MANAMA, Bahrain — Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, speaking at the Manama Dialogue Regional Security Summit convened by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned of an “Islamic emirate” emerging in Syria.
Just this past week, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al-Qaeda affiliated group, attacked the ethnically mixed Iraqi city of Kirkuk, a further sign of the linkage between terrorism in Syria and Iraq. The relative security of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, whose capital, Erbil, suffered a deadly attack in October along with the rest of Iraq, is under an unprecedented threat from the spillover of the Syria war.
The rise in terrorism is giving increased urgency to finding a political solution to the Syria conflict, including diplomacy with the Syrian government, to stem the surging jihadist threat.
The New York Times on Dec. 3 quoted former US diplomat Ryan Crocker as saying that in matters of counterterrorism and other issues, “We need to start talking to the Assad regime again.” Crocker added, “It will have to be done very, very quietly. But bad as [President Bashar al-] Assad is, he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence.”
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on Dec. 5 at a conference on “The US, Russia and the Middle East” co-sponsored by Al-Monitor and the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said: “I have never seen a pooling of the numbers of al-Qaeda. We didn’t even see this in Iraq at the height of the Iraq War from foreign fighters — from regional attraction into the eastern provinces of Syria and the western border area in Iraq. … So you think about why I’m nervous. We have our allies looking for other partners in the region now. We have this pooling of al-Qaeda. We don’t have a good operation to vet rebels on the ground in the way I think we need to. This is a recipe for disaster.”
In a further sign of a trend away from a military solution in Syria, Khalid Bin Mohammed Al Attiyah, Qatar’s minister of foreign affairs, speaking on the same Manama Dialogue panel as Zebari, stayed clear of advocating a military option in Syria, instead making a passionate call for humanitarian intervention, proclaiming Qatar’s support for the “Syrian people” and declaring that Qatar “never supported terrorists in Syria.” Last year, at the 2012 Manama Dialogue, Attiyah had lauded the expansion of the Syrian Military Council and advised against excluding any party from the Syrian opposition, including those who might be considered terrorists, saying, “What we are doing [by excluding these groups] is only creating a sleeping monster, and this is wrong. We should bring them all together, we should treat them all equally, and we should work on them to change their ideology, i.e., put more effort altogether to change their thinking. If we exclude anything from the Syrian elements today, we are only doing worse to Syria. Then we are opening the door again for intervention to chase the monster.”
This year, Attiyah qualified his comments of a year ago by distinguishing between Syrians opposed to the government of Assad and foreign terrorist groups fighting there.
Zebari, for his part, called on Syrian opposition groups to negotiate directly with the Assad government to end the war, and said such a negotiation would legitimize them.
Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, said at the Al-Monitor-SAIS conference that while Moscow is not necessarily wedded to Assad staying in power, any change would be a “political” decision for negotiations between Syrians, not something imposed by outside powers or opposition groups, and that such a change should not be a condition for the Geneva II negotiations.
The “joint plan of action” agreed on by Iran and the P5+1 countries in Geneva on Nov. 24 has also contributed to an overall shift in the tone of discussions about “regional security” in the Middle East.
Former senior US diplomats Daniel Kurtzer and Thomas Pickering and former Iranian ambassador Seyyed Hossein Mousavian wrote this week for Al-Monitor: “Timely implementation [of the joint plan of action] will not only build trust and credibility, but will also significantly improve the atmosphere and prospects for a full agreement within the next six months. Such a trend would facilitate further constructive cooperation between Iran and the world powers on other crises in the Middle East such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The interim agreement — and its faithful implementation — is a significant opportunity which should not be missed or it will constitute a failure of unimaginable proportions.”
In Israel, the shift toward realism following the interim agreement is slowly taking hold. On Dec. 8, Israeli President Shimon Peres, in response to a question from CNN’s Richard Quest as to whether Peres would be willing to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, replied, “Why not? I don’t have enemies.” Peres added, “It’s not a matter of a person but of a policy. … The purpose is to convert enemies into friends.”
The Financial Times reported on Dec. 6, “After several weeks when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly tried to lobby US public opinion against the interim agreement with Iran reached last month in Geneva, the Israeli government is now looking to use its influence in Washington to shape the administration’s negotiating position.”
Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse has been all over this trend from the start, as thiscolumn reported last week: “In Israel, despite a skeptical public and statements of alarm by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there is also awareness among national security leaders that the deal with Iran may have its advantages, and that Israel is poorly served by putting itself at odds with the international coalition that forced Iran to negotiations.”
Former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, also speaking at the Al-Monitor-SAIS event, argued that there is a “different game” in the Middle East, where Russia, and eventually China, can be more instrumental in conflict management, as in Syria.“To some extent we need Russia. We need China,” Brzezinski said. “We need both of them to some extent more than we need Britain or France, the former colonial powers in the region. … All are likely to suffer if things blow up.”
I said
This in Syria started as a revolt against Assad. Let them then and therefore defeat Assad if they can. Or let Assad defeat them.
Send an army in to defend Assad. I never said THAT!
I said to take up a position in defence of Assad. To oppose Obama’s interference, and Cameron and the BBC etc. To stand basically where possible for national sovereignty.
…but keep the guard up against Assad too.
Instead every person on Israpundit were for the breaking up of Syria. I oppose that totally.
Plus it opens the door to the breaking up of Israel.
