DEBKA
To Send Troops into Syria with US Backing? Or Not
Voices were raised and war threats exchanged on both sides of the conversation Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan held with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s special emissary, former Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani (until 2009), in Ankara
Wednesday, June 15.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources report exclusively that Erdogan first pinned his Syrian visitor down with four tough questions:
-
1. When will Assad halt military actions in the vicinity of the Turkish border? (See also next article on the turning point in the Syrian uprising.)
2. Can Damascus be trusted to stick to its commitment to Ankara to refrain from sending troops against rebels in the big Syrian Kurdish cities of Amoda, Ifrin, Azez, Tall Afar, Qamishli and Kubani in the Al Haksa region?
Erdogan’s main concern is with an old thorn in Turkey’ side, the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), which has set up an efficient organization in the Kurdish ethnic areas of northern Syria along the Turkish border. The Syrian branch of the PKK is a hard-line violent faction which could be tipped over into terrorist attacks in Turkey by Syrian military operations.
Neither Turkey nor Syria gives an inch
3. Will Assad agree to an immediate, peaceful and humanitarian solution for the more than 200,000 Syrian refugees now parked on both sides of the Syrian-Turkish border?
Erdogan made sure Turkmani understood that Turkey had no intention of being stuck again with masses of refugees as it was in 2003 when a million panicked Iraqis poured in after the US invasion of Iraq.
4. How does Assad propose to bring closure to his bloody contest with a disaffected opposition? By introducing democratic reforms? By allowing non-Baath parties to share power? By punishing the military and security chiefs who fired live ammunition and artillery shells against civilian demonstrators and killed thousands of Syrians?
Instead of answering the Turkish prime minister, the Syrian envoy fired back even tougher questions of his own:
-
– Why is Turkey massing military forces along its border with Syria?
– Will the Turkish army march into Syria as it did in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) in early 2003 to establish security buffer zones? Turkmani warned his Turkish host that Syria would hit back at any Turkish incursion by striking military targets deep inside Turkey.
– Is it true that US special forces preparing to strike inside Syria are poised at Turkish bases ready to go across – as Syrian intelligence reports?
– Why don’t Turkish authorities put a stop to the arms consignments flowing from Kurdish centers in southern Turkey to anti-government Kurdish rebels in northern Syria?
– And why doesn’t Turkey seal its border against the flight of Syrian refugees?
The conversation ended as grimly as it began: neither Erdogan nor Turkmani gave an inch.
Erdogan mulls giving Assad a last chance
Thursday morning, June 16, sources close to Erdogan’s office said that the Turkish Prime Minister is considering sending Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, or intelligence agency-MIT chief Hakan Fidan for a “final interview” with Bashar Assad. The suggestion was that this would be the Syrian ruler’s last chance to cooperate with Turkey’s demands. After that, he risked an Erdogan decision to opt for the course of military action.
However, the Turkish prime minister also needs to know if Assad has gone too far to step back – in which case he may refuse to receive a high-ranking Turkish envoy. He has already cut himself off from contact with the Americans and other Western parties, refusing to take phone calls from US administration officials or even Republican and Democratic Senators who for years made informal pilgrimages to Damascus to see him. UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon also called several times and was told Assad was out.
Last week, Erdogan talked on the phone with the Syrian ruler, but he is unlikely to risk calling him now and is hesitating about even sending a messenger to Damascus.
What he now has to decide, according to some sources in Ankara, is whether to send Turkish military units across the border into northern Syria in the full knowledge that a Turkish-Syria war might well ensue, the first armed conflict between two Muslim countries since the Arab Revolt erupted late last year.
A spate of strident threats to US and Turkey from Tehran
The acute escalation of Turkish-Syrian tension this week has more than one incendiary ingredient:
-
First, President Barack Obama and Erdogan are reported by military and intelligence circles in Middle East and Persian Gulf capitals to have reached an understanding: If Syria shoots missiles against targets deep inside Turkey, as Hassan Turkmani threatened, the US would provide Turkey with the shield of the AEGIS missile interceptors aboard American warships in the Middle East.
