Syrian Resistance : Strategy and long term implications.

[Theo_Fidel]

From recent events this subject should have its own page. Hope the Mod's will bear with me.

- The society is truly multi-cultural. Many major Religions, sub-groups and races are present in large numbers. 10%+ of the populations in many cases.
- Syria is very different from Libya.
- Syrian opposition has explicitly stated violence is never going to be an option. As Indians we have much to teach such a non-violent struggle.
- This is the first major state within the deep Arab heartland that is wobbling.
- It borders Israel and has a dormant war ongoing.
- The West has sworn it will not visibly intervene.

The real interest would be in the long term implication of changes within Syria on places such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Map for reference.



Ethnic map.


Break down as follows.

Code: Select all

Muslim total 87%

Sunni Muslim           : 74%                                    
   Hannafi Arabized*                      : 60%
   Kurd                                  : 10%
   Palestinian                              : 2%
   Turk/Amenian                           : 1%
   Others                              : 1%
 
Shia Muslim            : 13%
   Alawis                                    : 10%
   Twelvers                                  : 2%
   Ismailis                                    : 1%
---------------------------------------------------------
Druze                     : 3%
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian                :10%
   Greek Orthodox                       : 5%
   Syrian Christian                       : 3%
   Greek Catholic                       : 1%
   Others                              : 1%

*It is important to note that the Sunni population is Arabized and not true Arab. They consider themselves distinct.

[Theo_Fidel]

A sign of true courage in Syria. Resistance man in front of Tank despite weapons fire.



A good read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magaz ... o-one.html

“Until now, we’re in a huge prison,” Abdullah said. “For 50 years, this society has been closed. Do you think there are people having conversations with the intellectuals? Do you think there’s freedom of expression? Ideas for politics?” He continued: “How do I ask someone who was sitting in prison all his life, with all the windows closed, about these things? All he knows how to do is cry and say, ‘Oh, God!’ when someone beats him.” He drew the metaphor out further. The prisoner was banging on the wall, clanging on the door, and the West, even amid all this tumult, was asking what it meant. “Do you want an Islamic state or a civil state?” he said. “What does it even mean? The prisoner just wants to get out.”

[Theo_Fidel]

Remains to be seen if any lessons have been learned from Libya.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -president

India is leading Brazil and South Africa to avoid a repeat of the Libya misadventure in Syria. The three countries, all non-permanent members of the UNSC sent a delegation last week to tell Bashar al-Assad to stop the violence. Indian officials say the IBSA position would be stronger if the violence in Syria came to a halt. But that does not seem to be happening, which cuts into the Indian argument.

The Syrian issue will now move out of the UNSC into the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, which will hold a special session on Syria. A briefing by the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, suggested that Bashar could be a candidate for the International Criminal Court. India believes that this would have the effect of making the Syrian president a prisoner of his situation as Gaddafi is. Just as in Libya, violence would drag on in Syria as well.

[gakakkad]

are we likely to get a share in the oil / construction contracts if we side with US on this one?

[Theo_Fidel]

G,

It should be part of our policy.

For now I think the key approach would be to get the fractious opposition to unite. A FM sponsored trip to India where they see all the different groups yelling at each other but not drawing guns and settling disputes legally would be in order. This is the key problem for the opposition, they don't trust each other, for good reasons mind you.

If they have a commitment to a multi-ethnic parliamentary structure they would calm a lot of fears amongst the large minority groups and join in opposition to Assad.

India would be in prime position to advice and counsel such a grouping. Economic benefits will follow.

[RajeshA]

Well Syria is hardly the big Oil producer in the world. Besides most of its Oil goes to Europe.

We don't need to look at crumbs where almost none exist. We should define our national interest in Syria. IMHO, our national interest is the fragmentation of Syria, which allows Kurdish area to break free. We should help Assad in strengthening his hold over Latakia and North-West, which the Alawites can grab for them and the Christians.

All this hoolaboola that Syria should stay united, and there needs to be some transfer of power, etc. are all interests of others and have nothing to do with India's national interests.

There can be talks between India and resistance, but we should offer Assad a way out, and that should be on the Mediterranean coast.

[Theo_Fidel]

Syria may not be a giant producer but it does produce about 400,000 barrels a day. In any case the economic boost to India would be minimal but still useful. All business is good business, no need to be snobbish over 'crumbs'.

I don't understand why it would be in Indian interest to have a broken up Syria. A bunch of mono-cultural 'kingdoms' would not work to our advantage.

Meanwhile.... Iran & the Saudi's circle each other.. I want both to lose .

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15306671,00.html

The battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia for preeminence in the Middle East started long before the Arab Spring. But now, King Abdullah might sense an opportunity in Syria. Traditionally, the greatest contrasts in the region come together here, more than anywhere else.

The secular Syria is to this day a loyal partner of the Shiite theocracy Iran. A Syria after Assad, a member of the Alawite branch of the Shiites, would most likely be Sunni-led, just like the ruling dynasty in Saudi Arabia. And that, many experts believe, would be in the interest of King Abdullah. But the Saudi criticism is also significant in that it sends a clear signal to the elite in Syria, said Ayham Kamel, an analyst at Eurasia Group in Washington. He said Gulf governments had until now provided Assad with some measure of diplomatic support by remaining largely silent.

Their shift to condemnation will "signal to the Syrian political and economic elites, especially Sunnis, that they should reconsider their allegiance to Assad," Kamel told news agency Bloomberg.

If the Saudi King now calls for reforms in Syria, he is skating on very thin ice, though. After all, he himself rejects any change to his absolute monarchy.

"In Saudi Arabia, there have been no significant demands for opening and democracy to date," Lüders said. "But still, the Saudi leadership tightened its laws in April. Criticism of the rulers, the Sharia and the Islamic order of the country has since been subject to additional penalties. King Abdullah has to be careful here that his call for reforms in Syria isn't also heard by the people in Saudi Arabia."

[Philip]

The so-called "jasmine revolution" has been orchestrated by the west.It resembles almost identically thr so-called "Orange Revolution" post Cold War east bloc countries.In some of these countries like the Ukraine,the pro-western leaders of these revolutions have been unceremoniously dumped as their agenda has been found to be anti-national amd a yearning for the eco. stability,job security during Soviet days is strong.

