Terrorism & Security

This combination photo made from undated images provided by the Danish Refugee Council shows Dane Poul Hagen Thisted, left, and American Jessica Buchanan. U.S. military forces flew into Somalia in a nighttime raid Wednesday, Jan. 25, and freed the two hostages while killing nine pirates, officials and a pirate source said. (Danish Refugee Council/AP)

SEAL Team 6: Somalia rescue illustrates new US military strategy

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.26.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Less than a year after a daring raid killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, another raid involving the same elite US Navy SEAL unit freed two aid workers being held hostage in Somalia by pirates in the type of covert, narrowly-targeted operation that is becoming more common for the US.

The SEALs, with other members of the US military, parachuted into Somalia about two miles from where the hostages were being held, walked to the location, and freed the hostages. They were picked up by helicopters, which brought them to the nearby town of Galkayo, where they flew out on a military plane, The New York Times reports. According to the Pentagon, no prisoners were taken, but nine Somali gunmen were killed. The Associated Press reports that all the captors were killed.

American Jessica Buchanan and Dane Poul Hagen Thisted were kidnapped on Oct. 25, en route to the airport in Galkayo while working for the Danish Relief Council.

The rescue operation is representative of the Obama administration's vision for a "smaller, more agile" military that relies heavily on targeted counterterrorist strikes against enemies, rather than large-scale, costly land invasions, the Associated Press reports. The administration is expected to announce today an increase in investment in special operations force and clandestine operations, which have become critical tools since 9-11.

That’s a strategy much preferred to the land invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost so much American blood and treasure over the past decade. The contrast to a full-bore invasion is stark: A small, daring team storms a pirate encampment on a near-moonless night, kills nine kidnappers and whisks the hostages to safety.

…

The SEAL mission also helps soften the blow of defense cuts the White House is seeking in spite of a chorus of criticism by hawkish lawmakers. Not to be discounted is the feel-good moment such missions give the American public, a counterbalance to the continued casualties in Afghanistan.

According to The New York Times, Somalia has been considered "out of reach" for conventional military operations for years, although the US has executed several special operations raids like this one out of bases in Somalia's neighboring countries. 

The Los Angeles Times notes that a 1993 US military peacekeeping mission failed and was forced to retreat after 18 Americans were killed. This week's successful rescue reflects the changes to the US approach to Somalia. Today the US presence is characterized by surveillance drones, special operations units, and warships off the coast.

Reuters reports that a US raid resulted in the death of a senior Al Qaeda militant in 2009 and that several other militants in Somalia have been killed in drone strikes in the past few years.

Somalis express "little sympathy" for the nine captors who were killed during the rescue operation because most Somalis are increasingly frustrated with the impact that piracy is having on the country, reports The New York Times. Neither the government nor local clans have the ability to exert influence over the pirate groups, which are well-funded.

Several elders said that they were pleased with the rescue operation, and they blamed Somalia’s pirate gangs for sullying Somalia’s reputation and causing inflation by carelessly spending millions of dollars of ransom money.

“The pirates are not taking our advice or orders,” one elder said Wednesday. “They are outlawed, and they are only making our image look bad.”

Several Western hostages remain in Somalia, including an American freelance journalist kidnapped last week.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the increase in the number of land operations by Somali pirates is a result of the increasing pressure on them at sea – preemptive naval strikes have reduced pirates' successful strikes by half.

Read entire post | Comments

Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich arrives with his attorney for a court session at Camp Pendleton in Camp Pendleton, Calif., Tuesday. (Chris Carlson/AP)

No jail for marine? Haditha massacre verdict stuns Iraqis.

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 01.25.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

A United States military court yesterday determined that the US Marine Corps sergeant who pled guilty to involvement in killing Iraqi civilians in a notorious 2005 massacre will serve no jail time, sparking outrage in Iraq.

 Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich will receive only a demotion to the rank of private for an event some compare to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. 