Neither Washington nor Ankara was willing to comment on this information.
Second, Tuesday night, following the harsh Erdogan-Turkman conversation in Ankara, the Lebanese Hizballah’s television station in Lebanon broadcast another Iranian threat, that went largely unnoticed in the West: Tehran would strike US bases in Turkey if that country attacked Syria or facilitated an operation against Syria from its territory.
Iran also warned the United Arab Emirates-UAE that any threat to the Syrian regime would spark a major regional conflagration. The broadcast bulletin ended with the allegation that Erdogan had accepted in principle the American plan which entailed a Turkish military incursion of Syria.
This broadcast threat came on the heels of warnings three senior Iranian officials issued this week against US military intervention in Syria.
US naval buildup in the region
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said the Americans “are not allowed to launch a military intervention in any country of the region including Syria.” He said any military action in Damascus would be doomed to fail like the military action in Libya. He attacked the Zionist regime and blamed it for provoking “terrorist and sabotage operations” in Syria together with the United States.
Iranian Vice President Reza Rahimi then accused the United States of preparing and executing “the slaughter of Muslims” worldwide.
Iran’s ground forces commander Brig. Gen. Kioumars Heidari added: Any new military move by the US in the region will impose heavy costs on the country far greater than the costs it paid in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources say that in addition to these threats, Hizballah moved some of its long-range surface-to-surface missile batteries from northern Lebanon to the center of the country.
Third, US military and naval forces in the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Aegean and the Black Sea were beefed up. A key piece of this deployment was the stationing of the amphibious attack ship USS Bataan, which carries helicopters and 2,000 marines, in the Mediterranean.
Also stationed in the region was the USS Whidbey Island, a dock landing ship carrying 600 more marines, together with the USS Monterey which is cruising in the Black Sea. This vessel which carries advanced AEGIS missile interceptor systems is in position for intercepting surface-to-surface missiles launched against Turkey from Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
An anti-American government for Lebanon
Fourth, Washington and Ankara were taken by surprise by the sudden breakthrough to the formation of a government in Lebanon headed by Najib Mikati, made possible overnight by Tehran, Damascus and Hizballah after long months of political stagnation in Beirut.
Lebanon finds itself ruled by the most anti-American government in its history. All the key portfolios – defense, interior, justice and treasury – have gone for the first time to Hizballah loyalists.
Tayyip Erdogan has taken this lightning maneuver as aimed at shutting the door in the face of Turkish influence in Beirut. On top of his failure to gain a foothold in any part of the Arab Revolt, the Turkish prime minister finds his country hemmed in by hostile regimes. He himself has been dropped by the alliance with Iran and Syria of which he was an important part in the last two years for the sin of lining up with Washington.
In Ankara, there are seasoned circles who believe the ambitious Turkish leader will not suffer these setbacks in silence and may strike out by ordering the Turkish army to march into Syria.
Syrian Uprising at Turning-Point
Assad Is Writing another Victory Speech
On Wednesday, June 15, 100,000 demonstrators marched in Damascus in support of President Bashar Assad’s regime, carrying what was claimed to be the world’s longest national flag – 2.3 kilometers long. Security personnel were thin on the ground signaling the ruler’s trust in the loyalty of his capital’s inhabitants.
Later, Assad commented to his associates that this rally marked the breaking point of the opposition and proof of his success in vanquishing it,
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources report. Now, he felt he could sit down and compose his victory speech to be delivered in the coming few days.
Our sources recall that this is not the first time Assad has worked on a victory speech. He was all set to deliver his first triumphant oration when, on June 3, the northern town of Hama exploded in a massive pro-Muslim demonstration, rekindling protest outbreaks in the north. That speech was never delivered.