Syria is the key to the Middle East solution today as it impacts both directly upon Israel and upon Lebanon.Israel failed to defeat the Hiz in the last Lebanese war and Iran assists the Hiz through Syria.An intransigent Syria,demanding the return of the Golan Heights has prevented an Israeli-Syrian peace,apart from the Palestinian state issue.Syria also impacts upon Turkey which is now looking nostalgically at a return to some degree of its Ottoman prestige.

In short,Syria now is the nut in the nutcracker and the pressure is being applied without mercy by all pro-western forces.However,it is going to be a far tougher nut to crack than the Libyan "nutcase" ! Assad and his supporters have no qualms as to defeating their enemies on the ground.The key to Syria's survival is the support it receives from Russia and China.The tragedy is that "mighty" elephant India,which in the past under Panditji and Mrs. G. had tremendous global influence in radicating colonialism and in NAM,under Man Mubarak Singh is behaving like a timid mouse,squeaking in fear instead of proudly trumpeting,even lower decibel wise than the roar of the Lankan lion! Some say that Man Mubarak Mouse is actually a deaf and dumb mute! Sanku,my immediate apologies to all differently advantaged persons,as this isthe first timein history that a man...nay,a mouse-sorry mice,with all faculties in working order,is so terrified that he prefers not to use them.

[gakakkad]

There is something I want to understand about the oil Business . Where does crude oil in India come from ? Indian companies own oil fields abroad. How is the payment for the crude oil from these companies made ? (which currency?) What % of Indian crude oil import comes from places that has no Indian stake in it ?

I hope baboons/MEA exercises mental faculty while dealing with Libya . Tragically the often take "moralistic stands" . Often against Indian national interests .

[RajeshA]

I don't understand why it would be in Indian interest to have a broken up Syria. A bunch of mono-cultural 'kingdoms' would not work to our advantage.

I tried to define Indian national interest in that part of the region earlier.

[Muppalla]

I think India should go with Israel as far as Syria's future is concerned. In reality Syria is something we don't need to care and the indirect results of India's advantages are well articulated by RajeshA ji. Breakup of any Sunni country is in reality an advantage to India from a long shot.

[Theo_Fidel]

Rajesh, interesting post except for one thing. The Kurds are Sunni's as well. They are just as much Jihad and AOA oriented as other Sunni's. No way they work with India in that region. If distant linguistic connection is the marker, we have more in common with German. Kurdish Jihadists have been found in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

Despite that it would be a good idea to split the kurds off Syria. But only if Iraq gives up its Kurd area at the same time. Due to oil this is unlikely. The Syrian chunk is non-viable. No water, connection to sea, etc. The main problem the Kurds have is that they live in the head waters area of the major rivers there. The countries involved would be very reluctant to give up control of water. The Turkish and Iranian chunks are going to be really hard to separate.

When splitting what is likely to emerge is a even more pure Sunni Syrian state that will turn even more AOA. I fail to see the advantage in creating another Yemen/Saudi type state.

India's best advantage is in co-opting the moderate opposition and creating a modern democratic state in Syria. This would precipitate the collapse of Saudi Arabia, ending the Wahabi petro dollar flow to India/TSP and Iran, creating a moderate state that would squeeze TSP on its Western side.

I look at Syria as the key domino to be pushed.

[RajeshA]

Especially now, when Egypt has started looking at its foreign policy anew, with respect to Israel and Iran, what one does not want is that Egypt has a partner in the East Mediterranean as well.

After Sadat's turn-around and Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, Egypt and Syria were in two different camps. Syria still had Golan Heights to recover from Israel, whereas Egypt had moved on. This did not sit well with Syria, so their they did not have the best of relations since then.

Now when Egypt looks anew at its policies towards Israel, a Alawite-led Syria aligned with Iran, can be dangerous for Israel, as Egypt and Alawite Syria could cooperate, giving Iran far more latitude in West Asia. If Syria turns Sunni completely if the Sunni-led Resistance comes to power, even then Egypt and Sunni-led Syria would again be allies, putting pressure on Israel. Only this time, Saudi Arabia would be the winners, who would be the ones dictating pressure on Israel. With Jordan part of GCC, the borders of GCC would be reaching all the way to Syria, and the influence of the Saudis will increase. This would create a complete encircling of Israel by the Sunnis.

So if Syria remains united, regardless of whether it is under Sunnis or Alawites, the issue of Golan Heights would remain ever present, and so would be the pressure on Israel.

A division of Syria would break that connect. If the Alawites retreat to Latakia or North-West Syria in general along the Mediterranean Coast, then neither can the Iranians create their Shi'a crescent extending all the way to Mediterranean and put pressure on Israel in coalition with Egypt, as the Sunni Central Syria and Kurdistan would interrupt that; nor can the Saudis extend their influence all the way to the Mediterranean, thereby encircling Israel, as Alawite Latakia would put interrupt that.

That is good for Israel.

What about India?

For India it is good when neither the Sunni bloc becomes too strong nor the Shi'a bloc. We also don't want Israel to fall in West Asia, because if it does, we will become the next target of Ummah!

[Agnimitra]

This would create a complete encircling of Israel by the Sunnis.

Breaking up Iran is a far fetched dream at this point, especially when Iraq and Afghan misadventures have not been very successful. But there are some things can open up and transform Iran:

1. Failure to form and strengthen the Shi'ite Crescent.
2. Losing leadership of the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
3. Rise of Arab nationalism and pan-Turkism as well.

In the event that Israel is encircled by Sunnis and Iran loses its wedge in WA, there is every possibility that Iran will open up to more co-operation with India and even covertly with Israel. Secondly, having lost the lone anti-Zionist jihadi status, an internal constituency will be disillusioned, especially when pan-Arab nationalism clearly derogates Iran. So the "implosion" and reform of the Iranian regime from within begins. Moreover, TSP will hitch itself as a sidekick to the Sunni pan-Arab rise, so that again boxes Iran in.

In such an event only can Iran be reformed into a more useful ally for India. If it takes those steps, then it opens up the door for the liberation of Balochistan. Lastly, only with a reformed Iran that has relinquished its dreams of pan-Islamic leadership is it viable to carve and unite Kurdish territories out of Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Then those Kurdish territories will unite under a pan-Iranic/Indo-Aryan umbrella identity (Kurds are not homogenous in terms of religious sects). Otherwise, as Theo ji said, Kurdistan will sooner or later become another jihadi leader. Fethullah Gulen does have some Kurdish Turks in his following. Remember, the lionized anti-Crusader Saladin was probably Kurdish.

