for "how long will 6 families control the worlds oil?"

So the GCC think the west is scheming against them. They think Iran is secret pals with US - see Iraq invasion, Iran contra affair, Egypt MB hobnobbing with Iran. Btw GCC troops was just a message to the opposition that their revolution won't succeed (in line with theory of revolution - how revolutions are prevented. Signal to external supporters of the revolution too - possibly Iran could have militarily intervened). The GCC troops didn't actually do much they just sat in Barracks or at key strategic areas. The Bahraini intel, mil (not even the BaNG), police did the mopping up.

Go north to Iraq, they think the west f'd it up on purpose and they have a whole list of reasons. Go east to Iran and you can probably guess what the clerics think. Ask a paki about US and you'll get a whole list of CTs, move south to India and we have enough evidence to see the US isn't very friendly to our interests.

Just remember the truth doesn't matter here, it's people's perceptions that matter

Just realised I went of on a rant, coming back to topic:
It's all about interests and I said in March 2011, that in the theory of the revolution tells us that other nations join to back a revolution to make it succeed for their own reasons. This is part of the theory of revolutions.

How to stop a coup/ revolution? It needs to be external intervention or larger powerful loyalist forces. So Asad and Iran are raising their own larger army to fight the rebels off. Both sides will only talk/ceasefire when they are exhausted of fighting and blood, smell is unbareable. I am not sure we have seen that yet. So with a stalemate currently I said 2 months ago either internal push (coup etc) or external push (arming, NFZ etc) to favour rebels will take place.

Many of you will remember the book by a strategist I emailed about coups - that book is exactly what the rebels are using to plan ops and it speaks about theory of revolution too. Excellent for knowledge on conflict.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Jun 2013 23:48

The Kings of GCC have little reason to complain against the US as these royal families had traded for continuation of rule of their clan/family/king and support from West on this which they got , in return for trading Oil in USD and guaranting their sovereignty.

It was mutual interest then but making deal with devil has it own pitfall , while things went well and these kings and princes were dined bribed and were basking in glory no one complained then.

If US/West feels these Kings/Clan serve their interest no more then they go about usual Revolution , Human Rights , Lack of Democracy etc .....so the only way to maintain continuity is to support west interest , GCC countries have been effectively defanged by denying then Nuclear Weapons and flooding with US weapons that in essence is hard locked to west so little use to them unless they get go ahead from West effectively bank rolling many Western Defence Industry over decades.

I dont think US or West is either pro Shia or pro Sunni but is more concerned about their own self interest and right now its against Iran and pro Saudi thats more due to Iran desire to have a N weapon something that can effectively challenge its own Interest and that of its key allay Israel.

BTW Iran today officially denied its sending 4000 troops as they mentioned the Syrian Army right now is capable of handling the rebels.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 00:04

Surya wrote:
Turki bin Faisal on KSA war aims in Syria

Here you go Turki on Saudi aims

Interview with Prince Turki bin Faisal
'Saudi Arabia Wants Downfall of Assad'
Saudi Arabia has long urged the West to arm the Syrian rebels as they battle forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he explains why. He also says Europe should change its strategy in nuclear negotiations with Iran.

SPIEGEL: Your Highness, Saudi Arabia provides Syrian rebels with both money and weaponry. What is the kingdom's strategic aim?

Turki: The immediate downfall of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the immediate stop of "the killing machine," as King Abdullah described Bashar-Al-Assad's response to the demands of his people.

SPIEGEL: Troops from the Shiite radical group Hezbollah, supported by Iran, have joined the fight in support of Assad and could soon begin marching on Aleppo. Are the rebels not currently facing failure?

Turki: For the last two years, the regime and its supporters have been claiming victory with any advance they make on the ground. The Syrian people are determined to achieve what they aspired to when they began their protest.

SPIEGEL: Syria's armed opposition is far from being a unified force. Among them are thousands of radical extremists from, among other places, Saudi Arabia. The rebels have extremely different views on how tomorrow's Syria should look.

Turki: There are such elements from all over the world, including Germany. Nor is Saudi Arabia happy with anyone going there to pursue Jihad. Anybody who has intentions of going there, or coming back, will be held responsible and brought to justice for contravening the orders of the king. But the most radical and extreme elements doing most of the killing in Syria are Bashar Al-Assad's troops with their lethal arms, mainly aircraft, tanks and helicopters. And they are supported by the most radical elements of Hezbollah.

SPIEGEL: As the battle for Qusair recently illustrated, Hezbollah could play a decisive role in turning momentum back in favor of Assad. Did the West and the Gulf States underestimate the power of the Syrian president?

Turki: I don't think we ever underestimated it. If you look back at the statements of our Foreign Minister...

SPIEGEL: ...your brother Prince Saud al-Faisal...