This time, Assad’s confident assessment is supported by a consensus among the intelligence agencies monitoring Syrian unrest – Americans, Turks, Israelis and Syrian opposition leaders – with one difference: They see the turning-point in the contest between the regime and protesters as having occurred before the pro-Assad demonstration in Damascus, forged in the brutal military campaign launched June 12 in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour by the Turkish border.
Assad’s success leaves Syrian economy broke
It was there, say our military sources, that the Syrian ruler’s decision to bet on the army for crushing the revolt rather than his security and intelligence services paid off. This victory also made the Syrian president’s younger brother, Gen. Maher Assad, who continually urged Bashar to entrust the uprising to the army, the most powerful man in Syria.
Western intelligence agencies have no reliable data on the cost to the Syrian exchequer of crushing the countrywide revolt, but it must be assumed to be very heavy: Some 70,000-100,000 security personnel are on a round-the-clock state of alert, dependent on logistical support for keeping thousands of vehicles and hundreds of tanks almost constantly on the move from one trouble spot to another.
The daily expenditure on the crackdown is roughly estimated at $2-3 million (compared with Muammar Qaddafi’s outlay of close to $4 million per day for fighting NATO) and spiraling upward.
Wednesday, June 15, the Syrian army began deploying along the Syrian-Turkish border (870 kilometers) and the Syrian-Iraqi border (600 kilometers) to seal off the exits to the stream of fleeing Syrian refugees and smuggling operations from those two neighbors.
This deployment is extremely expensive. Calling for numerous mobile units spread over a large area and backed by air and helicopter reconnaissance planes, it could add another $1 million to Syra’s daily bill for suppressing disaffection.
West could have cut off his war funding by an oil embargo – but didn’t
Therefore, Western intelligence and financial experts familiar with the Syrian scene were highly skeptical when Minister of Finance Mohammed al-Jleilati insisted last week that the economy was “strong and healthy” – especially when he said Syria was self-reliant in food and had amassed foreign currency reserves worth $18 billion.
Some figures tell a different story: Syrian industrial output has declined by 50 percent in the 4 months of the uprising. The tourism industry, a key source of revenue, has collapsed, leaving hotels in Damascus and other tourist centers empty.
Had the US and Europe really wanted to hasten Bashar Assad’s fall and deny him access to war funds, they could have done so by an embargo on the export of Syrian oil, which accounts for $7-8 million in income per day. Their failure to enforce this step is further evidence that US President Barack Obama has not decided that it is time for Bashar Assad to go. US official condemnations of his savage crackdown of protest have never referred to the Syrian president by name. Administration spokesmen have also been instructed not to raise the question of an oil embargo for the time being.
Who would lend Assad money?
Even so, the assessment in the West is that by the fall, in September or October, just a few months from now, Damascus could run out of money for holding down the lingering revolt against his regime. He will then have two options – to print money and catapult Syria into hyperinflation or to borrow from outside lenders – except that no volunteer creditors are immediately in sight. It is hard to imagine the super-moneyed Saudis, who have sunk at least $2 billion in promoting the anti-Assad protest movement, suddenly turning round with an offer to lend him money or raise assistance from their Gulf allies.
Turkey might conceivably be willing to come to Assad’s aid, but only if the Syrian ruler is ready to bow to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s demands for political reforms that would ultimately bring opposition parties into government in Damascus.
Even if the Syrian ruler has managed to reach a turning-point against the revolt, he will still need plenty of cash to rebuild and restore the security services which prop up his regime.
BlandOatmeal u just hate turks… but make a check on your gens probably more then half of them will be same as turks..:s
Cyprus and iraq are different issues… in cyprus turkey went there as the other side of the island were cutting the otherside down.. they went there to stop that sloughter…as those barbars were being supported by greek
even turkey did not care all the warning from usa eu and other countries.. they went there they get the control..
in iraq after the saddam fall the turkish troops went back to their homelands..
you and everyone should know that turkish army turkish peoples has no eye on anyones lands nor on their other things…
Oat: US threatens Syria with regime change
Iraqi President Talabani Threatens Turkey, Iran and Syria: Iraq can Make Trouble for Its Neighbors
The CIA’s Fake “Arab Spring” Becoming A Long, Hot Summer Of War
Obama Regime Courts World Conflagration: Imperial Overstretch Threatens as US, NATO Wage Five Wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen – Are Syria, Iran, Lebanon Next?