So RajeshA ji, the scenario you painted is best for Israel, but not India. The above scenario may be best for India, but not Israel. Though Israel will become more dependent on India's (and the West's) favour IMHO.

[Theo_Fidel]

Cross posting RajeshA's comments one more time so it is easy to reference.

X-Posted from West Asia - News & Discussions Thread

Published on Aug 09, 2011
By M.K. Bhadrakumar
Syria lays bare India’s foreign policy: Rediff Blogs

India’s predicament is going to be acute. The plain truth is that geopolitics lie at the core of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has territorial ambitions over its former colony. It also has dreams of reclaiming the Ottoman legacy in the region. The NATO wants to arrive in the heart of the Muslim Middle East, which would be a huge leap out of Europe in its journey to become the premier global security organisation. For the US and Israel, the regime change in Damascus means the weakening of Hamas and it also opens the way to isolate Iran and Hezbollah, which in turn enables Israel to regain its regional dominance. The Sunni-Shi’ite schism provides the ideal backdrop for the US to retain its regional dominance over the strategically important Arab world — ‘divide-and-rule’. The Persian Gulf autocrats are hoping that Syria would divert attention away for a long while from their own rotting parishes.

All-in-all, the decision India takes at any UN Security Council process can only be viewed as ‘ideological’ insofar as it will be about: a) India’s strategic partnership with US and the need to harmonise with US regional policies; b) India’s dependence on the Jewish lobby in the US and the military ties with Israel; and, c) India’s time-tested friendship with the Syrian regime. If India votes with a US-Israeli-Saudi-Turkish move against the Syrian regime, will it bring India closer to UN Security Council membership? No way. Does India have stakes in the Sunni-Shi’ite schism that is going to tear apart the Muslim world? Certainly not. Does India have partisan interests in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry? Unlikely — even making allowance for the Saudi/Wahhabi/petrodollar clout over the ruling Congress Party in India’s domestic politics.

Finally, what happens if there is a regime change in Syria? Will it be any better than the chaos that unfolded in Iraq or Libya? Does India have any clear-cut vision to offer for a post-Assad Syria? Not even a brave heart in South Block will claim it has one. The strong likelihood is the emergence of the Islamist forces in yet another part of the Middle Eastern landscape. In sum, India’s stance on Syria in the UN is going to be something to write home about. It will lay bare the beating heart of India’s foreign policy establishment.

M.K. Bhadrakumar opines that India does not have any strategic interest in West Asia, only ideological reasons to vote one way or the other!

Syria is up for grabs, and the decision is about retaining a Shi'ite Crescent or doing away with it. Either India would end up pissing off the Saudis, with whom our relations have improved, or pissing off the Iranians beyond the little irritation we gave them due to our vote against them in the IAEA. This pissing off would be long term!

Indians should however play our own Great Game in West Asia! And what would that Great Game in West Asia be for India?

• India's Great Game should be to create a contiguous region of influence from India to the Mediterranean, and
• to break up every other power of consequence on the way, and
• to control the dynamics of the Sunni-Shia shism
• to control energy

The powers that need to be broken up are Iran and Turkey. Why Iran? As long as Iran remains strong, Iran would consider itself as the primary power in Central Asia. This India cannot allow! The only power to hold sway in Central Asia can be India, and all other centers of power have to bow to Delhi, including Tehran! Also Turkey needs to be broken up into Turk and Kurdish areas.

The foundation of our power in West Asia should be an Independent United Kurdistan consisting of parts of Kurdistan, today spread over four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Kurdistan should be today what once the Mittanis were in ancient times.

We should consider a break-up of Syria seriously, as it would help us create Syrian Kurdistan and join it up with Iraqi Kurdistan! That would be one more part of the puzzle solved, leaving us with the part in Iran and in Turkey.

Why Kurdistan?

Kurdish belongs to the Indo-European group of languages. It is closely linked with Baluchi language, and we propose to have Baluchistan as part of India someday. The Kurds are mostly a secular group, subjugated by other Muslim ethnicities - Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc. They will be very grateful for an Indian role in their liberation. So if USA has Israel in the Middle East as its power-base, we should develop Kurdistan as our power-base.

Some day, a much smaller Iran would build the geographical link between India (Baluchistan) and Kurdistan.

We should support the Alawites to create their own country in the North-West of Syria on the Mediterranean contiguous with Syrian Kurdistan. Also Syrian Christians can move to the North-West around Antioch and get some safe haven for themselves.

Thus the Shi'ite Crescent will be broken and the linkage would be through Kurdistan, a place where India would/could have a lot of influence. So we would control how much influence Iran can exert on the Mediterranean - in Lebanon, in North-West Syria. Of course, we would allow some, for North-West Syria would also give Kurdistan access to the sea.

Some day Iran too would throw away the yoke of Theocracy and even Islam itself and embrace its Aryan and Zoroastrian roots. Some day, Iran too may become a part of the Aryan Crescent stretching from India all the way to Mediterranean.

India too should develop long-term national interests in the region! As we grow into a power, we will need all the geostrategic space we can get!

However as many Indians like M.K. Bhadrakumar are still captive to Marxism, they are unable to see any Indian national interest anywhere, and presuppose that Indians will only be sucking up to one or the other power center in the world.

[Theo_Fidel]

Also AFAIK Israel has a relatively stable nation in Syria WRT the Golan Heights. Yes, it is undeclared war, etc but actions are quite rational. Israel seems to prefer this form of 'partnership' with Syria. A broken up Syria would likely lead to irrational attack on Golan.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh, interesting post except for one thing. The Kurds are Sunni's as well. They are just as much Jihad and AOA oriented as other Sunni's. No way they work with India in that region. If distant linguistic connection is the marker, we have more in common with German. Kurdish Jihadists have been found in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

Yes, true there are many Kurds who are quite Islamist. Most who are more Islamic ones are the Syrian Kurds in my opinion. In fact, I had a great friend, who was an Islamist Kurd, but he was also quite proud of his Kurdish ancestry as well. I presume their pride in Islam comes from Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn who pushed out the crusaders. As Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn was born in Damascus, it is no wonder that Syrian Kurds identify themselves with him. Perhaps when Syrian Kurdistan joins up with other Kurdistans, their world view would change somewhat as well.

There are some Islamist groups in Iraqi Kurdistan as well like "Islamic Group of Kurdistan", but in general Kurdish politics have been secular and their national consolidation has been the more prominent goal of Kurds. If another Kurdish fragment - Syrian Kurdistan joins up with Iraqi Kurdistan, it would be another shot in the arm for the Kurdish movement, at least for the next 2-3 decades. That in itself will push back Islamism among the Kurds.