Turki: ...the kingdom always said that if you don't provide the opposition with the necessary means, this would be a long drawn out fight that would get bloodier before it stops. Because the fighting continued these past two years, all of these negative elements have come in, whether it is the radical jihadists or the fundamentalists. On the other side we have Hezbollah, we have Iranian experts on how to fight civil disobedience coming in and we have Russian weapons support. Had the opposition from the very beginning -- as Saudi Arabia requested from the US and Europe -- been given the means to defend itself, the good elements would have prevented this. They would have acquired the prestige and the prominence necessary to make them into the accepted leadership.

SPIEGEL: Europe remains deeply divided as to whether weapons would bring about a quicker end to the bloodshed. Most Germans think that arms for the rebels would make the situation worse.

Turki: Russia is providing tanks, armored vehicles, artillery batteries, missile batteries and aircraft. Iran is also supplying offensive weaponry. These arms are killing 90 percent of the Syrian victims, most of them innocent civilians. But if America and Europe were to have provided anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, they would be killing those who are killing the Syrian people. One is defensive, with the aim of preventing the killing and the other side is offensive, seeking to inflict killing.

SPIEGEL: The war is threatening the stability of Syria's neighbors. It has the potential to spread to the entire region.

Turki: It could only take this path if Saudi Arabia were to send an army or if America were to declare a no-fly zone and start shooting down Russian-made MiGs.

SPIEGEL: To what degree is this conflict actually about weakening Iran?

Turki: Iran is a paper tiger, but one with steel claws. I am talking about Hezbollah and the groups in Iraq that they have developed over the past 10 years since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Now Hezbollah is trying to develop a militia in Syria. Iran has operatives everywhere -- in Bahrain, Pakistan, Afghanistan. There is an Iranian Hezbollah group in Turkey.

SPIEGEL: What would it mean for Saudi Arabia were Iran to develop a nuclear bomb?

Turki: That Saudi Arabia must carefully look at all options, including that of acquiring nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: What do you think would happen if Israel were to carry out a pre-emptive attack to prevent Tehran from building the bomb?

Turki: Iran would retaliate against everybody -- with its missiles, with suicide bombers, with agents. And we would be the first victims. Imagine if a nuclear installation is destroyed in Iran and there is fallout on our side of the border. The Iranian people would coalesce around their government. In short, it would be total mayhem.

SPIEGEL: What is the alternative?

Turki: From the very beginning, the nuclear negotiations with Iran got off on the wrong foot. The so called EU-3 -- Germany, France and the United Kingdom -- had a carrot and stick approach which never worked and will never work because the stick was never used. The right foot would have been to propose the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction for the whole area and the provision of two guarantees. First, economic and technical support for countries interested in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And second, a nuclear security umbrella for the members of the zone guaranteed by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

SPIEGEL: How could the Israelis ever be convinced to give up their nuclear arsenal?

Turki: President Barack Obama would need to get together with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the new Chinese premier, the French President and British Prime Minister David Cameron, and invite the countries within the zone to discuss this plan. So it is not only a matter of Israel, it is all of us.

SPIEGEL: Saudi Arabia sent troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell demonstrations there. Do the citizens of Bahrain not have the right to ask for more freedoms?

Turki: Bahrain is a totally different situation than in Syria or Egypt. What we are seeing in Syria is deliberate mass murder.

Interview conducted by Susanne Koelbl

URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 06197.html
Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links:
Over the Red Line West Considers Entering the Syrian Quagmire (06/17/2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 44,00.html
Chemical Weapons Charge Berlin Rules out Arms for Rebels (06/14/2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 30,00.html
Syrian Refugees Making Sense of War through Art (06/13/2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 90,00.html

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 00:10

Austin wrote: BTW Iran today officially denied its sending 4000 troops as they mentioned the Syrian Army right now is capable of handling the rebels.

Yup certainly noticed it. Also stopping 20% enrichment amongst other things. the french invited the iranians to Geneva 2 in late May. So Hollande came out today and said he has no problem with Iran attending. It was one of Russia's conditions.

I think everyone is still trying to find their feet on whats going on in Iran and the sudden changes. But this is part of the same smart deception that Iran copied from India - in terms of decision making structure. So no one knows where the power really lies and who makes the decisions.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 01:20

Important leak in the last hour. I think this changes things...