By Webster G. Tarpley Ph. D.
TARPLEY.net
Odd fighting in Libya
Bribed by the rebels with Western money, Berber tribes attacked Gadhafi’s government forces in Western Libya and established control of their region. The Berbers managed to defend their mountainous turf against an additional brigade dispatched by Gadhafi.
In that Afghanistan-type warfare, nomads were able to defeat a regular army because it refrained from making total war on them.
Likewise, the NATO limits its action against Gadhafi to shock-and-awe air strikes, a long-discredited tactic which cannot force out a determined ruler.
And Gadhafi refrains from using his advanced SAM batteries against hapless and untrained NATO pilots.
The US has not imposed a real, Iraq-type oil embargo on Libya. Italy and other EU states who buy Libyan oil finance the very regime they are currently fighting.
The European expenses incurred by the Libyan war remain moderate, far less than mega-projects such as the Greek bailout. British and French leaders, though, continue to raise the issue of costs, as if to provide a rationale for limiting the war effort.
It seems that no one really wants to win the Libyan war, which greatly benefits Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Western oil corporations by increasing their profits.
What world do they live in?
Missile Defense AgencyThe US Missile Defense Agency’s chief announced that Israel’s multi-level missile defense system will be included in America’s Middle East shield. This vision is idiocy.
The White House means for the anti-missile shield to reassure its Middle Eastern allies that a nuclearized Iran poses no threat to them. But no one expects the ayatollahs to attack Jordan. By obtaining nuclear arms against the West’s wishes, the Iranians proved themselves strong and Obama weak. And no regional leader wants to ally himself with a weakling—especially, as Mubarak’s ouster demonstrated, a treacherous weakling. Moreover, the US and Israeli rocket shields are only good against small numbers of missiles, not a barrage of rockets such as can be unleashed by Syria or Hezbollah.
No Muslim country can afford to be publicly protected by Israel. Even if our missile defense were to be incorporated into the American shield, why announce that?
And joint control over anti-missile systems is dangerous for Israel if we recall that in 1956, 1967, and in the days before the 1973 war the White House strangled our defense operations.
Oat I’ll get to Tarpley later but:
Who are the terrorists in Afghanistan?
Last week, the UNSC amended its resolution declaring Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be terrorist organizations. Now the Taliban is exempt from condemnation. The move was meant to allow the White House to openly negotiate with the Taliban.
The UNSC decision creates a legal issue: what was NATO doing in Afghanistan for ten years if the Taliban are not terrorists? Certainly the Taliban hadn’t become less militant in recent years when the group emerged victorious against Western troops. It now appears that the United States invaded a relatively peaceful country whose government did not support foreign terrorism. Moreover, having recognized that the Taliban is not a terrorist group, the US still refuses to leave Afghanistan immediately and unconditionally.
Yamit, you said,
I don’t plan to pick at individual words and phrases. The gist of the Tarpley article is,
1. US sea forces are massing in and around the Eastern Mediterannean (howbeit, at pretty normal levels),
2. [missing logical point], therefore
3. The US is likely to get militarily involved in Syria.
First of all, The US got militarily involved with Libya, starting a war there, without even having an aircraft carrier in the area. DEBKA used the earlier presence of a US carrier there as a sign that America had battle plans; but then we sent our carrier through Suez and attacked Libya largely from land bases in Italy and from a specialized submarine. Before that time, DEBKA was looking at every deployment of a new carrier to the Persian Gulf area as preparations for an attack on Iran; yet every time, the new arrival was merely part of an ordinary rotation: A new carrier arrived, and the old carrier was sent back to the US. The main points in this are,
a. Carriers are not needed for a US attack on a country in the area, and
b. a fleet movement involving only one carrier group is not an indication that a military action is imminent.