Basically there are these 3 Muslim Master Races - Turks, Arabs and Persians, and anything that brings down their power, means that the hold of Ummah over the conscience of Subcontinental Muslims decreases. The establishment of Kurdistan would be a great step in this direction. And I also think the Indians have to be at the forefront of this movement for the Independence and Unification of Kurdistan. Not just for the above purpose, but also as our strategic outpost in the region.

Also Kurds are neither of Turkic origin nor are they Semites. They are much closer to Baluchi language group. That is a sufficient bridge for India to claim relationship. The rest is propaganda. It is not about a scientific thesis, but about a popular myth of association.

Despite that it would be a good idea to split the kurds off Syria. But only if Iraq gives up its Kurd area at the same time. Due to oil this is unlikely. The Syrian chunk is non-viable. No water, connection to sea, etc. The main problem the Kurds have is that they live in the head waters area of the major rivers there. The countries involved would be very reluctant to give up control of water. The Turkish and Iranian chunks are going to be really hard to separate.

The creation of Kurdistan would be a long drawn process, and it is not in Iraqi Kurdistan's interest to detach themselves completely from Iraq right now, for otherwise they would be completely landlocked.

Also Syrian Kurdistan need not detach themselves completely from Syria but remain associated in some form of loose federation, as in Iraq.

In the Kurdistan Thread there is some more on the prospects of Kurdistan viz-a-viz Iran and Turkey. We should rather see the other way round - of Kurdistan not being caged in Iran and in Turkey but rather of Kurds being a dagger in the ribs of Iran and Turkey, with this dagger going ever deeper.

When splitting what is likely to emerge is a even more pure Sunni Syrian state that will turn even more AOA. I fail to see the advantage in creating another Yemen/Saudi type state.

India's best advantage is in co-opting the moderate opposition and creating a modern democratic state in Syria. This would precipitate the collapse of Saudi Arabia, ending the Wahabi petro dollar flow to India/TSP and Iran, creating a moderate state that would squeeze TSP on its Western side.

I look at Syria as the key domino to be pushed.

Syria was a very moderate state, when it was Ba'athist under Assad (I have already started talking in the past tense). Alawites are basically moderate Muslims. But since Assad, and the Alawite regime is under pressure to go, the chances are that the Resistance would bring in Sunnis and with time it would become ever more Sunni with the Alawites and Christians sidelined. We can remember how the Christians were treated in Iraq after Saddam's regime fell and many had to leave the country.

That is why I am saying that we need to keep the Alawites in power in at least some region of Syria - in North-Western Syria, cutting off the access of Sunni Syria from the Mediterranean. Thus Sunni Syria would be a landlocked region, and dependent on other powers. Such dependence would ensure that Sunni hardliners in Syria (South-Central Syria) exercise restraint.

So a fragmentation of Syria helps:

1. Creation of Kurdistan ultimately
2. Moderation of Syrian Sunnis, as they would be landlocked
3. Preserves the Alawites & Christians in their own region on the Mediterranean
4. Breaks the Shi'a Crescent from Iran to Mediterranean
5. Disrupts a Sunni Encirclement of Israel
6. Weakens Syria's Claims on Golan Heights

[RajeshA]

Also AFAIK Israel has a relatively stable nation in Syria WRT the Golan Heights. Yes, it is undeclared war, etc but actions are quite rational. Israel seems to prefer this form of 'partnership' with Syria. A broken up Syria would likely lead to irrational attack on Golan.

On the contrary, Sunni South-Central Syria would hardly have a strong government in the beginning with hardly much of a military force.

Should any Sunni force attack Israel from there, it is possible that Israel would use the pretext and react to it by invading Syria and conquering much more of it. Some change in government in the Sunni Syrian part could then make peace with Israel in lieu for returning the conquered part, and Israel will be able to keep the Golan Heights.

If Turkey can walk into Syria and create some sort of buffer for itself citing Kurdish threat or refugee exodus, without any UNSC mandate, then Israel too would be able to cite some reason to walk into Syria.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from West Asia - News & Discussions Thread from 16 Aug 2011

The clipping of Iranian wings is very good! It is good because the Shi'ite led Mullahcracy in Iran has de-facto promised the Iranian masses, that they can pack a punch, and bring the Muslim world under their leadership. The siege and defeat of Israel was going to bolster their claim as the leader of Islam. The Shi'ite Crescent was going to be their arm, reaching all the way to the borders of Israel.

Now that is coming undone!

By pushing Iraq into the Shi'ite Column, the West had bolstered the Shi'ite power. Now bringing down the Alevi leadership in Syria, they are tilting the power equilibrium back in the other direction.

It is a typical scenario of monkey dividing the bread between the 2 cats!

Iraq turning Shi'ite had the effect of bringing Shi'ite revolution too close to Saudi Arabia for comfort, so there is a sword at the Saudi throat! Taking away Syria from Shi'ite influence has the effect, that the West is taking away that sword from Israeli throat.

So the net effect is turning the sword of Shi'ism away from Israel towards Saudi Arabia.

Since the Shi'ite Mullahcracy in Iran proved to be implacable, and was determined to attain its leadership position in the Islamic World over the body of Israel, there was no other way than this. Iran has been constantly trying to paper over the sectarian differences in Islam by making Israel the common foe. That is why Iran was willing to fund and support Hamas, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and even some Taliban factions in Afghanistan. That is why Iran has not really reacted to the Shi'ite killings in Pakistan.

Now if Israel goes out of reach of Shi'ite power in Iran, the only other way for the Shias to assert their leadership is through a direct showdown with the Sunnis. Either Iran picks up the gauntlet and confronts the Sunnis, or Iran would have to refashion itself.

The first option would see, Iran (and Iraq) asserting its full might in the Gulf - Bahrain, Kuwait, and in the Al Ahsa province of Saudi Arabia, making the Gulf countries even more dependent on the West and Turkey. Should the Shias succeed it would mean, all money for Pakistan would dry up. That is good for India, making taking control of Pakistan much easier.

Should however the Iranians fail, one could see, Iran even rejecting Islam altogether, as their Islamic sect looks more and more defeated versus the Sunnis. If Iran is sufficiently weakened by then - broken up with Azeris, Kurds, Baloch having left Iran, then it is possible for Iran to fall into India's lap like a ripe mango. Then it is possible for Iran to reject Islam and to again look for its Aryan roots. Again it would become much more easy then to squeeze Pakistan between the Aryan resurgence on its two flanks.

