Terrorism & Security

US Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov take part in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin in Moscow, Tuesday, May 7, 2013. (Mladen Antonov/AP)

US and Russia team up to make fresh diplomatic push on Syria

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 05.09.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

After more than two years of escalating violence in Syria – including reports of chemical weapons use and the loss of an estimated 80,000 lives – the international community is spearheading a renewed diplomatic push to bring the conflict to an end.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry met with Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. The two announced their hope to organize an international conference on Syria later this month.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy to Syria, called the planned conference “the first hopeful news concerning that unhappy country in a very long time," Voice of America reported.

The US State Department also announced this week an additional $100 million in humanitarian aid to the estimated 1.4 million Syrians displaced by the drawn-out civil war. The money will be distributed through UN agencies to provide food, shelter, and healthcare in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria, according to the State Department.

This brings the US’s aid commitment to $510 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. “The additional aid will help the Obama administration deflect criticism that it is not doing enough to deal with” the confict in Syria, and is not related to the question of whether to arm rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, it reports.

But the flurry of activity this week to move toward a solution in Syria that does not include armed intervention has some questioning whether diplomatic channels alone can help end the protracted violence.

In an opinion piece for the Chicago Tribune, George Sabra, the acting president of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, notes that, “U.S. inaction is giving the Assad regime, after two years of wanton bloodshed, a green light to take even more outrageous steps to kill innocents.” (Subscription required.)

Mr. Sabra, whose coalition is made up of various opposition groups and representatives from citizen councils in Syria, writes that Syrians want the fighting to end and the rebuilding of their nation to begin. He requests internationally enforced safe zones with protected airspace; follow-through from the US on its claims that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” or “game changer” in the conflict; and a diplomatic push to remove Assad from power.

The past decade's wars may have understandably made Americans weary of prolonged intervention in foreign conflicts. And as Syrians, we make these requests with a heavy heart. But we have painfully witnessed two years of mass destruction, lawlessness and more than 80,000 lives lost since the beginning of the revolution. It is critical that the Obama administration move swiftly and strategically to take the right course of action.

Kerry, in Rome today, announced that the push for a political solution to the crisis in Syria would have to exclude President Assad in any transitional government, reports Agence France-Presse.

All sides of the conflict are working to "effect a transition government by mutual consent of both sides, which clearly means that in our judgement President Assad will not be a component of that transitional government," Kerry said.

But weakening Assad’s grip on power poses a difficult task. The BBC’s Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar notes that the Assad regime “increasingly thinks that by not losing it is winning,” which has given it fresh conviction.

That new confidence – along with what is believed to be a steady supply of arms from its supporters in Iran and Russia – is helping the regime to take back some areas which it had previously lost.

In the capital Damascus, you can hear the sound of mortar fire as the regime slowly pushes fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) out of the parts of the city that it took the rebels months to get hold of.

But Mr. Danahar also notes that the relative inaction of Western powers in Syria could come down to the lack of organization on the ground in Syria. Danahar likens the FSA to a more informal “men with guns” and very little unity or oversight.

America is not acting because it does not know what to do or whom to do it with.

Neither do the European countries.

Having spent the last few days in Beirut and Damascus, talking to the international community, Western diplomats, FSA activists and Syrian regime supporters, it is clear that nobody knows how to end this crisis.

That's just about the only thing all sides agree on.

An editorial in the Washington Post this week poses the question “What if the US doesn’t intervene in Syria?”

Opponents of U.S. intervention in Syria are adept at citing the risks of a more aggressive U.S. effort to bring down the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Weapons given to rebel fighters might end up in the hands of extremists, the skeptics say. U.S. air attacks or the creation of a no-fly zone would be challenged by formidable air defenses. U.S. intervention might increase the risk that the regime would resort to chemical weapons….

These are serious objections, though we believe that some of the risks, such as the spread of weapons to jihadists, can be mitigated, while others, such as the strength of Syrian air defenses, have been exaggerated….

What will unfold in Syria if the Obama administration persists with its policy of providing humanitarian and other non-lethal aid while standing back from the fighting? The most likely scenario is that Syria fractures along sectarian lines…. Such a splintering would almost certainly spread the sectarian warfare to Iraq and Lebanon, as it has to some extent already….