Pentagon Shoots Down Kerry’s Syria Airstrike Plan

By Jeffrey Goldberg
June 18, 2013 3:40 PM EDT

Jeffrey Goldberg. Photographer: Steve Voss/Bloomberg
Twenty years ago, in a debate over the war in Bosnia, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, issued a challenge to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Albright wanted the U.S. to confront an aggressive Serbia; Powell and the Pentagon were hesitant. Albright grew frustrated: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked. Powell later said that he thought Albright was going to give him an aneurysm.
Flash-forward to this past Wednesday. At a principals meeting in the White House situation room, Secretary of State John Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S. airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime -- specifically, those fields it has used to launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.
It was at this point that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn’t fully grasp the complexity of such an operation.
Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.
Military Wariness
Officials with knowledge of the meeting say that Kerry gave as good as he got, and that the discussion didn’t reach aneurysm-producing levels. But it was, in diplomatic parlance, a full and frank vetting of the profound differences between State and Defense on Syria. Dempsey was adamant: Without much of an entrance strategy, without anything resembling an exit strategy, and without even a clear-eyed understanding of the consequences of an American airstrike, the Pentagon would be extremely reluctant to get behind Kerry’s plan.
As we know now, the Pentagon’s position is in sync with the President Barack Obama’s. The outcome of the meeting last week was to formalize a decision made weeks ago to supply the more moderate elements of the Syrian opposition with small arms and ammunition. The assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies that Assad had used chemical weapons against small pockets of rebels -- confirming those made several months earlier by the intelligence agencies of U.S. friends in Europe and the Middle East -- forced the administration to make a gesture of support for the opposition.
Members of the White House national security team, who tend to be more hawkish than Obama or Dempsey (though not as quite as militant as Kerry), had been arguing that, in the words of Tony Blinken, the deputy national security adviser, that “superpowers don’t bluff.” Once Obama had drawn a red line around chemical weapons, the White House had no choice but to take some sort of action.
Blinken was clever to use the word “bluff” in his arguments to the president, implicitly linking his posture on Syria to his position on Iran’s nuclear program. Last year, in an interview with me on the subject of Iran, Obama said, “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff.” On Iran, he has lived up to his words, but he was in danger -- and remains in danger -- of being seen as a bluffer on Syria.
No Bluffing
What is so odd about Dempsey’s adamant opposition to Kerry’s aggressive proposals is that it wasn’t previously been made public. Obama told Charlie Rose this week that he is worried about sliding down the slippery slope toward greater intervention in Syria. Having Dempsey openly in his corner would be useful to him, but the administration hasn’t made hay over the Pentagon’s opposition to airstrikes. (When I asked the Pentagon for official comment, Dempsey’s spokesman would only say that he would not “discuss classified internal deliberations,” though he went on to say that the National Security Council principals “routinely debate a wide range of options to include how the military can and should support a comprehensive, regional approach to this conflict.”)
One senior administration official explained it this way: The White House doesn’t want Dempsey to make an enthusiastic case on “Meet the Press” against intervention, just in case Obama one day decides to follow Kerry’s advice and get more deeply involved. At that point, Dempsey arguments against greater involvement could come back to haunt the administration.
The decision to provide small arms to the Syrian opposition has made no one happy -- not the rebels, who understand that these quite-possibly ineffective weapons will take many months to reach them; not Kerry, who, while arguing that these shipments may become a “force multiplier” in the conflict, thinks that only a show of American air power will convince Assad and his Hezbollah allies that the U.S. is making a serious attempt to level a playing field that has been tilting their way for some time; and not the Pentagon, which thinks that Obama, despite saying that he is wary of the slippery slope, might be pushed down that slope anyway, by interventionists on his team or by events on the ground.
It is possible, even for those of us who have been inclined toward intervention, to have a great deal of sympathy for Dempsey’s position. There are those in the Pentagon who think that the State Department has romanticized the Syrian opposition. What diplomats see as a civil war featuring bands of poorly armed moderates struggling to free themselves from the grip of an evil dictator, the generals see as a religious war between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Why would the U.S. risk taking sides in a battle between two loathed terror organizations? Memories of Iraq, too, are fresh in the minds of Dempsey and his colleagues.
On the other hand, a Kerry partisan told me, U.S. intervention in Syria would not necessarily have to look like U.S. intervention in Iraq. When I mentioned the Albright-Powell exchange of 20 years ago, he pointed out something obvious: President Bill Clinton eventually decided to use air power in the Balkans. And it brought the Serbian government to its knees.
(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist.)

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Jun 2013 01:23

nothing short of SERIOUS unkil backup will give the saudi's any hope of taking on the Syrian army - and they'll have to watch their mush's for some eye-ran-ee-yan action

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 01:32

Yeah I think the above could be a spanner in the works. So what probably transpired was Kerry telling the Saudi's he thinks US should bash Asad the week before. Word gets around incl me. Then Wednesday meeting and Pentagon say 'no can do' unless we go all in.

Lets see what my ear catches next.

But a point to note was that Ohio Air National Guard - 112th Sq was deployed as part of Eager Lion AFTER the exercise started and back up the guys who already arrived in Jo.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 01:51

Kerry needs to quit. He has been talked to by a general.
Where is Chuck Hagel in this?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 02:03

One thing to note also is where is the Russian chest thumping in the calculus?