[RajeshA]

This would create a complete encircling of Israel by the Sunnis.

Breaking up Iran is a far fetched dream at this point, especially when Iraq and Afghan misadventures have not been very successful.

Carl ji,

I wrote a scenario in which Iran could break up, with a follow up.

But there are some things can open up and transform Iran:

1. Failure to form and strengthen the Shi'ite Crescent.
2. Losing leadership of the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
3. Rise of Arab nationalism and pan-Turkism as well.

In the event that Israel is encircled by Sunnis and Iran loses its wedge in WA, there is every possibility that Iran will open up to more co-operation with India and even covertly with Israel. Secondly, having lost the lone anti-Zionist jihadi status, an internal constituency will be disillusioned, especially when pan-Arab nationalism clearly derogates Iran. So the "implosion" and reform of the Iranian regime from within begins. Moreover, TSP will hitch itself as a sidekick to the Sunni pan-Arab rise, so that again boxes Iran in.

In such an event only can Iran be reformed into a more useful ally for India.

Something I posted earlier is quite similar to your views here.

If it takes those steps, then it opens up the door for the liberation of Balochistan. Lastly, only with a reformed Iran that has relinquished its dreams of pan-Islamic leadership is it viable to carve and unite Kurdish territories out of Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Then those Kurdish territories will unite under a pan-Iranic/Indo-Aryan umbrella identity (Kurds are not homogenous in terms of religious sects). Otherwise, as Theo ji said, Kurdistan will sooner or later become another jihadi leader. Fethullah Gulen does have some Kurdish Turks in his following. Remember, the lionized anti-Crusader Saladin was probably Kurdish.

I wrote some time ago

Kurdish belongs to the Indo-European group of languages. It is closely linked with Baluchi language, and we propose to have Baluchistan as part of India someday. The Kurds are mostly a secular group, subjugated by other Muslim ethnicities - Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc. They will be very grateful for an Indian role in their liberation. So if USA has Israel in the Middle East as its power-base, we should develop Kurdistan as our power-base.

Some day, a much smaller Iran would build the geographical link between India (Baluchistan) and Kurdistan.

We should support the Alawites to create their own country in the North-West of Syria on the Mediterranean contiguous with Syrian Kurdistan. Also Syrian Christians can move to the North-West around Antioch and get some safe haven for themselves.

Thus the Shi'ite Crescent will be broken and the linkage would be through Kurdistan, a place where India would/could have a lot of influence. So we would control how much influence Iran can exert on the Mediterranean - in Lebanon, in North-West Syria. Of course, we would allow some, for North-West Syria would also give Kurdistan access to the sea.

Some day Iran too would throw away the yoke of Theocracy and even Islam itself and embrace its Aryan and Zoroastrian roots. Some day, Iran too may become a part of the Aryan Crescent stretching from India all the way to Mediterranean.

India too should develop long-term national interests in the region! As we grow into a power, we will need all the geostrategic space we can get!

If Turkey walks in into Kurdish areas in Northern Syria or in Iraqi Kurdistan, then Kurdistan would receive another boost, as Kurds would again rally in favor of Kurdish Independence.

The more Turks put pressure on Kurds, the more it would strengthen the ethnic identity and the Islamic identity would get weaker. Of course there is always a danger of Talibanization of Kurds, where they start leaning towards Islam, but that process would have to be impressed upon by the Turks who could use Islam to keep Kurds from breaking off, but would Turks really want to go the Pakistan way?

So RajeshA ji, the scenario you painted is best for Israel, but not India. The above scenario may be best for India, but not Israel. Though Israel will become more dependent on India's (and the West's) favour IMHO.

As far as I see it, the scenario of fragmentation of Syria is good both for Israel and India. The Syrian Fragmentation scenario would contribute to the breaking of the Shi'ite Crescent, thus weakening Iranian influence, and taking them away from their dream of crushing Zionism - your points 1) and 2).

As a sidenote, in a way, Iran would become dependent on the Kurds to enable them to deliver supplies to Hezbollah through Latakia and North Lebanon, i.e. in case the Syrian Kurds can manage to have a border with the Alawite Division. That would mean Iran would have to give some more autonomy to its own Kurds as well, if it wishes to link up with Hezbollah.

[Theo_Fidel]

There has been some speculation that Turkey may try to set up population buffer zones within Syria where the population could retreat to from govt. attacks. Maybe they could start with the Kurdish areas, though Ankara pretends that no Kurds exist.

[shyamd]

The whole point of the buffer zone was to prevent kurdish independence really. They can't see Syria break up as it bolsters the kurds.

[RajeshA]

The whole point of the buffer zone was to prevent kurdish independence really. They can't see Syria break up as it bolsters the kurds.

Exactly for that reason, Syria should fragment, similar to Iraq. The fragmentation would take place automatically if Alawites would concentrate their strength along North-West along the Mediterranean Coast in Latakia and its East in Aleppo.

There needs to be a de-facto break-up of Syria. The Alawites should draw back from Damascus and let it fall into the hands of the Sunnis.

The Christians would be advised to leave Damascus and move to Aleppo.

[shyamd]

They don't want a civil war. That's the reason why they are holding back at the moment. I think the strategy has changed now - they are upto something else. Not sure what exactly.

[Theo_Fidel]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36130.html

The European Union banned all import of Syrian crude oil on Friday to protest Damascus's violent suppression of demonstrators, but the standoff between protesters and President Bashar al-Assad's government showed no signs of subsiding.

Security forces shot at least 14 marchers dead Friday as Syrians took to the streets following noon prayers. The largest protest appeared to take place in the city of Homs, where tens of thousands of people turned out against the Assad regime to support a day activists had labeled "death before humiliation."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... ssad-falls

If the regime does fall, Schenker says, that could be the first win geopolitically for the West over Iran since the start of the Arab Spring. When leaders like Hosni Mubarek in Egypt or Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia fell, for example, the United States and the West lost allies. The same could arguably be said for Muammar Qadhafi in Libya when he ultimately retreats. After all, while the West eventually sided with the popular opposition in each of those cases, the ousted leaders had long been stable strategic allies for western nations, particularly against Iran.

But, the same isn't true with Syria. If Assad falls, the loss would certainly be Iran's.