There are no good options, as everyone likes to say. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that the greatest risk to the United States lies in failing to take decisive action to end the Assad regime.

Soldiers enter the gate of Bama Prison, Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria May 7. Suspected members of Boko Haram armed with machine guns laid siege on the northeastern town of Bama on Tuesday, killing dozens and freeing more than 100 prisoners. (Reuters)

Attack in Nigeria underscores strength of Islamist militant group

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 05.08.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Members of the Boko Haram militant group allegedly stormed a military compound and prison in northeastern Nigeria this week, killing dozens and freeing more than 100 prisoners. The coordinated attack is the latest in a series of violent assaults that have taken place since war broke out in 2009 between the extremist Islamist group and the Nigerian military, and observers say neither side shows sign of deescalating.  

"Heavily armed Boko Haram terrorists" launched the attack, which killed prison guards, policemen, soldiers, and civilians, according to Musa Sagir, the military spokesman in Maiduguri. According to Agence France-Presse, the militants were reportedly wearing military uniforms during the attack.

This week’s violence follows closely on the heels of what Human Rights Watch called an “unprecedented” attack in April in the town of Baga. Some 200 people were estimated killed and thousands of homes were destroyed.

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is majority Christian in the south and Muslim in the north. The militants' name, Boko Haram, translates literally as “Western education is a sin,” and according to The Christian Science Monitor, there are other divides between north and south Nigeria that may play a role in Boko Haram’s staying power.

It’s estimated that 70 percent of Nigerians live on less than $1.25 a day, but poverty is more prevalent up north (far from Nigeria’s oil fields and agricultural areas). Some 75 percent of northerners live in poverty, compared with 27 percent of southerners. The great disparity between haves and have-nots, between north and south, appears to be one major draw for recruitment….

[T]he International Institute for Strategic Studies said in a recent report that “the extent of the violence (since 2009) showed that Boko Haram was capable of mobilizing thousands of people and was better trained and armed than government forces had thought.”

The group has said its goal is to create an Islamic state in the country’s north.

Nigeria has suffered close to 4,000 fighting-related deaths – perpetrated by both Boko Haram and the military – since 2009, reports The New York Times. A recent report by the Times notes that despite the brutal attacks said to be carried out by the militant group, on any given day, scores of bodies of suspected Boko Haram members are brought into the military hospital.

The corpses were those of young men arrested in neighborhood sweeps by the military and taken to a barracks nearby. Accused, often on flimsy or no evidence, of being members or supporters of Boko Haram … the detainees are beaten, starved, shot and even suffocated to death, say the officials, employees and witnesses….

The military’s harsh tactics, which it flatly denies, have reduced militant attacks in this insurgent stronghold, but at huge cost and with likely repercussions, officials and rights advocates contend.

No one doubts that Boko Haram, which has claimed responsibility for assassinations and bombings that have killed officials and civilians alike, is thoroughly enmeshed in the local populace, making the job of extricating the group extremely difficult. But as with other abuses, the bodies piling up at the morgue — where it is often impossible to distinguish combatants from the innocent — have turned many residents against the military, driving some toward the insurgency, officials say.

In late April, President Goodluck Jonathan set up a committee to explore the ideas of amnesty for the insurgents and discuss compensation for victims of Boko Haram violence, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

“[A]ll Nigerians are expecting this Committee to perform magic and I pray that Allah should give you the wisdom to do so because without peace we cannot develop,” President Jonathan said, referring to the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of Security Challenges in the North.

Not all Nigerians are hopeful the “magic” will be delivered. In an opinion piece published on AllAfrica.com noted:

Those who clamoured for [amnesty] genuinely believe amnesty will dam the flood of security challenges in northern Nigeria….

[But] there are many Nigerians who believe that this impending amnesty is a repetition of an error; an action that may, in the immediate future and in the long run, prove to be harmful to the country! Amnesty is a double-edged sword of a sort; it is as much a tonic as it is an elixir!

John Campbell from CFR notes, however, that “even if the prospects for success are low, as defined by the modalities, the Committee is an important step forward.

"It is a first step toward addressing the insurgency in the North by political means, rather than with a hammer. It also may create space for more political and civil society engagement in peacebuilding in the North. Jonathan even urged the Committee to make suggestions as to how the “underlying causes” of the insurgency could be addressed to prevent similar outbreaks in the future."

Supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf headed by Pakistan's cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan, rally at the mausoleum of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan in Karachi, Pakistan, Tuesday. (Shakil Adil/AP)

Back-to-back blasts in Pakistan highlight election risks

By Whitney Eulich, Staff writer / 05.07.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

There were two more bombings targeting political events today in the leadup to Pakistan's historic May 11 Parliamentary elections, raising fears that the violence could affect voter turnout in what is already being referred to as Pakistan’s bloodiest elections.

Today’s first attack took place as a candidate from the hardline Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party passed through a market in northwest Pakistan. The politician – from the same party that was targeted by a deadly blast yesterday in the same region – escaped unharmed. But the suicide bombing killed at least 12 people.

No one has claimed responsibility, but the Taliban took credit for yesterday’s attack at a political rally, which claimed 25 lives and wounded 70, according to the Associated Press. Another blast went off today at a Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) rally in Lower Dir, killing at least four, including the brother of a candidate.

Some 100 people have been killed in election-related violence since April, when the election campaign officially launched, reports Radio Free Europe. Secular candidates, political offices, and political events have all been targeted in the leadup to the vote, which will be the first time in Pakistan's 66-year history that it transitions from one civilian government to another.

Prior to the bombings this week, many observers believed election-related violence could benefit parties like Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, which have typically taken a “softer line” toward the Taliban, according to the AP. Most of the violence in the leadup to the election targeted secular parties, which backed the military’s attempts to clear Pakistan’s northwestern region of Taliban and militant activity.

But the Taliban have also condemned democracy as a whole, meaning that any political party taking part in the elections could be considered fair game by the militant group. Militants have called on people in many areas to stay away from the polls on election day.

In 2008, the last time Pakistanis went to the polls, only 44 percent of the voter population showed up, thanks in part to violence. This year's election turbulence has many worried the voter turnout could be even lower, prompting the Election Commission in Pakistan to announce it was increasing security around polling stations in Karachi, according to the Dawn.

In spite of the attacks, there are numerous efforts to “get out the vote” in Pakistan, including groups that specifically target women and youth. According to the The Christian Science Monitor, only 38 percent of registered female voters cast a ballot in 2008, compared to 50 percent of registered males. Activists are trying to shift that trend this time around, reaching out to women in rural areas who may not even have the national ID card required to vote.

There is attention on the youth population as well, which is about 25 million strong. By some estimates, between 60 and 70 percent of that population may turn out to vote on Saturday, though a culture of disenchantment with the government could affect those numbers. The Monitor reports that a British Council study in April found “roughly similar percentages [of youth] expressing support for sharia (Islamic law) or military rule as express support for democracy.”

Both of this week’s attacks took place in areas known to be “flashpoints” for violence between Pakistan’s Sunni majority and Shiite minority, reports BBC News.

According to a separate AP report, Pakistan’s violence reflects the numerous militant-related problems facing both the government and the military, and religious minorities in the majority Muslim country of 180 million may be suffering the most.

“Intolerance has been on the rise for the past five years under Pakistan’s democratically elected government because of growing violence of Islamic radicals, who are then courted by political parties,” say many of the country’s religious minorities, according to AP.

Some of the fiercest Islamic extremists are candidates in the vote, and minorities say even the mainstream political parties pander to radicals to get votes, often campaigning side-by-side with well-known militants.

After a string of attacks on religious minorities earlier this spring, public policy adviser Mosharraf Zaidi wrote in Foreign Policy magazine that the government’s inaction is allowing extremists to tear apart the fabric of Pakistani society. 

[A]ll Pakistan seems to be capable of doing lately is announcing days of mourning, expressing condemnation, and occasionally mobilizing a protest ... If this is the only response to the killing of innocent people because of their religion, it probably makes sense for the killers to carry on with the carnage. And that's exactly what has been happening….

Could the country's political parties be treating violent extremists with kid gloves in the hopes of gaining an edge at the ballot box? It is a question that shouldn't require asking in a country that has lost as many as 40,000 people in violent conflict with terrorists….