@NYTimesCohen: Vladimir Putin may allow Assad to go if power vacuum in Syria is avoided http://t.co/AJJh5ilhoe

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 Jun 2013 02:38

Understanding the Western Approach to the "Muslim World" of North Africa/West Asia (NAWA) in five easy steps:

1) 1618-1648 was the 30 years war in Europe. This ended with the emergence of the Westphalian nation-state model, and the separation of Church and State (Western-model "secularism"). Immediately following this period came the Age of Enlightenment wherein the building blocks of modern Western economics, sociology and political theory (as well as modern sciences and engineering) were first assembled.

2) 1600-1700 is an era of total reversal of fortune for European powers. Throughout the 1500s, they were menaced by invasions and sieges by expansionist Muslim Turkey... a threat that wasn't decisively finished off until the Battle of Vienna in 1683. However, after 1650 came the rise of European colonial expansionism that led to global dominance and vast riches.

3) Therefore, all the ideas of this period: Enlightenment, Reason, Westphalian State, Representative Government and Secularism are enshrined like a Shruti in the psyche of Western civilization. These ideas are seen as THE primary reason why the West went from being beleaguered by NAWA Islam, to dominating all other cultures and nations including NAWA Islam.

4) Given this view of the world, it has become a prime directive of Western policy to jealously guard the benefits of this Shruti from non-Western nations. Western policy is driven to ensure that non-Western nations... particularly the Islamic ones on Europe's fringes... must never develop similarly beneficial, parallel solutions from within their own systems. The West wants to secure this perceived evolutionary advantage for itself, as long as possible.

5) The implementation of this prime directive (guarding the Shruti) has taken many forms.

a) Against the Turks: forced imposition of a pseudo-secularism (Ataturkist) with no roots in Turkish civilization, no regard for Turkish aspirations, and no tolerance for indigenous expressions of Turkish identity. Imposing this clone of Western Model secularism effectively aborted the potential emergence in Turkey of a parallel reformatory model with indigenous roots that might actually have served to advance the system.

b) Against the Ba'ath Arab States: Unremitting hostility towards Egyptian, Iraqi and Syrian leaderships, who were seeking to establish a model of Arab nationalism that was inherently secular and indigenously grounded.

It's very important to realize that the West would rather have fanatical Wah'habi or Qutbist Islam running Arab countries, than any indigenous system in which Islam takes a back seat. That's because the indigenous development of solutions centered upon the separation of religion and State, is seen as key to the Shruti that gives the West an edge. Therefore, revanchist barbaric regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other GCC members become the West's natural allies against potential rivals exploring their own parallel models of this Shruti.

c) Against India: Here the West adopted a dual approach.

In independent India, much like Turkey, a clone of Western Model Secularism was imposed that is not just incompatible with, but completely intolerant of indigenous systems. This has aborted any process whereby indigenous solutions can be evolved, and led to truly horrible repercussions on the social, political and economic level. Read http://m.firstpost.com/blogs/3-indias-a ... 76705.html for more insight.

In Pakistan, the process was reversed, and the seeds of an explicitly Islamist construct were deliberately sown in a fabricated nation-state under the guise of a "secular" model (whiskey-swilling Jinnah). Pakistan is a curious and exceptional case. In establishing Pakistan, the West claimed to be giving a chance to Islam to prove that it could fashion its own parallel "secular" model while still retaining an "Islamic" identity. In truth, the West was creating a system which could not possibly have ended up any other way than it currently has.

It is no accident that the Pakistan model was foisted by the West upon Indian soil... not Arab or Persian soil.

d) Against Iran: In a more old-school colonialist approach, the democratically elected Mossadegh regime (which might have fashioned an indigenously-rooted, parallel Shruti) was destroyed and replaced with a Monarch. Reza Pehlavi, like Ataturk, adopted a clone of Western Model Secularism as a social template. However, unlike Ataturk, Pehlavi rejected even the pretence of adopting clones of Western Enlightenment political models (democracy, representative government, etc.) Ultimately he was overthrown, but the revolution was hijacked and handed over to Islamists... again, by the West. Better an Islamist regime, even if it is vociferously anti-Western like the Ayatollahs, than the chance that Iran might discover its own indigenous parallels to the 1650s European Shruti.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 19 Jun 2013 02:58

^^ RD guru, very thought provoking. Pliss to blog it.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 19 Jun 2013 03:12

^^^ Basically it is gaming willingness against responsibility. A game of distorting the internal ethics of those civilizations (NAWA, Iran, Indic).

When something is thrust on an unwilling individual - without his own inspired origination - it reduces his sense of responsibility w.r.t. that subject. Usually it leads to declining ability due to inability to understand that subject.