"Its close ties to Hezbollah, its close ties to Syria, [and] its close ties to Hamas have essentially given it a Mediterranean presence, which is terribly troubling to many of the Lebanese, as well as to Israel, as well as to Jordan and Egypt," says Geoffrey Kemp, director of regional security programs at the Center for the National Interest, a Washington-based policy research firm. "So, anything that undermines Iran's Mediterranean strategy would be seen as a great plus for the United States and its friends."

[Theo_Fidel]

Interesting take on the offshore oil of Syria. Crumbs anyone?
Essentially he is saying there is no problem in Syria.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278179

Syria was spared the American wrath because it had no oil and its border with Israel had been the most peaceful in the region. War drums against Damascus are a surprise because another Iraq is not possible—that would entail American invasion, not on the cards now. So Damascus, therefore, has to be destabilised in other ways—by encouraging the Sunni majority against the Alawite-dominated regime, for instance.

So why the focus on Damascus now? It takes time to digest startling reality. But yes, oil and gas are in the bargain now, offshore, within the territorial waters of Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus, as much oil as there is in Saudi Arabia. Do a Google search and find “Israel Energy Initiative”. Familiar names like Dick Cheney swim into focus. (New Delhi clearly has a bustling embassy in Damascus. Seated in President Bashar Assad’s palace, I find officials quickly processing documents submitted by ONGC Videsh Ltd to prospect in blocks claimed by Syria.)

Some political facts complete the picture. A Shia ring around Saudi Arabia gives Riyadh nightmares. A larger, strategic Shia arc (plus Hamas) is also Israel’s nightmare. It is in this latter category that Syria fits in, because Assad, his clan, the army are all Alawites, a secular variant of Shias. The majority is overwhelmingly Sunni. These sectarian divisions in the Syrian context are slightly misleading: Ba’ath socialism nurtured a deeply secular society.

Babrak Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey and Ba’athist Syria had a durable, secular bond. But now, a more Islamic Turkey has been pressing Assad to give political space to the Muslim Brotherhood while introducing reforms in Syria. For Assad, this would be the thin end of the wedge. A more “Sunni” Syria would remove the country from the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas nexus and enhance Turkey’s influence over Iran’s in the region. Also, Turkey is strategically placed to ensure the smooth flow of offshore oil to Europe.

In this scenario, the role of Robert Stephen Ford, the US ambassador to Syria, is vital. John Negroponte, as ambassador to Iraq, said of Ford, his deputy then: “He is one of those very tireless people...who did not mind putting on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet contacts.” Well, his risk-taking spirit is now driving him to such trouble spots as Hama’a and Darr’a for patting the rebels. Why Assad hasn’t shown him the door probably reflects on the besieged president’s weakness and possible divisions in the highest leadership.

Into this destabilisation process the Iraqi insurgency also finds an outlet, relieving pressure on US troops planning a departure from Baghdad. The media—Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, BBC and CNN in that order—are putting out stories which neither non-Arab ambassadors nor this journalist have found to be true. In a drive to Homs, even Hama’a, the real trouble spot, I saw fewer pickets than on Indian roads. In the end, the media’s reputation will be quite as battered as the region’s. How are these bogus stories being flashed despite the stringent censorship? The New York Times says that “the Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy ‘shadow’ internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks”. All for the love of freedom?

[RajeshA]

Interesting take on the offshore oil of Syria. Crumbs anyone?
Essentially he is saying there is no problem in Syria.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278179

Theo_Fidel ji,

Most of the Oil and Natural Gas finds in the Eastern Mediterranean have been in Tarmac, Dalit and Leviathan Fields. It is controversial if any of those fields are even in the EEZ of Lebanon, much less Syria.

Israel and Cyprus are going to be prospecting for Oil together, as Cyprus could probably have some rights over Leviathan Gas Field. This is the second point of contention. Turkey claims that North Cyprus (the Turkish part) should have rights over that field as well. That is one reason Turkey is becoming more belligerent, in support of both Turkish Cyprus and Gaza. Turkey wants to show that if it is not brought into the equation, it would spoil the party.

In fact, Turkish support to Gaza could also be because of these Oil & Gas finds. Gaza would probably have some claims on the area, and Turkey may wish to exploit that. All this puts the issue of Two-State Solution at a totally different level. I could imagine, that Israel would not be giving Gaza any sovereignty any time soon.

Published on Apr 21, 2010
By David Wainer and Calev Ben-David
Israel Billionaire Tshuva Strikes Gas, Fueling Expansion in Energy, Hotels: Bloomberg

Published on Jun 10, 2010
By Ghassan Karam
EDL and the Natural Gas Find Off Shore: Ya Libnan



Published on Jun 16, 2010
Israeli gas boom could ignite trouble: UPI

Published on Jun 17, 2010
By David Wainer and Massoud A. Derhally
Israel Gas Finds Trigger Dispute With Lebanon, Cyprus Questions Boundaries: Bloomberg

Published on Jul 07, 2010
By Ghassan Karam
Potential Lebanese- Israeli Conflict over Natural Gas Revisited: Ya Libnan

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 02, 2011
By Rajendra Abhyankar
Before we take down Assad: Haaretz

Fifth, oil and gas are drivers here too. The recent discovery of up to 30 trillion cubic meters of natural gas in the offshore Levant Basin Province, encompassing Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus, has introduced a new reason for stability and not conflict. Syria, like Israel and Lebanon, is looking to exploit its share. Only a new peace initiative that leverages this factor will enable its exploitation by all.

Rajendra Abhyankar is chairman of the Kunzru Center for Defense Studies and Research, in Pune, India. He was India's ambassador to Syria from 1992 to 1996, and late last month visited that country at the invitation of its government.

Syria share in the Levant Basin would be minimal, I think.

[Rony]

I am assuming its a Syrian Sunni Arab uploaded Video.

These Alawite Soldiers from Dictator Bashar's Army are shown here abusing and tormenting unarmed peaceful protesters whom they have captured and are holding in a Latakia school converted into a prison (I know the soldiers are Alawite based on their accents).
The conversation sort of goes like this: guard: "Who is your Master" answer "Bashar" which the guard the n does the same question makes each prisoner answer as "the President Bashar" or "doctor Bashar" and the last guy doesn't answer quick enough and the guard says "talk louder you dog".There are upwards of 20,000 political prisoners being held by the Dictator in Soccer Stadiums, theaters, schools and hospitals and what you see here is nothing compared to what is happening to thousands of the detainees, many of whom are being tortured and killed while in custody.