In a functional and self-respecting society, condemnations and days of mourning constitute only the first step in responding to outrages that soak the streets in the blood of innocents. The actual response must end the freedom of killers and include an unambiguous statement of intent to eliminate the threat to innocent people.

Elections have already been postponed in three districts where candidates have been killed this election season, reports Agence-France Presse.

In this image taken from video, Syrian rebels clash with government forces in Damascus, Syria, Friday. (Ugarit News via AP video/AP)

UN investigator suggests it was Syria's rebels who used chemical weapons

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 05.06.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

The woman leading the UN investigation into possible chemical weapon use in Syria said yesterday that witness and victim testimonies indicate that Syrian rebels likely used chemical weapons such as the nerve gas sarin.

The commission she leads, however, tempered her comments with a statement today announcing that it had not yet reached "conclusive findings." Rebel forces denied the claims. 

“We do not have sarin gas and we do not aim to bring it under our control,” said Luai al-Mekdad, spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, according to Deutsche Press Agentur.

“The Syrian regime has used the chemical weapons against civilians many times,” Maj. Gen. Adnan Sillo, a defector from the Syrian military who had headed a chemical warfare unit, told The New York Times. “And there is no doubt that the regime will use it more often, as this is its strategy in the war since the beginning of oppressing the uprising, to move gradually.”

Carla Del Ponte said on Swiss television yesterday that the UN investigators had "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof," of rebel use of chemical weapons, BBC News reports.  

… Ms. Del Ponte, one of its commissioners, told Swiss-Italian TV: "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.

"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

…

"I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got ... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition," she said.

However, the statement today by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, the UN investigating body, was far more cautious:

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time.

The Chair of the Commission of Inquiry, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, reminds all parties to the conflict that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited in all circumstances under customary international humanitarian law. 

In the statement, the commission noted that it will release all of its findings on June 3, as previously scheduled. 

US and British inquiries into the same issue turned up evidence suggesting that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. Ms. Del Ponte said yesterday that the UN commission's findings don't eliminate the possibility that the regime used them as well, but that the commission does not have evidence suggesting it, according to BBC. 

Del Ponte is one of four investigators chosen by the UN Human Rights Council. The New York Times notes that it is unclear whether she was speaking only for herself or on behalf of the commission. 

The BBC reports that Del Ponte's comments will frustrate US Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to convince Russia to support additional action against Syria, if he intended to argue chemical weapons use by the Assad regime to bolster his case. Secretary Kerry will be in Moscow this week.

A UN team has been organized specifically to investigate the chemical weapons claims, but it has demanded "unconditional access with the right to inquire into all credible allegations."

Slightly less than half of Americans would not want to take action even if the use of chemical weapons is proven.

According to a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll conducted April 30 to May 4, 48 percent of Americans polled said they would rather the US take no military steps at all when asked, "If the Syrian government is found to have used chemical weapons against its own citizens, what level, if any military steps should the US take?" Just 8 percent said the US should commit troops to the conflict, 20 percent said the US should launch missile strikes or commit air power, and 12 percent said the US should help arm the rebels. 

In this photo released by the Syrian official news agency SANA, damaged buildings wrecked by an Israeli airstrike are seen in Damascus, Syria, May 5, 2013. Israeli warplanes struck areas in and around the Syrian capital early Sunday. (SANA/AP)

Israel tries to tamp down Syrian anger after killing dozens of its elite soldiers (+video)

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.06.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

A day after it launched an airstrike outside of Damascus, killing scores of Syrian soldiers, Israel sought to play down the attack as a strike against regime-ally Hezbollah, not President Bashar al-Assad. 

Reuters reports that Israel has made several soothing overtures to its war-racked northern neighbor after launching airstrikes in Syria on Friday and Sunday. Tzachi Hanegbi, a confidante of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Israeli radio on Monday that Mr. Netanyahu aimed to avoid "an increase in tension with Syria by making clear that if there is activity, it is only against Hezbollah, not against the Syrian regime."

Hezbollah, which seeks Israel's elimination, has long relied on the Assad regime to transfer weapons from Iran into its own hands. Damascus and the Lebanese Shiite militant group appear to have drawn closer together as a result of Syria's civil war, with Hezbollah fighters battling the Syrian opposition from inside the country. 

Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's biggest-selling newspaper, said the Netanyahu government had informed Mr. Assad through diplomatic channels that the attacks were not attempts to affect the outcome of Syria's civil war.

Israeli officials did not immediately confirm the report, but one suggested that such indirect contacts were not required.

"Given the public remarks being made by senior Israeli figures to reassure Assad, it's pretty clear what the message is," the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

And Haaretz noted that Netanyahu left as planned for a diplomatic trip to China on Sunday, which it called "part of Jerusalem’s effort to send a calming message to Assad."

Netanyahu and his advisers concluded that canceling the visit at the last minute would be interpreted by Syria and Hezbollah as a sign of Israeli intentions to escalate the situation....

As part of its effort to calm things down, Israel will continue to maintain official silence about the two air strikes. A senior Israeli official said the goal is to make clear to Assad that Israel’s sole interest is in preventing advanced weaponry from reaching Hezbollah: It isn’t interested in intervening in Syria’s civil war or helping the rebels topple his regime. Jerusalem hopes this will make it easier for Assad to avoid a military response to the strikes.

The Sunday airstrike hit a military facility near the presidential palace in Damascus, The New York Times reports. A Syrian official said that dozens of elite troops were killed in the attack, and one military hospital doctor said that at least 100 were dead, with scores more injured.

Although Israel did not comment on the attacks, Israeli analysts say that they were likely targeting weapons meant to be transferred from the Syrian military to Hezbollah. A US official told the New York Times that Friday's smaller airstrike, on the Damascus International Airport, had a similar target.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad told CNN on Sunday that the Israeli strikes were "a declaration of war" and that Syria would respond. "We dealt with this on several occasions, and we retaliated the way we wanted, and the retaliation was always painful to Israel, and they will suffer again." And Syrian state TV accused Israel of aiding the rebels – a charge that it likely hopes will tarnish support for the rebels, given Israel's broad unpopularity among Syrians.

But The Christian Science Monitor reports that neither Syria nor Israel want the situation to develop into something greater.

Despite longtime enmity between Israel and Syria, the two neighbors have not directly come to blows for almost four decades, other than battling each other briefly in Lebanon in 1982. Israel has staged military moves inside Syria on a few occasions in the past decade – assassinating militants in Damascus, bombing a Palestinian training camp, and most notably by destroying a suspected nuclear reactor in northeast Syria in 2007. On each occasion, the Syrian regime has either ignored the incident or vowed a retaliation that was never fulfilled.

And the Monitor adds that "neither Hezbollah nor Israel appear to desire a fresh conflict, mindful that the next encounter promises to be much more destructive than the 2006 war." Israeli security analyst Reuven Pedhazur told the Monitor that Syria and Hezbollah are not likely to be willing to retaliate, even symbolically, as Israel will respond in kind.

“Israel will not back off,” he says. “If they respond, Israel will respond on the other side.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad delivers a speech at the parliament in Damascus, Syria in 2010. Israel launched an airstrike into Syria, apparently targeting a suspected weapons site, U.S. officials said Friday night, May 3, 2013. ( (AP Photo/SANA, File) )

Why Israel bombed Syria, again (+video)

By David Clark Scott, Staff writer / 05.04.13

Just as President Obama is worried about Syrian chemical weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda, Israel is concerned that the conflict in Syria will give Hezbollah cover for the delivery of short-range missiles.

That's the logic, according unnamed US and Israeli sources, for the latest Israeli air strike in Syria.

Israel hit a warehouse in Damascus early Friday where advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran were being stored before being shipped to Hezbollah, a Shiite group in Lebanon that fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006, according to various reports.

The New York Times reports:
"It was the second time in four months that Israel had carried out an attack in foreign territory aimed at disrupting the pipeline of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. The missiles, known as Fateh-110s, had been sent to Syria by Iran and were being stored at an airport in Damascus when they were struck in the attack, according to an American official."

The Fateh-110 missile is a short-range missile that's been in the Iranian arsenal since 2004. Its range is listed at 200-210 kilometers (130 miles)  but there are reports that a more advanced model was under development with a range of more than 400 kilometers (239 miles). The Fateh-110 is considered more accurate and more advanced than the Scud missiles used by Hezbollah in the past.