In 2005, a group of Marines killed 24 unarmed men, women, and children in Haditha, a town of 85,000 people located west of Baghdad, after a roadside bomb killed a member of their squad, reports the Washington Post. Seven soldiers, plus squad leader Wuterich, were initially charged by a US military court, but one was acquitted and charges against the six others were dropped.

Wuterich’s initial charges of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault were dismissed in return for his guilty plea. He could have faced a maximum of three months in prison, but in the end he received only a demotion and a pay cut.

Haditha was a hotbed for insurgent and militant activity in 2005, and in the months leading up to the Nov. 19 incident by US forces, at least 20 Marines were killed. A local journalist released a video of the attack’s aftermath that documented walls pocked with bullet holes and bodies of women and children in a morgue, reports Time Magazine. The attack is considered one of the war’s defining moments, and provided more fodder for already strong anti-American sentiments in the region.

Wuterich maintains his squad did not behave dishonorably, reports the Washington Post.

“When my Marines and I cleared those houses that day, I responded to what I perceived as a threat and my intention was to eliminate that threat in order to keep the rest of my Marines alive,” he said. “So when I told my team to shoot first and ask questions later, the intent wasn’t that they would shoot civilians, it was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy.”

Throughout the war, many Iraqis looked to the US legal system to provide justice for what they saw as war crimes against Iraqis, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. For some, the ruling met the bleak expectations many Iraqis hold for the US after nearly a decade of war.  The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

''This is not new and it's not new for the American courts that already did little about Abu Ghraib and other crimes in Iraq,'' Khalid Salman, 45, said. His cousin was killed by the marines in the Haditha massacre in November 2005.

However, the military court’s decision to demote Wuterich's rank to private in lieu of jail time is one more blow to the idea of US justice system being a source of guidance or authority in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

“I was expecting that the American judiciary would sentence this person to life in prison and that he would appear and confess in front of the whole world that he committed this crime, so that America could show itself as democratic and fair,” survivor Awis Fahmi Hussein told the Washington Post, showing his scars from a bullet wound to the back.

The Telegraph reports that the ruling is viewed as “…an insult to all Iraqis,” while the Associated Press reports that it reopened old wounds – both with the US and the Iraqi government. The predominantly Sunni region has been unable to convince its Shiite-led government to condemn the murders or push to bring those responsible to trial.

"We are deeply disappointed by this unfair deal," said Khalid Salman Rasif, an Anbar provincial council member from Haditha. "The U.S. soldier will receive a punishment that is suitable for a traffic violation.

…

"We blame Iraqi officials because they did not take any actions to make the criminals stand trial," said Naji Fahmi, 45-year-old government employee who was shot in the stomach during what became known as the Haditha massacre.

Read entire post | Comments

With little to show in Syria, Arab League turns to UN

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.25.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Frustrated by months of failed efforts to mediate an end to Syria's violent crisis on its own, the Arab League is turning to the United Nations for help.

Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby and Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon requesting a meeting to discuss UN Security Council support for their peace plan, Reuters reports. The Arab League's various efforts to mediate in Syria, including a monitoring mission that has been abandoned by six member states, have had little impact.

On Sunday, the Arab League leaders presented a peace plan to Damascus that called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down, transfer power to his deputy, and permit the formation of a unity government. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moualem responded that Syria rejected the plan and lambasted the league for "abandoning their role as the Arab League."

"We no longer want Arab solutions to the crisis," he said Tuesday, according to a separate Reuters report. "Heading to the Security Council will be the third stage in their plan, and the only thing left is the last step of internationalization.… They can head to New York or to the moon. So long as we are not paying for their tickets it is none of our concern."

The observer mission, sent to Syria to monitor its implementation of a peace plan agreed to in November, was controversial from the start because of its leader's poor human rights record and its tight control by the Syrian government, which largely prevented observers from interacting with the opposition. Yesterday the six Gulf states began removing their 55 observers, saying the mission had been ineffective. Violence has continued since their arrival, with dozens of deaths.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Syria agreed to extend the mission by another month. The observers who left will be replaced by additional observers from the countries still participating.