But some minds will mock-up a kind of feverish, purely imitative ability - like being able to cram and regurgitate on an exam. But after "excelling" at this, in the real world (of necessity and inventiveness), the individual fails to apply the material.

The Islamic world has devolved along the former lines. India is more along the latter. Nirad Chaudhary says exactly that about Indians even in his time - the Indian compradore class were enthusiastic and capable imitators of whatever the British taught them, without any originality but purely as imitative students. We can see that although they have managed to carry on the 'tradition' of Western institutions (did not even bother to decolonize the bureaucracy and other institutions), the fact is that the real movements even after independence happened only via either Gandhian means (of non-cooperation with the state, boycott, impeding the system and doing one's own thing, etc.), or via Naxal-type revolutionary means. Only by allowing some expansion of the Indian economy, the "secularist" model "thrust fully formed" on Indians is being made to survive somehow.

In the case of the WANA Muslim world, the pressure is maintained to push them into ever greater Islamist revolt (as a product of unwillingness), thereby keeping them from the fruits of an enlightened, positive inspiration towards a sense of responsibility and an original knowledge-culture.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 03:14

Lalmohan wrote:nothing short of SERIOUS unkil backup will give the saudi's any hope of taking on the Syrian army - and they'll have to watch their mush's for some eye-ran-ee-yan action

Work around that is quick bombing campaign maybe with partnership with some countries.
King A of Jo is in UK meeting Cameron and Hague

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 19 Jun 2013 03:40

the case of Egypt is a bit curious. Nasser might not have been as "secularist" as we might be led to believe. he realized quite early into his rule that Islamism and nurturing theologian-fueled claims was a useful way of securing his own grip on power. better yet, he realized that his own imperial ambitions could receive a boost by not decimating the theologians and their institutions. he did however have an explicit contempt for the Arabs, which probably threw a spanner into his ambitions. but it would be wrong to say that he dealt a blow to the theologians. he didn't. his u-turn on Israel and actual activities in Egypt show that he found them useful for his own power projection.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 19 Jun 2013 05:49

Kelly needs to quit. He has been talked to by a general.
Where is Chukri Bagel in this?

Isn't Chakri Bagel opposed to all this? Before his nomination someone even accused him of saying that he considers estate depatment as !sreel outpost

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jun 2013 06:54

Given universally successful revolutionary techniques and manuals exist now - surely they are not non-Saudipasand specific? So if they are now being tried out and refined [expected a new manual with upgrades] they are applicable to the neighbourhood of the Gulf too - say further to the east?

Why do people think or can they give reasons as to why "revolutions" from the now existing manual of revolutions - should remain confined to the ME, and not be contagious - towards say India? After all revolutions are matter of following some genuine texts and manuals genuinely.Even if mounted from outside they can be genuine revolutions as long as they follow the manual.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jun 2013 06:58

So when is the final push coming for Assadfall from Saudi alone military move? Waiting with bated breath for a Najibullaization of Assad and Mumbai Chabad-ification of his family. Sunni jihadis appear to have a taste for female and young male flesh - in more senses than one.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jun 2013 16:59

Rebels say U.S. weapons have finally reached units in northern Syria

Rebel sources said the United States has sent weapons and other supplies to the Free Syrian Army. They said the supplies have reached FSA units in northern Syria from Turkey in mid-June.

FSA units have been receiving anti-tank and other weapons in the Aleppo region,” a source said. “More and heavier weapons are expected imminently.”

FSA said the arms shipments ended a two-month suspension in supplies to the rebels in the Aleppo region. They said the rebels would soon receive the OSA 9K33 anti-aircraft, or the SA-8, mobile air defense system. “The first batch of arms delivered to the FSA will include 102 OSA anti-aircraft missiles, to be followed by another 270,” an FSA senior officer told the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat on June 16.

Saudi Arabia was also preparing to ship French-origin Mistral man-portable air defense system to the rebels. The German weekly Der Spiegel reported that Mistral was meant to intercept low-flying aircraft, including Syrian military helicopters.

The sources said the latest weapons to the rebels were arranged by Saudi Arabia in cooperation with the United States. They said President Barack Obama’s announcement of military supplies to the Syrian rebels would result in a massive flow of arms to FSA and other units.

The anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles began arriving as Assad’s military and security forces, backed by 2,000 Hizbullah troops, attacked Aleppo. The sources said fighting continued to be heavy in the eastern portion of Aleppo, the largest city in Syria.

“Assad’s forces and Hizbullah are trying to control northern rural Aleppo, but they are being repelled and dealt heavy losses,” Col. Abdul Jabar Al Okeidi, an FSA commander, said. “Aleppo will turn into the grave of these Hizbullah devils.”

In an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite channel, Al Okeidi said the rebels were entrenched in Aleppo. He said the rebels, deemed better organized than in Qusair, were also receiving supplies and other logistical support.