Associated Press quoted an anonymous Israeli official confirming that the attack was "aimed at sophisticated "game-changing" weapons, but not chemical arms. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles but was not more specific.

Reuters quoted an anonymous US source confirming the air strike. "There was an air strike. The target was not a chemical weapons facility. It was missiles intended for Hezbollah," the official told Reuters. A U.S. official told Reuters the target was apparently a building.

While Hezbollah has not officially or specifically discussed this Israeli missile strike, The Daily Star of Lebanon quotes an official as saying that the group is backing Syria's President Bashar Assad.

“Hezbollah is ready to prevent Syria falling under the control of Tel Aviv and Washington,” said Ibrahim Amin Sayyed, a Hezbollah official, during a ceremony held in Baalbek in memory of one the party’s “martyrs.”

“This is a strategy and not an intervention in the Syria crisis. It is an intervention in the conflict against America and Israel,” he added.

His comments come just days after Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah fighters were defending Lebanese in Syrian border cities against Syrian opposition forces and hinted that Iran, Russia and “resistance groups” would step in militarily to prevent the fall of Assad.

The Washington Post notes that Hezbollah is concerned about Sunni groups gaining control of Syria. "The Shiite Hezbollah movement is worried that the collapse of the Syrian regime in Damascus and its replacement by one led by the overwhelmingly Sunni opposition will undermine Hezbollah’s dominant role in Lebanon and leave it vulnerable to Israeli attack. The movement has long relied on Syria for the transshipment of arms supplied by its chief ally, Iran, and the fall of Assad would compromise its supply routes."Meanwhile, Syrian opposition forces are claiming that the Israeli attack hit more than just a warehouse storing missiles from Iran.

The Israeli news site, Haaretz reports that rebel forces claim that five sites at the Damascus airport were hit by Israeli jets, including fuel tanks, Syrian ammunition depots, and a cargo aircraft. The Haaretz article hypothesizes that the attack on Hezbollah-bound missiles is a pretext for supporting Syrian opposition forces, when the US and other nations are not prepared to make any overt military intervention.

"In light of the alleged Israeli attack in Damascus and the refusal of Western countries to intervene in the Syrian campaign, the question arises whether Israel will be able, or will be required to expand its activities in Syrian airspace, under the guise of preventing weapons from reaching Hezbollah or other organizations and also as an aerial umbrella to protect rebel forces. Such a solution is likely to be comfortable for the U.S., other Arab countries and Turkey, who are not prepared for military intervention on their part without extensive international agreement.

In this way, Israel is likely to accustom the Syrian government and the opposition to the idea that it sees Syria as a legitimate area of activity, as it does in Lebanon."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, accompanied by British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond speaks during their joint news conference at the Pentagon, Thursday, where they talked about Syria. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

US and Britain consider arming Syrian rebels (+video)

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 05.03.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed yesterday that the US was reexamining its consistent opposition to arming the Syrian rebels, though cautioned that considering action was not the same as taking action.

“You look at and rethink all options," Secretary Hagel said during a Pentagon news conference, according to The New York Times.

Hagel is the first official to publicly acknowledge the shift that most observers assumed was happening, based on comments earlier this week by President Obama. After Hagel's press conference, the president said that the defense secretary's announcement coincided with a view he had held for "months," according to The Daily Star in Lebanon.

The US already provides communication gear and basic rations to Syrian rebels, and could begin including body armor, night-vision goggles, rifles, and other basic arms, The Wall Street Journal reports. 

British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond appeared alongside Hagel at the press conference, and said that Britain is also cautiously considering providing arms. A European Union arms embargo on Syria is still in place, but its expiration in May paves the way for a debate on so-called "lethal aid."

"It's a rapidly changing situation," Mr. Hammond said, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We've kept all our options open. We have not thus far provided any arms to the rebels, but we have never said it's something we will not do."

Hammond said that the US and Britain "have a great deal of knowledge about the location of chemical weapons" in Syria, but that they have not been able to track all of them, likely because President Bashar al-Assad has ordered them moved around the country.

Although the US has found evidence that the nerve agent sarin gas was used, it has been unable to prove that it was used by regime forces. Some military officials worry that extremist rebel groups may have used the gas to catalyze stronger international support for the opposition, the Wall Street Journal reports. 