The UN Security Council has so far been blocked from taking strong action against Syria because of opposition from Russia, which holds a veto vote on the council and has remained a staunch defender of Syria, calling only for dialogue.

The Christian Science Monitor reported earlier this week that Moscow signed a contract to supply Syria with $550 million worth of warplanes, the latest in a series of gestures to show that it intends to "carry on business as usual" with Syria. 

On Tuesday, Mr. Moualem reminded the Arab League and international community that even though "half the universe is against us," Russia would never allow foreign intervention, Reuters reports. 

As the Monitor reported earlier this month, Russia's opposition to UN action has toughened since last spring, when it abstained from the vote on Libya so that authorization of intervention could pass. It has become more suspicious of Western intentions and more concerned about losing its most important Middle Eastern ally to regime change.

Recent protests have also hardened Moscow's resistance to interfering in another country's uprising – it is reluctant to set a precedent for interference in a country's internal affairs.

According to The New York Times, tensions were high at the UN on Tuesday, where US, British, and French diplomats criticized Russia for its arms deal with Syria. Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador to the UN, called the move "irresponsible." The Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, accused Western nations of seeking to use the demonstrators to bring to power a government more aligned with their interests.

The Arab League's call for Assad will put pressure on Russia to justify why it is still blocking UN action, Reuters notes. The Arab League's support for intervention in Libya was a critical factor in eroding Russian opposition to the NATO intervention there.

Read entire post | Comments

Residents gather at the site of a bomb attack in Sadr city in northeastern Baghdad on Tuesday. Four car bombs exploded in mainly Shiite Muslim areas of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 14 people, bringing Iraq's 2012 death toll up to at least 170 people. (Saad Shalash/Reuters)

In first month after US exit, Iraq's sectarian clashes have killed 170

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.24.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

 A series of bombings in Baghdad today killed 14 people, bringing Iraq's 2012 death toll up to at least 170 people less than a month into the country's first year without American troops on the ground since 2003.

The Associated Press reports that several explosive-laden cars were detonated in the neighborhoods of Sadr City and Shula and the district of Hurriya. Seventy people were wounded in the attacks, which all targeted predominantly Shiite areas.

The recent attacks are suspected of being a part of a campaign by Sunni insurgents targeting Shiite communities and Iraqi security forces in order to "undermine public confidence" in the Shiite-led government's ability to protect Iraqis without American troops to back them up, according to AP.

The Washington Post reports that, also today, gunmen killed Police Capt. Hassan Abdullah al Timimi and his family in their home, then set off two bombs as they left, according to a local pollice commander. 

According to Agence France-Presse, the Al Qaeda front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, vowed further attacks against Shiites in an online forum yesterday.

"The violent attacks against the Rawafid (the name used for Shiites by Sunni extremists) will continue," Al-Qaeda front group the Islamic State of Iraq said in a statement, while claiming responsibility for attacks on Shiite pilgrims over the past month.

"The lions of the Islamic State of Iraq (will not cease their operations)... as long as the Safavid government continues its war. We will spill rivers of their blood as reciprocity."

The jihadists often invoke Iran's Safavid past, referring to the Shiite dynasty that ruled Persia between the 16th and 18th centuries, and conquered part of Iraq, when denouncing the Baghdad government, which they say is controlled by Tehran.

AP downplays concerns about the campaign devolving into a new phase of sectarian war, but notes that the attacks come at a politically fragile time in Iraq. The Shiite-led government is locked in a political battle with the largest Sunni parliamentary bloc, which boycotted the government after the highest-ranking Sunni official, Vice President Tareq al Hashemi, was charged with terrorism.