“Aleppo and Qusair are different,” Al Okeidi said. “In Qusair we were surrounded by villages that had been occupied by Hizbullah and by loyalist areas. We did not even have a place to take our wounded. In Aleppo we have a
strategic depth and logistical support and we are better organized.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jun 2013 17:01

Saudi role in Syria driven by fear of Shi'ite "full moon"

Riyadh believes it’s duty bound to act on Syria

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Jun 2013 17:12

there's that strategic depth thingy again...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2013 17:25

Two years of fighting in a country the size of manipur and no result still? Strange.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 20:42

Austin, When you post liks try to post an excerpt. otherwise might as well go to google na?
As some of us postulated the KSA-GCC interest in Syria is driven by sectarian prespective.

A few pages ago I said I want Syria to hand the Sunni road roller its first speed ramp and send it back on to its backers.

habal · Post by **habal** » 19 Jun 2013 21:14

the Saudi unilateral plans have now been somewhat revealed.

To combat SAA tanks, they planned to move some vehicle mounted anti-tank systems into Syria amongst other armor & in G8 Putin squished this idea in the bud by threatening to equip Syrian AA with thermobaric warhead equipped TOS-1A MRLS, some 400 units, enough to vapourise everything around Syria. Also threatened to augment the S-300 shipments by multiple times in quantity & quality (S-300 systems equipped with longer range S-400 missiles).

To further augment his position on the matter:

A British intelligence report stated that Putin went to London bringing his own Russian cooked food and did not consume anything from Britain including water as he even brought his own water with him reportedly because he had concerns of being poisoned.

The British intelligence site stated that Putin threatened to send other secret Russian made weapons to Syria which would tip the balance of power even further in favour of Syria and re-iterated that these weapons will not be used against Israel on condition that Israel will not participate in the war within Syria and neighbouring countries. {Lebanon, Jordan]

Reportedly, the British PM’s response was very weak in relation to Putin’s threats.

Putin clearly stated that the Middle East is going to witness a significant change. Syria will be armed with weapons that have never been seen before [in the Middle East] including computer guided smart missiles that never miss their target.
He also added that Russia will supply Syria with Skean 5 ground -to-sea missiles that are capable of hitting and sinking any target up to 250 km off the Syrian coast.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 21:38

^^^Link please.

Are we forgetting basic forum guidelines?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 22:09

Syria's Kurdish minority have declared independence in their own areas, creating police forces, license plates & more http://t.co/HtDQK1dmZS

-----
Syria is about Iran and their alliance, strategic encircling of GCC, the very survival of the gulf states. Being Allawi has very little to do with it. In fact if you looked deeply enough one could argue it was about ego - as in 2007 Asad made a speech against King A.

No KSA plans have been revealed yet - shipping western SAMs were on the cards last year and some were delivered last month. They are still in prep mode for the surprise.

habal · Post by **habal** » 19 Jun 2013 22:23

http://syrianperspective.blogspot.in/

Excusing the abuvisve language, gives an idea of the desperate reason behind so-called Saudi 'unilateral action'.

With the announcement of "OPERATION NORTHERN TEMPEST", foreign terrorists hiding in northern quarters of Aleppo began to feel the noose tighten. As the Syrian army started to occupy most escape routes, especially at Kafr Hamra and Hanaano, telephone calls from "Saudi-accented" r****** to family in Jedda and Riyadh filled the airwaves. The message? "Please, daddy, do what you can to get us out of here before the Syrian Army enters". As SyrPer reliably reported to you days ago, the orders are to kill all foreign r*** without mercy. The terrorist mercenaries are aware of this and anticipate no reasonable hope of emerging from the invasion with their skins intact.

and then

According to our sources, the Al-Alam article is accurate. Families of the 5 Saudi (or Gulf) b********* a***
contacted their influential friends in the Saudi regime and insisted that steps be taken to remove them safely from Aleppo before the Syrian army moves in for the kill. It is reported that "Prince" Faisal "the Slobbering Alkie" and foreign minister of S.A., personally called "General" Salim Idrees of the Foreign Supplied Army (FSA) in Apaydin and "demanded" that the former Syrian army general "makes sure" to get the Arabian r****** out. According to Aslan, Idrees was "livid" with anger that he had to devote assets at such a time to extracting lily-livered Arabian filth from the battle zone. Aslan writes that the demand was followed up with a threat to "stop supplies and support" to Idrees if he failed to take those steps.

In order to get the Saudi and Gulf vermin out, an escape corridor had to be set up just for them. This meant, given the present circumstances, that sacrifice had to be made in uniformed rats and materiel. Efforts to enlist the aid of Jabhat Al-Nusra through its affiliate, "Al-Faarooq Brigades" met with failure since the fanatical Islamist thugs refused to aid a bunch of sissies who had originally volunteered to fight with them. This left the FSA to fend for itself. According to Aslan, on or about June 16, 2013, FSA opened up some artillery fire to create a diversion so as to give cover to a large operation to extract the filthy, slimy little Ayraab, r**-headed r******* from Aleppo.