The extreme caution with which the US and Britain are approaching the issue is likely a reflection of concern about repeating the mistakes in Iraq, in which the US invaded based on intelligence later proven false.

"There is a strong sense in UK public opinion that we went to war in Iraq on the back of evidence that proved not to be correct," Mr. Hammond said. "In British political space, it is called the dodgy dossier."

... "We have to be absolutely sure we are on firm ground and we're not looking at another dodgy dossier," he said.

However, CNN reports that the level of confidence the Obama administration and Britain want before they commits military aid may be too high a bar, noting that the United Nations' efforts to launch an independent investigation have so far been blocked. 

Yesterday Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also cited the bad intelligence on Iraq and said that the UN should focus on forcing Assad to allow an investigation, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

“The blanket authorization to have unimpeded access to any site or any person in Syria resembles very much the Security Council resolutions in Iraq, and we all remember the end of that story,” Mr. Lavrov said at a press conference.

Even at their most cautious, world leaders seem to be somewhat out of sync with Arab publics on this issue. The Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday that, according to a Pew Research Center poll, Arab citizens remain largely opposed to arming the rebels, either by the US and Europe or other Arab countries.

Eighty percent of Lebanese oppose Western arming of the rebels, and even among Sunnis, who are generally sympathetic to the predominantly Sunni opposition, a solid majority of 66 percent oppose the West sending military aid. Unsurprisingly, almost all (98 percent) of Lebanese Shiites oppose sending arms; the regime's base is predominantly Alawite, a Shiite sect. 

The picture changes slightly when such aid is coming from other Arab countries, but only Lebanese Sunnis join Jordan in supporting the idea – 65 percent of Jordanians favor sending arms and other military supplies, while 63 percent of Lebanese Sunnis do (to show how starkly divided Lebanon is over the Syrian war, hold that up against the 97 percent of Lebanese Shiites who oppose Arab countries sending military aid). 

The results should be examined with the caveat that the poll was conducted in March, before evidence surfaced that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.

The New York Times reports that the US shift is not only attributable to a growing conviction that chemical weapons have been used. A senior official said that "growing confidence" in Gen. Salim Idriss, who leads the opposition's Supreme Military Council, is another factor. 

The defected Syrian Army soldier has "impressed US officials with his moderate instincts, his commitment to inclusiveness, and his pledge to reject extremist elements like Al Nusra, a group that has links to Al Qaeda," according to The New York Times.

The possibly of the conflict becoming further militarized comes as Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special envoy to Syria, prepares to quit his post, further hampering diplomatic efforts that have barely gotten off the ground, The Daily Star reports. 

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have urged Mr. Brahimi to stay, but according to one anonymous UN diplomat, he has already stepped down.

Smoke rises after what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the Khaldiyeh district in central Homs April 30, 2013. (Yazan Homsy/REUTERS)

Buoyed by successes, Syrian regime pushes to retake rebel-held city of Homs

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 05.02.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Syrian Army troops are advancing on the rebel-held city of Homs, preparing for a push to retake the city that has been dubbed the "beating heart of the revolution" and been in rebel hands for more than a year.

A string of bombings in the past week against regime targets in parts of Damascus previously considered relatively impenetrable belies the fact that regime forces have actually been having a good few weeks, making advances on the ground and watching the opposition press – relatively unsuccessfully – for more outside support.

As the Associated Press notes, President Bashar al-Assad seems confident that the conflict is turning in his favor and has been emboldened by the clear Western reluctance to intervene as Islamist extremist groups rise in prominence within the opposition. Opposition-allied extremist group Jabhat al-Nusra's pledge to Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri earlier this month has been a blow to opposition support abroad.

His invigorated regime has gone on the offensive both on the ground and in its portrayal of the conflict as a choice between Assad and the extremists.

Several factors appear to have convinced Assad he can weather the storm: Two years into the uprising against his family's iron rule, his regime remains firmly entrenched in Damascus, the defection rate from the military has dwindled, and key international supporters Russia and China are still solidly on his side.

"I can say, without exaggeration, that the situation in Syria now is better than it was at the beginning of the crisis," Mr. Assad said in a television interview on April 17, according to AP. "With time, people became more aware of the dangers of what was happening.... They started to gain a better understanding of the real Syria we used to live in and realized the value of the safety, security, and harmony, which we used to enjoy."