Sunnis fear that without the American presence as a last-resort guarantor of a sectarian balance, the Shiite government will try to pick off their leaders one by one, as Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki tries to cement his own grip on power.

Last week, the leader of the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc, Ayad Allawi, accused Maliki of unfairly targeting Sunni officials and deliberately triggering a political crisis that is tearing Iraq apart. Mr. Allawi, who is a Shiite, said Iraq needs a new prime minister or new elections to prevent the country from disintegrating along sectarian lines. 

Last week, Allawi accused Maliki of detaining more than 1,000 members of other political parties in the last several months, detaining many of them in secret locations, and of using torture to get confessions out of them, McClatchy reports. According to Allawi, 42 members of his party (The Iraqi National Accord) alone have been detained in the sweeps, which were initially meant only for Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Read entire post | Comments

In this Sunday, Jan. 22 photo made available by the office of the Yemen presidency, Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh speaks to the state media reporters at the Presidential Palace in Sanaa, Yemen. Saleh said Sunday he will travel to Washington for medical treatment and he asked Yemenis for forgiveness, saying it is time to hand over power in a farewell speech, state media reported. (AP)

Yemen's President Saleh departs for US, apparently ending his rule

By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent / 01.23.12

Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh gave a farewell speech and is now headed for the United States where he will receive medical treatment for injuries received in a June 2011 bombing amid a year-long uprising against his regime.

“I ask for pardon from all Yemeni men and women for any shortcoming that occurred during my 33-year rule and I ask forgiveness and offer my apologies to all Yemeni men and women,” said Mr. Saleh in the televised speech. “Now we must concentrate on our martyrs and injured.”

His departure appears to mark the end of his long presidency, fulfilling part of a Western-backed plan for transition in the Arab world's poorest country.

With many relatives and allies still remaining in high-ranking positions, some expect Saleh to wield significant influence from behind the scenes. But with an extremely volatile situation, where protesters have called for the ouster of Saleh's entire regime (not just the head of it), it's not certain the country will long be in their hands.

In that light, Washington's decision to allow him to receive medical care in the US could damage American relations with a future Yemeni government by creating the impression it is sympathetic to Saleh, who has many enemies from his long legacy of divide-and-conquer rule.

Such a decline in relations could jeopardize a key US security focus: combating Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which many believe has grown stronger in the south of Yemen as a result of the country's instability. Even before the uprising, some US officials had identified the group – responsible for the foiled 2009 Christmas Day underwear bombing and the 2010 cargo plane bombing plot – as more dangerous than what's left of the original Al Qaeda based in Pakistan. 

The US sought to deflect suggestions that there was a political motive behind its decision to allow Saleh entry into the country, where he is expected to arrive Wednesday after a stopover in Oman.

“As we have indicated, the sole purpose of this travel is for medical treatment and we expect that he will stay for a limited time that corresponds to the duration of this treatment,” wrote State Department officials in a statement.

US decisions to harbor ousted world leaders have historically been controversial. In 1979, the US decision to allow Iran’s Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to receive treatment in New York spurred the attack on the US Embassy in Tehran, reports the BBC. In Yemen, where tensions remain high after Saleh made an agreement to step down with immunity from future prosecution, American officials have handled the situation with extreme care. 

Speaking about the State Department's brief statement about Saleh’s admission into the US, The New York Times writes, “The statement’s careful wording reflected the vigorous debate within the administration over whether to admit Mr. Saleh, a longtime American ally, and risk appearing to harbor an authoritarian leader accused of responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of antigovernment protesters.”

Many Yemenis would like to see Saleh put on trial for the murder of hundreds who died during protests against his regime during the past year. Tens of thousands came out yesterday to protest the parliament's decision this weekend to grant him immunity from prosecution in Yemen, Al Jazeera reported.

The protesters carried banners during Sunday's rallies in Sanaa calling on parliament members to reverse their decision. "It is our duty... to execute the butcher," chanted the protesters gathered in Change Square, the centre of the democracy movement that has been calling for Saleh's removal since January last year.