Besides Tarpley’s missing logical element, they are assuming that the target of a projected US involvement is Syria. Actually, if you read the latest DEBKA report, you will see that the object was actually Turkey:
THAT’s significant to me, because it involves boots on the ground. The same DEBKA article also notes that Turkey has begun flying helicopter missions over Syrian air space. When I read the report of the US and other NATO allies beefing up their presence at the base in Izmir, I wondered if they might actually be there to ensure that the 90 nuclear warheads in Turkey’s possesion were disarmed and safe. Elsewhere on the web, is the report:
Last year, Turkey threatened to militarily attach itself to the blockade-running flotilla against Israel; and just a few days ago, Turkey threatened to invade Syria to relieve itself of having to care for a flood of Syrian refugees on its territory. The Turks made just such an invasion of Iraq a few years ago; and their troops still occupy the northern half of Cyprus after invading it in the 1960s. With Turkish helicopters being dispatched into an area that may well soon descend into anarchy, NATO would only be prudent in trying to ensure that only sane hands have access to the nuclear triggers there.
In short, it was TURKEY, not the US, that has begun meddling in Syria, and Tarpley completely missed that in its prediction.
“Jewstians”???
Either an individual is Jewish as defined by jewish law or they aren’t. Your term is a misnomer.
The Jewish people is a National-Religious people and we are Unique among the nations, only the Jewish people is a people for whom it is a religious and national obligation to establish an independent sovereign political nation state solely for the Jewish people.
Defining a group according to religion, nationality, or shared goals creates a community. And a community takes responsibility for helping one another.
Thus a(JEWISH STATE) by definition, includes some and excludes most. Its shared creed, convictions, and interests bonds its members to each other. The particularism which defines a JEWISH STATE, is not its weakness, but its strength.
Egalitarianism is an alien concept in Judaism. Jews have no rights as you understand the term but only obligations as defined by the Tanach and halacha. ( Jewish law)
In terms of interpersonal relationships, bigger does not mean better; bigger means more anonymous. The sense of Community dissipates and breaks down. See: Europe and North America.
Yamit said:
Sometimes Alex Jones has good stuff but the jew hating, anti-Israel, anti-zionist comes shining through in some of the articles and the comments section. People need to learn how to read between the lines and disseminate between what is propaganda and what is genuine fact.
At least Alex Jones is willing to question the government and not follow blindly our government’s lousy policies; but he and most of his writers are arabists who believe the muslims are just poor, misunderstood, peaceful brown people who have been abused by western imperialism(and the west does have some responsibility in how many nations perceive it).
While I agree the U.S. needs to mind its own business and I don’t think bombing every country in the ME does anything but create hostile feelings towards us and drains our treasury, I’m still of the opinion Islam is a barbaric religious/political system that discriminates against non-muslims and women. Then again, many would argue the Jewish state shows preference to one group (Jews) over other groups(non Jews), (using the law to single out and discriminate against “Jewstians” specifically comes to mind as an example), which is not exactly egalitarian.
One still has to take into consideration the effect of compulsory versus voluntary partitioning in “Palestine” in multiplying differences between Jew and arab. Were I an arab, I’d be more apt to blame the brits and the UN before I’d blame the Jews and their quite natural longing to return to their ancient home as well as their need to leave Europe and it’s historic penchant for discriminating against Jews as well as escaping just as the Nazi war machine was powering up.
You may be correct that Tarpley is like Debka and Sratford except I have been following him for the past year and only recently used him as source because 1- what he says is knowledgeable and plausible. 2- His track record of being right is way above average.
True he is the darling of all the ultra right conspiracy pushers like Rense and Alex Jones, Iranian TV in English and RTA etc.
HE called recently Arab spring correctly before anyone else I have heard or read on the blogs, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China Pakistan Russia and more: and the Part America has and is playing in all of them but most importantly he gives his opinions as to Why!!!