Rami Abdul Rahman, director of the opposition-allied Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is based in Britain, acknowledged that regime defections, both military and civilian, are waning and that those who remain are "hardcore regime supporters," AP reports.

The Observatory said in a statement today that the Syrian Army had taken control of much of the Wadi al-Sayeh district in central Homs, according to Agence France-Presse.

The district lies between two rebel-held neighborhoods of the city that have been besieged by government forces for almost a year. Losing Wadi al-Sayeh would mean the loss of the territory linking them, AFP reports.

Homs, Syria's third-largest city, was one of the first to join the uprising against President Assad in 2011. It is located in southern Syria, not far from the Lebanese border, and lies along what The Christian Science Monitor has noted is a highway critical for the regime, because it connects Damascus and the regime stronghold of Latakia on the coast.

Homs district, which includes the city and the surrounding areas, has been the locus of fierce fighting because of this highway. Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group allied with Assad, has acknowledged that it is on the ground in Qusayr, a nearby town. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights today said Hezbollah fighters are directing the regime forces in the actual city of Homs.

An emboldened Assad made a rare public appearance yesterday, likely in a show of defiance after the past week's attacks on regime targets – an assassination attempt on his prime minister and a bombing at the Interior ministry.

“They want us to be afraid,” Assad said to workers at the electric station he visited, according to The New York Times. “Well, we won’t be afraid.”

As Assad was visiting the station, Damascus was rocked by a fresh set of explosions. The regime blamed the attack on terrorists – the term it frequently uses when referring to the armed opposition – but the opposition rejected the accusation, saying that the attack was carried out by the regime in an attempt to smear the opposition with an attack on civilian areas.

Attacks in Russia's Dagestan grab international attention after Boston

By Arthur Bright, Staff writer / 05.01.13

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Six people, including two teenagers, were reportedly killed in two separate attacks in Dagestan, a Russian region in the Caucasus mountains plagued by an ongoing Islamic insurgency.

Independent Russian news agency Interfax reports that two teenagers died when a bomb planted in a package exploded outside a housewares shop in the Dagestani capital of Makhachkala today.  The package had been left on the side of the road near the shop, and the teenagers, aged 15 and 17, were killed trying to open it, according to a Dagestani interior ministry official. Two other teenagers were wounded in the explosion.

State news agency RIA Novosti adds that a third man died later from the blast, which police said was equivalent to two kilograms (4.4 pounds) of TNT.

And Agence France-Presse reports that three police officers were killed last night in the city of Buinaksk when their cars came under attack by gunmen.

"Unidentified persons ... opened automatic gunfire" at the two cars the policemen were travelling in, said a statement on the Investigative Committee website.

"Two more policemen were taken to the hospital with various wounds," the statement said.

Dagestan and the rest of the Caucasus republics of Russia have been the site of a long-running Islamic insurgency against Moscow and its local allies. In 1999, Russian forces invaded Chechnya, located just west of Dagestan, to squelch a regional separatist movement. Over the years, the movement has radicalized into an Islamist terrorist operation, which has launched repeated deadly attacks over the years both in the Caucasus and against the Russian homeland, including Moscow itself.

The Causasus have come under greater scrutiny from the West recently, due to the Boston Marathon bombers' connections with the region. The parents of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev both live in Dagestan, and in 2012, Tamerlan reportedly visited relatives there. Neither brother registered on Dagestani security forces' radar however, The Christian Science Monitor reported.

The Dagestani Interior Ministry, the main law enforcement body in the Caspian republic of Dagestan, where Tsarnaev spent as many as seven months in 2012 visiting relatives, said in a statement Saturday that "the Tsarnaev brothers are not on our databases of those wanted."

The independent Interfax agency quoted a source in the Chechen security service as saying that "according to our information, these people did not appear on the republic's territory." Interfax also quoted a senior security source in Moscow, presumably from the FSB secret service, as also denying any knowledge of the Tsarnaevs. "Since the brothers Tsarnaev lived outside Russia, our special services were unable to provide our foreign partners with any operationally relevant information," the source is quoted as saying.