There is concern that even though Saleh has agreed to pass authority to his deputy, he will remain actively involved in controlling political life there. After his medical treatment, he has vowed to return and lead his party. Additionally, many of his family members still hold high-ranking positions in the Yemeni military.

“What difference does it make? His family still has the military in their hands,” activist Hamyir Ali was quoted as saying by USA Today. “Ali Abdullah Saleh will still be able to control everything.”

But that control may prove short-lived. Already there are reports that protests have spread to four separate air force bases in Yemen where airmen are calling for the removal of Maj. Gen. Mohammed Saleh, commander of the air force and half-brother to the president, according to the Associated Press.

“We will never give up our demands, if General Mohammed Saleh Al-Ahmer listened to us and gave us our rights we would have accepted, but now it is too late, we demands his departure above anything,” Col. Ahmed Saleh was quoted as saying by the Yemen Times.

According to Saleh, [Maj. Gen. Mohammed Saleh] Al-Ahmer stole billions of rials under the name of air force employees’ bonuses, nutrition packs, and weapons. He also deprived them of promotion opportunities for years.

Marc Lynch, a George Washington University professor worries Yemen's stalemate could turn into civil war.

The presidential elections slated to be held in February are widely seen as a sham, even if they are not postponed, wired to simply ratify the elevation of Vice President Abd Rab Mansour al-Hadi and maintain Saleh's power behind the scenes. Such elections do not seem likely to either satisfy the protestors or remove Saleh and his regime from real power. Saleh's family members remain entrenched in key positions in the security apparatus. Meanwhile, as Abdul Ghani al-Iryani noted in December, Saleh and his regime continue to stall, divide the opposition, and play on Western fears of al-Qaeda.

The costs of this political stalemate are enormous.  The mounting humanitarian crisis is reaching staggering proportions. Secessionist sentiment in the south is rising rapidly, while the Houthi rebellion in the north remains potent. Reports of al-Qaeda seizing strategic towns are likely exaggerated, but the jihadist organization is clearly taking advantage of the chaos to build its presence. Real power is devolving to the local level as the political center remains frozen. The absence of legitimate political institutions raises the risks of a complete collapse into civil war.

Read entire post | Comments

One of Kano's roads after the imposition of a curfew following the blasts. (Reuters)

Nigeria tense after Islamists kill at least 178

By Kristen Chick, Correspondent / 01.22.12

Nigeria’s second-largest city was on alert Sunday as the death toll continued to climb from a series of coordinated bombings and shootings in Kano Friday night.

A spokesman for a militant Islamist group known as Boko Haram claimed responsibility for what was one of the most violent attacks attributed to the group yet. A doctor in Kano’s main hospital said the number of dead had reached 178 and could go higher, reports Reuters. The group is stepping up its attacks, and the Nigerian government appears unable to put an end to the violence. 

Nigeria’s president declared a state of emergency in four states on Dec. 31, after Boko Haram bombed churches on Christmas day, killing 44 people. The group also carried out an attack on the United Nations headquarters in in Nigeria August that killed 24 people. Most of its attacks have taken place in Nigeria’s northeast. Kano is a northern city.

The country, which is the most populous nation in Africa, is predominantly Muslim in the north, where poverty is more widespread, and mostly Christian in the south. The geographic split by religion has been a point of tension in the past, something Boko Haram appears bent on exploiting in its bid to undermine the government. 

The group was founded in 2002 by Islamic preacher Mohammed Yusuf. As the Monitor reported, it is focused on resistance to the Nigerian government, and “what many northern Nigerians see as the dominant role that Christian Nigerians play in Nigerian politics.” Boko Haram, which means “Western education is sin,” is an unofficial name for the group referring to its belief that Western influences corrupt traditional Islamic societies. The group’s official name is Jama’atul Ahlu Sunna Lidda’Awati wal Jihad, or the People Committed to the Prophet’s Teachings for Propagation and Jihad.