Another way of putting this is to ask is it posible for Israeli leaders to take up world positions without sending in their army? Of course it is.
You say “Who is Robinson” repeating my words. Listen do not be clever. You took this line first and I was being ironic. You asked remember “who do I represent”
The question was barbed and connected to conspiracy thinking. I repeated this is the net, and we can be anybody. It is merely a discussion. I do not care who anybody is, only what they say.
There is no way of knowing who anybody is.
You try to be clever with me but it does not work.
Finally I find your line totally confusing and you evade totally my point about the issue of national sovereignty. Why?
There is no clarity in what you write, never!
That is a récipe for confusión and disaster.
Felix Quigley Said:
You had originally advised that Israel enter the war on the side of Assad: a ridiculous idea. Israel did the most sensible thing, remain out overtly and intervene when its own security is threatened.
Felix Quigley Said:
Israel is not interfering
Felix Quigley Said:
I have no doubt obama was arming the jihdis from benghazi and training jihadis in Jordan in collaboration with saudi, qatar and turkey. This is now accepted by most media and analysts. However, I always advised that “there is many a slip between cup and lip” and that “understandings” change and get reneged upon and that Israel should remain out and let them kill each other. I carefully stated that each phase should be watched for signs of things to come. The jihadis did not attack Israel when they swarmed into syria, instead they attacked Assad, hezbullah and shia Iraq. Both the sauds and Israel are acting as if they were stabbed in the back by obama re Iran. It may be that things have changed and it can also be smoke and mirrors. Israel must continue to beware the jidis massed in sinai and syria because at the stroke of the hat the sauds may re It looks bad for Obama to be arming jihadis and this could cost the dems the mid-term election. It is important for Obama to appear to be the diplomat and not the warmongerer as that is his voting constituency.
Who is robinson??????
My own quote
That is why I find you so creepy Robinson. If Israel has a difference with Assad, then out with it, take action and make it immediate.
Not this nudge nudge wink wink we will gain.
The only way Israel gains is by stating the truth and acting openly.
You are creepy. Your whole approach is creepy. That fits in with your conspiracy theory dig against me.
Argue the issues out openly and clearly (cleanly) in front of the Jews Robinson.
Who are you anyway Robinson! this is the net. On the net you are what you write. It is a discussion…that is all.
Oh dear Robinson
Your loaded barb at the end really sums you up. Whose interests? Who know, that is to be decided in the debate.
Perhaps I represent a world communist takeover. Perhaps there are Trotskyists in sleeper cells ready to pounce. Perhaps I am an Islamist really as a sleeper cell but disguised as a Trotskyist.
In reality I believe I represent Trotskyism and the continuation of that political line, and I have never hidden it.
I think you are not interested in political debate but in weaving conspiracy theories McCarthy style.
So my contribution is this…I do not like to see interference in states by outside forces, in Yugoslavia, in any country in Africa, in Ireland, in Israel.
I believe Israel should stand for national Independence, its own, and also apply the same principle in countries like Syria.
Nothing good can come from this interference.
This in Syria started as a revolt against Assad. Let them then and therefore defeat Assad if they can. Or let Assad defeat them.
However if Assad interferes in Israel in any way the policy of Israel must always be to wage war directly against Assad stating why.
To return to you Robinson…As I understood you for a couple of years on Israpundit, you promoted the idea that the Sunni Shia división and inter war conflict (which I think is relative anyway) was being backed by Obama because the US under Obama would use that to wage a war on the Mullahs in Iran. How unstuck has that become Robinson. You preached this endlessly and boringly on Israpundit for years!
I always questioned that, just as did Gil White, because I started from the standpoint that in the final analysis the US would rule the world along with the extreme Islamists as you have in Iran. Sp you were wrong Robinson. Dead wrong. I mean many Jews dead, because of your confused spoutings here on this site.
So because of your deadly policies it is no wonder you turn to witch hunt McCarthy style.
That was the same in relation to Hitler from say 1930 to about 1938, when after Chamberlain returned it became clear to all that Germany under Hitler was a danger to their interests on a world scale. But so late that 6 millions of Jews were murdered.
That is the mistake you were making on Israpundit. You were suggesting that the US was interested in smashing Iran.
It was an idea not that different from groups on the stalinist left like wsws and swp
Unlike Yamit I believe there are such things as principles and one of these is national sovereignty
I do not think that Assad was attacking Israel when this all started. Or was he? It has been a situation of stasis over Golan for a long time.
If Assad supplied any weapons to Hizbullah then he should have been attacked on that basis, directly and openly.
If Assad was hitting against Israel in any way then I say hit Assad directly and openly. That is also the principle of national sovereignty … your own also
What an old fool.
Felix Quigley Said:
this statement is even more absurd now than before. who do you think should “defend” Assad????? Certainly not Israel. Israel has done exactly the correct thing and has gained as a result: Israel has not been drawn into the war, Syria is a weaker and lesser threat today, the possibility exists for Syria now to remain as a weaker fragmented state with fewer resources to aim at Israel, thus far the predicted jihadi threat to Israel did not materialize and the Jihadis concentrated on weakening Syria and hezbullah, they appear to be reducing the chem weapon threat to Israel. I fail to see any advantage whatsoever in your statement to support Assad, whose interests do you represent?
Will Robinson and Yamit now apologise to me? They went on the attack when I said at the beginning that Assad must be defended critically against Obama and Jihad.