A corridor was temporarily opened through the Hanano Residencies northeast, then northwest through the outer margin of the industrial zone. In order to make the plan work, the Arabian sissy-terrorists were trussed up in body armor and helmets, stuffed into 2 Mitsubishi vans and spirited helter-skelter out of the city under cover of artillery and darkness. But, as Idrees well knew, his officers were testing the might of the 4th Armored division including very well-trained Ba'ath Party Youth militia liaised with them and hordes of Military Intelligence agents. The ride out of Aleppo must have been jolly good fun for the Arab s*** as they shivered and urinated in their dishdaashas.

Once the operation was over, Aslan reports that 157 rats of the FSA were killed, of whom 5 were high-value deserters from the SAA acting as field commanders. The result was disastrous for Saleem Idrees and his feckless, luckless, lustreless army of imbeciles. He is said to be inconsolable.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2013 22:25

No Bakis in Syria facing the Assad regime?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jun 2013 22:48

habal wrote:A British intelligence report stated that Putin went to London bringing his own Russian cooked food and did not consume anything from Britain including water as he even brought his own water with him reportedly because he had concerns of being poisoned.

Pretty much SOP for Presidential Security Team , I remember reading when Obama came to India he pretty much brought all the ingredient , spices , water , veg etc to india and food was cooked under SS supervision it came out in media report.

The British intelligence site stated that Putin threatened to send other secret Russian made weapons to Syria which would tip the balance of power even further in favour of Syria and re-iterated that these weapons will not be used against Israel on condition that Israel will not participate in the war within Syria and neighbouring countries. {Lebanon, Jordan]

I think more of PR from Brits , At those level they dont threaten each other like common thugs there is disagreement but in all diplomatic nicety IMO , If Russia want to arm Syria it would do it any ways why would it threaten the Brits or vice verse.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2013 23:23

U.S. military presence in Jordan quietly grows

Syrian rebels get first heavy weapons on the front line of Aleppo
T

he First new heavy weapons have arrived on Syria’s front lines following President Barack Obama’s decision to put Western military might behind the official opposition, rebels have told The Daily Telegraph.

By Richard Spencer, Kafra Hamra, Aleppo8:02PM BST 19 Jun 2013
Rebel sources said Russian-made “Konkurs” anti-tank missiles had been supplied by America’s key Gulf ally, Saudi Arabia. They have already been used to destructive effect and may have held up a promised regime assault on Aleppo.
A handful of the missiles were already in use and in high demand after opposition forces looted them from captured regime bases.
More have now arrived, confirming reports that the White House has lifted an unofficial embargo on its Gulf allies sending heavy weapons to the rebels.
Last week, the White House said it would send military support to Syria’s opposition after concluding that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime had used chemical agents against them.
Unlike rocket-propelled grenades, the Konkurs – Contest in English – can penetrate the regime’s most advanced tanks, Russian-made T72s.

“We now have supplies from Saudi Arabia,” a rebel source said. “We have been told more weapons are on their way, even higher-end missiles.”
At the G8 this week Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, condemned the West’s attempts to send arms to the opposition, even though he did not rule out fulfilling existing arms contracts with the regime.
On Syria’s front lines, rebels are already using Russian missiles to destroy the regime’s Russian tanks.
Thanks to Russian backing over the last half century, Syria’s army was the best equipped in the region, and its captured bases have handed a limited number of anti-tank and anti-aicraft missiles to the opposition.
But the number of Konkurs missiles seen in videos escalated at the beginning of this month, tangible evidence of the new Saudi supply line.
In the hills above the Syrian village of Kafra Hamra, north of Aleppo, The Daily Telegraph found rebels talking almost lovingly of the Konkurs as they kept watch on the regime’s tanks 800 yards away.
“We have one or two left but my unit has run out already,” said Abdullah Da’ass, a burly, bearded fighter with the Free Men of Syria brigade. “We were given five. We fired four, and took out four regime tanks, and one was a dud.”
Mr Assad’s regime has hundreds of T72s in northern Syria. The future of this war may depend on how many more portable missile systems the rebels are given. In the past two weeks the tanks have made a number of sallies, testing rebel lines, but have been driven back, rebels say.
After the fall of Qusayr on June 5, the regime promised an all-out attack on Aleppo, but it has not yet materialised.
Ahmed Hafash, the leader of Free Men of Syria, the non-Islamist brigade leading the defence of Kafra Hamra, said he expected the assault to drive north away from the city.
Five kilometres north-east lie two loyalist Shia towns, Nobbul and Zahra, where a regime general has raised a local militia several thousand-strong and flown in reinforcements from the Labenese militia Hizbollah.
Walky-talky intercepts suggest the regime hopes to link up with these towns and press on to relieve the Minegh air base, under rebel siege for 10 months, and then head to the Turkish border nearby. Having cut the north in two, the regime could squeeze out the rebels in their rural strongholds and surround Aleppo.
On the hill opposite the rebels sits the regime’s forward advance post, an unfinished apartment block – “full of Iranians”, said a rebel sub-commander, Abu Staif Aloush.
His unit guards the presumed path of the regime’s attack, occupying a development of half-built villas, full of Kalashnikovs and shell-holes.
The regime has 20,000 men based around the Air Force Intelligence barracks behind the front, the rebels say, but has spared 2,500 for this front. The rebels have possibly a similar number, but whether the tanks rolling over the hills can punch through them depends on their defences.
Mr Da’ass, the fighter, claimed that even without fresh supplies, the rebels would still be victorious. “If we have no weapons, we will hit them with our slippers,” he said.
But Mr Aloush said: “We need an air-fly zone, and anti-tank missiles, or if not a no-fly zone, anti-aircraft missiles too.”
The last major weapons shipment comprised rockets and other arms from the former Yugoslavia, paid for by Qatar. However, some were seen in the hands of the Al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the supply dried up, apparently under American instruction, six months ago.
Mr Aloush pledged the same would not happen again. “Every missile will be recorded, where we shot and under whose supervision,” he said.
Whether that will be true for other brigades supplied by the Saudis is another matter, of course. The Saudis are now the favoured conduit, and the rebels’ new best friends.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Jun 2013 02:33