Security forces manned roadblocks around Kano Sunday, reports The Associated Press. A 24-hour curfew was reduced to night-time hours but streets were deserted as Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan was expected to visit the city in the wake of the deadly attacks.

The violence began Friday evening, when at least 20 explosions targeted eight buildings, including a police headquarters, immigration offices, state security headquarters, and a passport office. CNN reports that militants entered a police station and freed detainees before bombing it. After the bombings, attackers drove through the city in a car and on motorcycles, shooting.  

The Wall Street Journal reports that a spokesman for the group said it had freed some of its members who had been held without trial. A spokesman for the group told Nigerian newspaper the Daily Trust that the attacks were in response to “the refusal of the Kano state government to release some of their members who had been arrested in the state.”

Last week, the group’s alleged mastermind of a deadly Christmas day bombing targeting a church escaped police custody during a prison transfer.

Meanwhile, nine people from a Christian ethnic group were also killed early Sunday morning in the town of Tafawa Balewa in apparent religious violence, reports The Daily Telegraph. A traditional elder of a Christian ethnic group told the paper that witnesses blamed the attack on a Muslim ethnic group.

RELATED What is Nigeria's Boko Haram? 5 things to know.

Read entire post | Comments

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy attends a ceremony to present New Year wishes to the foreign diplomatic corps at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Friday. France is suspending its training operations in Afghanistan and threatening to withdraw its entire force from the country early, after an Afghan soldier shot and killed four French troops Friday and wounded several others. (Charles Platiau/AP)

How France's threat to pull out of Afghanistan could impact NATO

By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent / 01.20.12

At least four French troops are dead and more injured after someone wearing an Afghan military uniform turned his weapon against NATO forces. It’s the latest in an increasing number of such incidents and could further strain relations between NATO and Afghan officials.

Following Friday’s shooting, one of the most deadly for French forces over the past decade in Afghanistan, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suspended his country’s combat operations and threatened to pull out early.

“The French army stands side by side with its allies but we can't accept that a single one of our soldiers be killed by our allies,” said Mr. Sarkozy according to Radio France Internationale.  “If the conditions for security are not clearly established, the question of an early withdrawal of the French army will arise.”

France has committed to keeping troops here – which currently number less than 4,000 – until 2014. Their early withdrawal would place considerable strain on NATO troops already spread thin across Afghanistan and potentially encourage other partner nations to end their mission ahead of schedule.

Today’s incident puts France’s total loss of service members in Afghanistan at 82. French troops are predominantly stationed in Kapisa Province in eastern Afghanistan (see map), and training Afghan forces has been a primary focus of their mission here.

Following the incident, Sarkozy dispatched Defense Minister Gerard Longuet and the head of the French Army to Afghanistan to assess the security conditions for French troops, reports the Wall Street Journal.

A classified report by coalition officials obtained by The New York Times found that NATO’s attempts to downplay the threat of Afghan soldiers and police killing their Western counterparts “seem disingenuous, if not profoundly intellectually dishonest.”

The report’s authors found that between May 2007 and May 2011, members of the Afghan police and Army caused 6 percent of coalition fatalities, killing a total of 58 coalition troops.

“Lethal altercations are clearly not rare or isolated; they reflect a rapidly growing systemic homicide threat [a magnitude of which may be unprecedented between ‘allies’ in modern military history],” wrote the report’s authors. 

Among the French, the shooting may spark heated debate: Friday’s incident follows closely on the heels of a separate incident on Dec. 29, when two members of the French Foreign Legion were gunned down by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform.

Though France’s role in Afghanistan has long been a point of contention back home, it hasn’t been seriously debated by the parliament, reports The Washington Post.