[Rony]

Some more videos from Syria

[shyamd]

There are 2 main groups. Both are allied with the brotherhood. 2 guys, one is in egypt, the othercalling the shots from Saudi. They robbed a bank, raided tghe police HQ in Jisr al singour and stole all the automatic guns. Thy are operating from the Turkish Syrian border areas. These groups are financed by Syrian businessmen who were part of the opposition conference. The Syrian opposition is currently a little split, most of them want to continue the non violent struggle, but they feel undermined by the MB allied violent groups attacking the Syrian soldiers. I think it was these groups that destroyed the refinery in the area - so whoever it is, these groups are external backed probably by turkey and KSA.

Assad knows the game is over and is just fighting to the last man now.

Iranian Basij and police officers are now seconded alongside Hezbllah fighters against syrian protesters. Hamas has opted out and refused to mobilise.

[shyamd]

Keep an eye on Sheikh Adnan Arour. A syrian based in Saudi commanding the brigades in Jisr Al Shughour from KSA.

[Theo_Fidel]

It is staggering to watch the videos above, several of which are from Damascus, and then read the write up below. The situation is obviously deeply unstable. 80%+ of population, esp. Sunni's appear to live in deep poverty and brutality. The minorities are fooling themselves if they think the turmoil will not touch them.

Reminds me of Tripoli where everything was quiet until one morning Gaddafi was just gone into the night...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/world ... ascus.html

The salon, whose clientele includes the wives of the “rich and famous,” as one hairdresser described them, is just one of many examples that indicate how well Damascus has managed to shield itself during months of violence across the country. “At the beginning, there were some guys demonstrating for freedoms and rights, but it later turned out they were only trying to create a sectarian war,” the manicurist said. “The security forces are hunting them down, one by one. And they are almost done with them.”

Her version of events is one that is repeated daily by Syrian state news media and television channels close to the government: that the country is facing a foreign conspiracy to divide it and that security forces are battling armed Islamist extremists who are terrorizing residents and have killed 500 police officers and soldiers so far.

On the day before her wedding, several relatives called to ask about the situation in her neighborhood. “Everything was quiet,” she kept repeating to them. Curious, she finally relented and turned on the news to find out that Arabic-language satellite channels were reporting demonstrations in her street. There were none, she insisted.

“Everything is normal, just don’t watch Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya,” one of the manicurists said. “They are spreading lies. Watch only Syrian channels to learn the truth.” And off she went to discuss nail polish.

[Theo_Fidel]

This is a good move. Effectively a government in exile. Now they have to show they can cooperate and coordinate their movement. If they can show that they can effectively shut down the country for short periods of time Assad will be finished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14929813
Syrian opposition unveils council names

Members of Syria's opposition groups have chosen 140 people to form a "national council" after a meeting held in Turkey. The council aims to organise and give a public face to protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It will also aim to co-ordinate the opposition's policies against the Syrian leadership.

Turkey used to be a close ally of Syria, but has recently joined calls for Mr Assad to implement reforms. At the meeting, 70 names were read out from a list of 140, as at least some of the rest cannot be named, possibly because they are inside Syria, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul. Others are in exile.

The opposition groups seem to have finally agreed to what is effectively an embryonic Syrian national assembly, says our correspondent. For the first time, it has the full backing of all opposition groups inside and outside the country, and will now represent the opposition, he adds.

An opposition spokeswoman, Basma Qadmani, said: "After completing the first level of consultative meetings, groups of revolutionary youth, political movements and personalities, activists and technocrats decided to found the Syrian National Council." Yasser Tabbara, another member of the council, said it had not yet elected a president. "We are in a democratic process. This is an inaugural meeting," he told the AFP news agency.

An activist told the BBC that representatives from Syrian minorities were included, in response to their growing concern over what might happen after the ousting of President Assad, who is a member of the minority Alawite community

The sentiment is turn towards some sort of foreign involvement.

http://www.economist.com/node/21529100

AFTER six months of demonstrations and some 2,600 deaths, mainly of unarmed civilians, protesters have begun to call in desperate earnest for foreign help. They dubbed the most recent Friday “international protection day”. Many waved signs calling for a UN resolution and for an observer mission to visit the country. Foreign involvement is still minimal. But the prospect of it is being more hotly debated, both inside Syria and beyond.

A growing number of governments, including many in the region, have called on President Bashar Assad to make concessions. Turkey has turned against him, while keeping diplomatic avenues open. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have sharpened their criticism. Even Iran, Mr Assad’s main regional ally, has been making more nuanced noises.

Moreover, Mr Assad still has useful foreign friends. Russia, China, India and Brazil continue to oppose a UN Security Council resolution and UN-imposed sanctions. Russia supplies arms and is building a naval base on Syria’s coast. China and India may buy oil to make up for the export shortfall. It is inconceivable that the UN Security Council would now impose a no-fly zone over Syria as it did in March over Libya: Russia and China would veto it. Nor would NATO governments support such a course.

Instead, some governments are ramping up efforts to help Syria’s fragmented opposition. Turkey and Qatar have hosted gatherings to forge opposition fronts. France is building up links. Many protesters look eagerly to Turkey, which shares a border of nearly 900km (560 miles) with Syria. Some say that, especially if the pace of killing rises, the Turks may be persuaded to create a buffer zone to protect refugees in a “safe haven” along the border. Others air the idea of other havens, for defecting soldiers as well as civilian refugees, in the south and north-east of the country, along the borders with Jordan and Iraq.

Another step in the campaign against Mr Assad is an increase in funds for the opposition. More of the protesters, who have generally been determinedly non-violent, are talking of taking up arms, many of which are already being smuggled across porous borders. So the unrest could turn into a civil conflict. Governments in neighbouring countries might then have to decide which side they are on. Rich people from the Gulf, among other places, are said to be involved. Syria’s turmoil may yet take on a wider regional dimension. Ordinary Syrians are getting ever more fearful.

[Virendra]

The Syrian situation was and remains precarious for Indian diplomacy as well.
It is a rope walk to project oneself as an unbiased, reasonable soft power in MENA and Iranian eyes; as well as mange the disagreement with US/NATO/Europe over the application of certain strict measures against the Syrian regime.
Till now India has used the UNSC roll quite inline to its foreign policy towards Syria. But it is to be seen how this tradeoff approach fares with the international community. One can't keep everyone happy all the time.
While the US doesn't accept its policies for India vis a vis Pak as zero sum for the two sides (so the two sides claim). It is only justified for India to take the same stand on its Syria policy for US/NATO vis a vis Iran+MENA.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121876
Syria conflict: 'Soldiers and police killed' in Rastan.
Wondering how India will tweak its diplomacy as the violence grows and so does the fear that Syria might be slipping into Libyan style free fall.