There may be many holes in his analysis so find them and punch holes in them! If you can?
You may be correct that Tarpley is like Debka and Sratford except I have been following him for the past year and only recently used him as source because 1- what he says is knowledgeable and plausible. 2- His track record of being right is way above average.
True he is the darling of all the ultra right conspiracy pushers like Rense and Alex Jones, Iranian TV in English and RTA etc.
HE called recetly Arab spring correctly, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China Pakistan Russia and more an the Part America has and is playing in all of them but most importantly he gives his opinions as to Why!!!
There may be many holes in his analysis so find them and punch holes in them! If you can?
Shy Guy,
Thank you for the comic relief.
Yamit,
Your first three remarks are all from the same source, written by an individual blogger, who talks about pretty ordinary troop movements and SUGGESTS whatever he wants. In other words, he’s something like DEBKA and STRATFOR, neither of which have a good batting record in this department.
Concerning deployment of carriers to the Mediterranean, this ought to raise no eyebrows because we have enough carriers IN SERVICE to patrol the entire world. In fact, the amazing thing about these movements is that we had NO carriers in the Mediterranean when we opened up our attack on Libya.
Boots on the ground speak more loudly to me, than the sailing of ships. An inventory of how many spent cruise missles we have replaced would also be helpful: We have to start a war now and then, just to keep the defense factories going, as those defense factories are more and more becoming the only functioning industry in America.
As for Turkey and Syria, I have no problem if muslim countries go at each other.
So the anti-war president has plunged us deeper into war.
Isolationist? Not exactly.
Use the U.S. military more sparingly? Yes.
Minding our own business more? Yes.
A more frugal foreign policy? Yes.
Conserving our resources? Yes.
Utilizing recaptured overseas expenditures to pay down debt and shore up disgusting socialist programs that have made people dependent on government? Yes.
Marked as spam? In 3 different threads where this comment aptly applies?
Regarding the anti-American government for Lebanon, Jacques Neriah has written an article describing the transformation toward a radical Lebanon.
http://jerusalemcenter.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/toward-a-radical-lebanon-jacques-neriah/
Neriah says, “The ascendancy of Hizbullah is a setback for the United States which has provided Lebanon with $720 million in military aid since 2006 and tried in vain to move the country firmly into the Western sphere of influence and to end Iranian and Syrian influence.”
Scoffer!!! Funny though Shirley. 😛
Almost forgot
Please fasten your seat belt
Interesting: Obama has become a war monger and the anti war, anti Bush liberals and leftists are becoming the pro war activists and the conservatives and some Republicans are becoming more isolationists( Which historically has always been their World Outlook).
Ideological reversal?
Gates’ Hysteria About NATO Running Out of Bombs in Libya Points to Logistic Weakness, Overstretch with Five Wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen) that May Give Qaddafi Margin of Survival
Read More Here
US Naval Deployments in Mediterranean and Black Sea Suggest Attack on Syria; Iran Aiding Damascus; Obama Waging Five Wars and Counting, Including Pakistan; Saudi Warns US on Palestine; Russia, China at Shanghai Cooperation Org Summit in Kazakhstan; World Crisis Deteriorating
More Here
US Naval and Troop Movements Toward North Africa, Middle East Reported As Syrian Destabilization Escalates
Washington DC – US Special Forces units based at Fort Hood, Texas, have been told to prepare for deployment to Libya no later than July, according to a US military source. The Special Forces would then be followed in September or October by heavy armored units of the First Cavalry Division, currently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other components of the US III Corps. This report was broadcast today on the Alex Jones radio program, and comes against the backdrop of escalating US destabilization operations against Syria and sharpening US condemnation of Damascus and its ally, Tehran.
Observers point out that US Special Forces have been in Libya since February. They also note that, while the Libyan destination is highly plausible, some of these units may also find themselves on the way to Yemen, Syria, or beyond. ……..Read More