The shooting coincided with the downing of a NATO helicopter in southern Afghanistan that took the lives of at least six service members. While NATO officials have yet to release any details about the crash, CBS News reports that it occurred in the restive Helmand Province and all those killed were US marines. Coalition officials said there was no enemy activity in the area at the time of the crash.

Read entire post | Comments

Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi attends a meeting in Ankara January 18. Negotiations are under way to hold new talks between Western powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program and the most likely venue is Istanbul, but there is no date set, Salehi said on Wednesday. (Umit Bektas/REUTERS)

Despite rhetoric, Iran and US appear to be trying to restart Iran nuclear talks

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.19.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Iran's foreign minister today warned other countries in the region that allying themselves closely with the United States would put them in a "dangerous position." But despite the ongoing rhetoric, the two countries seem to be trying to find a way to return to talks and Israel is toning down its own aggressive rhetoric.

"We want peace and tranquility in the region. But some of the countries in our region, they want to direct other countries 12,000 miles away from this region," said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi during a visit to Turkey, according to Reuters. "I am calling to all countries in the region, please don't let yourselves be dragged into a dangerous position."

Reuters reports that earlier this week Saudi Arabia said it could increase its oil output if that became necessary – a likely scenario if the European Union finalizes an embargo on Iranian oil at a Jan. 23 meeting next week, which it appears likely to do.

Iran, despite its fierce warnings, is showing a "new willingness to negotiate" ahead of the EU meeting and at a time when the US is moving toward implementation of a new law penalizing entities that deal with Iran's Central Bank, The New York Times reports.

Mr. Salehi said that Iran is "in touch" with world powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the US – about reopening talks on its controversial nuclear program, which have been frozen for a year. The Times reports that Salehi said that the date and site are already being discussed.

The US and the European Union both denied that they were considering talks, saying that they first needed proof that it was serious about allaying fears about nuclear weapon development, Reuters reports. Some Western diplomats believe that efforts to resume negotiations are simply a stalling tactic that would allow Iran more time to enrich uranium, according to the Times.

But Iranian leaders say that the Obama administration recently sent a letter to Iran regarding threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and requesting negotiations, Reuters reports. "In this letter it was said that closing the Strait of Hormuz is [America's] 'red line' and also asked for direct negotiations," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted lawmaker Ali Mottahari as saying.

Washington denied there were new discussions about resuming negotiations, but would not comment on whether such a letter existed. "There are no current talks about talks," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "What we are doing, as we have said, is making clear to the Iranians that if they are serious about coming back to a conversation, where they talk openly about their nuclear program, and if they are prepared to come clean with the international community, that we are open to that."

Salehi also said Iran had never attempted to close the Strait of Hormuz, despite its threats, Agence France-Presse reports.

Meanwhile, after several tense weeks that ratcheted up concerns that Israel would take unilateral action against Iran, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicly stated that the possibility of a preemptive strike against the Islamic Republic is "very far off," The New York Times reports.

The Times counts this as Israel's third step back from possible confrontation, the other two steps being Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that he believed economic sanctions were beginning to have an effect on Iran and the agreement between the US and Israel to postpone a military drill. However, it also comes only a week after the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, which Iran has blamed on Israel.

US Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and thus the principal military adviser to President Obama, arrives in Israel today on his first official visit to the country. Many say he is likely there to warn Israel against attacking Iran, the Washington Post reports.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will be making a visit to Iran at the end of January to inspect nuclear facilities for evidence of weapon development, which intelligence has hinted at, according to Reuters. 

Read entire post | Comments

An Arab league observer (l.), with orange vest, writes the names of freed Syrian prisoners as they are released from Adra Prison on the north-east outskirts of Damascus, Syria, on Saturday. The Arab League’s observer mission in Syria officially ends tomorrow. The mission was sent in to verify that President Bashar al-Assad was complying with a peace plan that he agreed to in November, which included releasing political prisoners. (Bassem Tellawi/AP)

Russia pressures Syria to extend Arab League observer mission

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.18.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

The Arab League’s observer mission in Syria officially ends tomorrow with no indication that President Bashar al-Assad has eased his crackdown since monitors arrived in late December. The United Nations Security Council and Arab League are struggling to decide their next steps.