Article's excerpts:
...US has condemned an attack on US Ambassador Robert Ford, who was pelted with stones and tomatoes by a mob in the capital Damascus. He was preparing to meet a senior opposition figure, Hassan Abdul Azim...

...Seven Syrian soldiers and police have been killed in clashes with forces opposed to President Bashar al-Assad in the central town of Rastan, Syria's state news agency Sana reports...

...a military spokesman as saying that in Rastan "in a specific operation, the army units have successfully fulfilled their duties, arresting a number of the armed groups' members, seizing their weapons, explosives and different ammunitions"...

...Correspondents say Syrian security forces have mostly remained loyal to President Assad, but deserters have formed their own units around Rastan, 180km (120 miles) north of Damascus, regarded as a recruiting ground for Sunni Muslim conscripts for the army...

Regards,
Virendra

[brihaspati]

Assad will have to go. It is said that India or rather GOI typically supports those regimes with apparent popular support - in the ME. But overtly it appears that GOI also talks under cover of a pretension of a high moral ground. But then - was Qaddafi really so "popular", that a simple military defeat/retreat pushes him out of power? Mubarak - popular? Forced to abdicate even without an "imperialist/interventioinst/splittist" [how we all love the Chinese - Hindi -Chini bhai bhai when it comes to terminology] imposed no-fly zone and missile attacks? Assad - leading a "minority" regime - popular with the majority?

[Theo_Fidel]

People want a change. Popularity has nothing to do with it. In any case these leaders depend on a tiny slice of support that uses terror to quell opposition.

The unfortunate lesson from Libya is that if peaceful protests are put down violently, only violence in return prevails. If defections on sectarian lines continue, a Lebanon type situation may become more likely.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 62632.html

Fears are mounting that Syria may be on the verge of civil war as reports emerged yesterday that hundreds of army deserters were battling Bashar al-Assad's forces in the first major confrontation against the regime.

But calls for immediate sanctions were scrapped in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition. Delegates hoped that the weaker document, which demanded an "immediate end to all violence", would eventually be approved by the two veto-wielding members.

One Syrian lobbyist, who was in New York yesterday pushing for firmer action, criticised the proposed resolution as "basically useless". "In reality, it is very weak," said Wissam Tarif, executive director of the Insan human rights organisation. "It doesn't mention the International Criminal Court and it doesn't mention an arms embargo."

A series of European and US-sponsored sanctions against the Syrian regime are already in place, but no measures have yet been approved at the UN.

The developments in New York came as heavy fighting continued in the central Syrian town of Al-Rastan, an opposition stronghold which has become a bolthole for army deserters. Activists said that at least 1,000 former soldiers and armed citizens were now waging a battle against security forces, who were laying siege to the town backed up by tanks and helicopter gunships.

[Theo_Fidel]

The opposition actually sat together at one table. Quite an improvement. Though there was pushing and shoving immediately after.
It remains to be seen if they can hold together though the numerous defeats and setbacks that will happen in future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

Syrian dissidents meeting in Istanbul on Sunday announced the formation of a council uniting most of their country’s fractious opposition groups, a step that activists hailed as a potential breakthrough in the months-long standoff between a largely leaderless protest movement and the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian National Council aims to represent the opposition in dealings with the international community and to offer an alternative to Assad, something that has been lacking since ordinary Syrians began swarming the streets in March to stage anti-government demonstrations.

But many activists said they are relieved that the Syrian opposition can now claim a semblance of unity after months of bickering and numerous false starts. Syrians nationwide took to the streets to proclaim support for the council.

“Finally, after 40 years of oppression and six months of bloodshed, we have a united opposition,” said Yaser Tabbara, a Syrian American lawyer who is a member of the council and helped organize the effort. “The international community has been waiting awhile for an alternative to the Assad regime and a body it can negotiate with and talk to. This is it.”

Several previous efforts to form such a body had faltered on disagreements between Islamists and secularists, expatriate figures and street protesters inside Syria, elderly dissidents and the youth activists who have provided what little leadership exists in this mostly spontaneous revolt. But the newly formed council appears to have brought together representatives of most of the diverse assortment of groups that have emerged to challenge the Assad government.

Included in the 190-member council are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the traditional dissidents known collectively as the Damascus Declaration and the three main groups representing protesters inside Syria — the Local Coordination Committees, the Syrian Revolution General Commission and the Supreme Council of the Syrian Revolution. Roughly half of the members come from inside Syria, and members of the Kurdish, Christian and Alawite minorities are also represented.

[chaanakya]

There is something I want to understand about the oil Business . Where does crude oil in India come from ? Indian companies own oil fields abroad. How is the payment for the crude oil from these companies made ? (which currency?) What % of Indian crude oil import comes from places that has no Indian stake in it ?

I hope baboons/MEA exercises mental faculty while dealing with Libya . Tragically the often take "moralistic stands" . Often against Indian national interests .

G

I thought your questions remained unanswered. So here is some info.
Crude Oil Basket.




Yes India does own Oil fields abroad.

Production figure for 2007-10 period. (MMT)
For Oil

1 GNOP, Sudan 7.550
2 MECL, Colombia 1.130
3 Sancristobal, Venezuela 1.375
4 IEC, Russia' 0.619
5 Sakhalin I, Russia 5.619
6 Block 5A, Sudan 0.826
7 Vietnam 0.117
8 AFPC, Syria 2.457
9 BC-10, Brazil 0.192
TOTAL-OIL 19.885

For Gas (BCM)
2007-10

Sakhalin I, Russia 1.107
II Vietnam 5.432
III AFPC, Syria 0.024
TOTAL-GAS 6.563

Payment is made in Dollars , all long term contracts. With Iran India is facing trouble . It tried ACU route which has been shut down by RBI. USA is pressing India to stop trade.Alternate mechanism would be worked out so.
I think other questions are also answered above.

Baboons from MEA do well to keep our pipeline open despite multiple pressures. Thanks to them. Be grateful as many do not understand the reach and extent of diplomatic efforts put in to keep energy line open, give the conflicting interests at play.