Spengler:
Syria and Egypt can't be fixed

Even if the Sunnis could eject the Assad family from Damascus and establish a new government - which I doubt - the best case scenario would be another Egypt: a Muslim Brotherhood government presiding over a collapsed economy and sliding inevitably towards state failure. It is too late even for this kind of arrangement. Equalizing the military position of the two sides will merely increase the body count. The only humane thing to do is to partition the country on the Yugoslav model, but that does not appear to be on the agenda of any government.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 20 Jun 2013 04:48

The only real winners in the conflict will be the Kurds. The Syrian army withdrew from Kurdish regions in exchange for Kurdish militia cooperation in interdicting wespons transhippments heading to the rebels. The militia now are the rulers of Kurdistan. Though they are not 100 percent effective in controlling weapons flow but the Kurds are in in charge of their own lands. In Turkey, their population grows at three times the rate of ethnic Turks which means in about three to four decades they would be majority population in Turkey. With the Kurdish area in Iraq virtually a free country, the two other Kurdistans emerging from Turkey and Syria could end up forming a Kurdish superstate. There are no powers that could slow down this forth coming event. Not even Iran because the ethnic Persian population in Iran is declining with low birth and emmigration while on the other hand Turkic population is exploding...

Eventually, the strife in Syria is going to stabilize along ethnic/religious/cultural lines. The Alawis/Shia would maintian their mountain coast region around Tartus/Latakia axis, the Kurds with their Kurdistan and Sunni where they dominate. Whatever Christians or Druze or Yezidis still remaining may retreat into Alawi/Shia controlled territories due to the more secular leanings. In effect Syria would be partitioned on the ground even is the powers that be wont recognize it.
Avram

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2013 05:31

Muhe me ghee shakkar.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Jun 2013 05:44

Ralph Peters map is beginning to form in front of our eyes...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2013 06:40

The Price of Loyalty in Syria

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Jun 2013 07:24

these reports are becoming more hilarious

oooh suddenly Konkurs missile which were gratiously held back by the peace loving Saudis are now being shipped

upto now all the exploding tanks were because super fast jihadis were charging into them with explosives

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 20 Jun 2013 20:16

Hi Avram & V_Raman, I'm copying your posts to the Future Strat Scenario thread.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2013 22:06

Houthi's today threatened retaliation and breaking off ceasefire if KSA intervened in Syria.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jun 2013 22:10

shyamd wrote:Houthi's today threatened retaliation and breaking off ceasefire if KSA intervened in Syria.

Context is always king.

Who are the Houthi's? Why would KSA fear their breaking ceasefire? And why would they want to stop KSA intervention in Syria?

A few more lines would add value to your news.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2013 23:27

These are militants based in North West Yemen on the border with Saudi. They waged a big war in 2004 - 2009/10. They are a sect known as Zaidi - which is supposedly an offshoot of Shia islam.
They started off with fight against Yemeni military and then Saudis intervened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_insurgency_in_Yemen

Saudis didn't fair well - the regular army was rescued by other units - I think SANG. TSPAF were helping the RSAF in air operations. Although majority of operations were led by the ground forces.

It was this failure that led the Saudis to ask India to help teach them Mountain warfare and set up a school there.