The mission was sent in to verify that Mr. Assad was complying with a peace plan that he agreed to in November, which included ending violence against protesters, withdrawing troops from Syrian cities, and releasing political prisoners.

The UN has estimated the death toll to be at least 5,000; hundreds have been killed just since monitors arrived last month, Reuters reports.  An Arab League source told Reuters that the Assad regime will allow the monitor mission to be extended for another month, but will not permit an extension of its mandate. The mission has been controversial from the start because it lacks any teeth and monitors have had to rely on the Syrian government for protection and direction. Critics of the mission called it ineffective, with some saying it is providing cover for the Assad regime.

Two monitors quit the mission last week, with one of them calling it a “farce.”

An Arab League source told Reuters that Syria is under pressure from China and Russia to agree to an extension of the observer mission as a way to avoid international action at the UN Security Council. Russia, one of five permanent members with veto power on the council, has pledged to block any action against Syria, including approval of an armed intervention. Russia circulated a draft resolution on Jan. 16 that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said “was aimed at making it explicitly clear that nothing could justify a foreign military interference,” reports the Associated Press.

"If some intend to use force at all cost ... we can hardly prevent that from happening," he said. "But let them do it at their own initiative on their own conscience, they won't get any authorization from the UN Security Council."

Russia is under significant scrutiny amid rumors that it has delivered arms to Syria, which has raised concern in the US and in the European Union, which is seeking to impose a Syria arms embargo. But Mr. Lavrov said Russia does not owe the international community any explanation because it is not doing anything illegal.

"We don't consider it necessary to explain or justify ourselves, as we are not violating any international agreements or any [U.N.] Security Council resolutions," he said. “We are only dealing with Syria in those items not outlawed under international law,” he added.

In the fall, Russia and China blocked a Security Council resolution that would have imposed an arms embargo on Syria.

With no recourse for international action at the UN level, the Arab League is under pressure to take initiative in Syria when it convenes again later this week. But other ideas are being floated as well.

Earlier this week, the emir of Qatar called for Arab troops to be sent to Syria, becoming the first Arab leader to suggest an armed intervention in Syria, BBC reports.

There has been little indication from other Arab or Western countries that they are considering that possibility and Syria “absolutely rejected” it yesterday. The action would require either the invitation of the Syrian government or UN Security Council authorization, both of which are highly unlikely, according to BBC.

Marc Lynch writes in Foreign Policy that “Military intervention in Syria has little prospect of success, a high risk of disastrous failure, and a near-certainty of escalation.” He adds that comparisons to NATO's intervention in Libya, which many deemed a successful, are inaccurate.

Syria’s opposition is weaker and more divided than Libya’s, the killing is being done in cities rather than along front lines, there is a risk of regional spillover, and there is no international authorization, he says. Because the fighting is mostly happening in densely populated urban areas, a no-fly zone is also not a viable option, Dr. Lynch writes.

Military intervention in Syria to stop the killing appeals to the soul but does not make sense. That doesn't mean ignoring the slaughter. The United States and its allies must indeed do more to support the Syrian opposition forces. It should work to achieve a UN Security Council mandate for comprehensive international sanctions against Damascus, and continue to work with its regional allies to build bilateral and regional pressure. Now that Michael McFaul has finally been confirmed as ambassador to Russia, and the Arab League mission has largely failed, the U.S. can hopefully make more progress in shaping a strong Security Council resolution. … More ways could be found to help build the nascent Syrian opposition, and to engage with and support the groups emerging on the ground as opposed to the exile groups. More could be done to plan for a post-Assad future and to communicate to terrified Syrians sitting on the fence that they have a place in that new Syria.”

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Read entire post | Comments