Syria Superthread [merged]

[tamouh]

China is only looking after its own self interest. They have little stake in Syria and thus really don't care much about what happens there. On the other hand, any UN security intervention could and would sit a precedent causing significant alarm for China & Russia. Both countries undemocratic and fear uprisings sooner or later.

On the ground in Syria, the rebels are slowly turning the tide. Aleppo is almost in its entirety under their control. Anything North of Idlib city is also under their control for the most part. What we'll begin to see is an intensification of rebels attacks southward towards Damascus and Homs.

Homs serves as an airforce hub, while Damascus houses the republican guard elites. The supply line for the rebels from Aleppo to Turkey is short and feasible. However, once the attacks extend more south towards Damascus (400km south of Aleppo), the rebels will face a dilemma of how to protect their supply line without air power.

On the other hand, unlike Libya that saw the rebels attacking mainly from the East. The Syrian rebels have relatively well equipped units in every city that can organize quickly if given the right environment.

There is no doubt the rebels are gaining momentum. This may indicate there is now a consensus among several countries to support the armed uprising and topple Assad government. China & Russia are displeased as usual, but are willing to do nothing to that effect. Their interest is minimal. The Iranians and Hezbollah are literally being squeezed both at their home and in Syria.

 

[tomahawk6]

British troops to the Syrian Border. The Brits dont have the manpower to do much to affect the civil war. Their airpower could be helpful to the Free Syrian Army. But the big dog is Turkey.They could easily intervene but it would probably kill their reapproachment with Iran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-troops-may-be-sent-to-syrian-borders-8305055.html

British troops could be deployed around Syria's borders in the event of a worsening humanitarian crisis, the head of the armed forces warned yesterday.

General Sir David Richards, the Chief of General Staff, said that contingency plans for military intervention are being "continually brushed over" as Syria's civil war continues.

He stressed that any troop involvement would be limited and conditional on the support of people in the affected area, but his remarks raise the spectre of the UK being involved in another conflict at a time when the West is trying to extract itself from the 11-year war in Afghanistan.

General Richards told BBC1's Andrew Marr programme that the UK's main concern is preventing the Syrian civil war from spilling across borders into Jordan, Lebanon, or especially Turkey, a Nato ally.

But with the humanitarian situation likely to worsen over the winter, he anticipated that political pressure for the Army to intervene would increase, though they would have to be "very cautious" about embarking on what would be a "huge effort".

"Obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things. It is my job to make sure that these options are continually brushed over to make sure that we can deliver them and they are credible," he said. "The main thing for now that we are all focusing on is to contain the crisis so that it doesn't spill over into countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey.

"That's our primary focus but that would also accommodate a humanitarian crisis because we could help deal with that through that primary mechanism. So we're keeping our awareness levels very high and in the meanwhile we're preparing plans to make sure that when some disaster happens, we're able to deal with it." The military also has to be ready for the possibility of being sent into Iran, he added. An attack on Iran would be "fraught with risk", but since Barack Obama and David Cameron have both said that "nothing is off the table" when dealing with the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons, "I have to continue to keep that one alive as well," he said.

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting bit of speculation that potentially ties the events in Lybia on 9/11/12 to the arming of the rebel groups in Syria. Remember, this is speculation, but the question of motive for the attack is still unanswered:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-did-al-qaeda-target-ambassador-stevens/

Why Did Al-Qaeda Target Ambassador Stevens?
Was he murdered for reasons other than being an American on 9/11?by
Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

November 12, 2012 - 12:00 am    Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it?

All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”

The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing?

There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant.

———————————–

Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.

The LIF’s Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper in 2011 (later reported in the British Telegraph) that he had fought the “foreign invasion” in Afghanistan. Captured in Pakistan, al-Hasidi was handed over to the U.S. and returned to Libya, where he was released from prison in 2008. Speaking of the Libyan revolution, he said:

Members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.

Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army representatives in October 2011 to offer Libyan support for ousting Assad. Throughout 2011 and 2012, ships traversed the Mediterranean from Benghazi to Syria and Lebanon with arms for the Syrian rebels. Turkish and Jordanian intelligence services were doing most of the “vetting” of rebel groups; in July 2010, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had no operatives on the ground and only a few at border posts even as weapons were entering Syria. Said a U.S. official, addressing the question of even non-lethal aid:

We’ve got to figure out who is over there first, and we don’t really know that.

In August, a report by Tony Cartalucci, a supporter of the Syrian nationalist opposition, detailed the extent of Libyan and al-Qaeda involvement in Syria, calling it a “foreign invasion.” In November, the Washington Post noted a $20 million contribution by the Libyan government to the Syrian National Council — of which the Muslim Brotherhood is a member.

Ambassador Stevens would have known all of that; he was the go-to man. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so why did they want to kill him?

In 2011, it was reported that the Libyan rebels had acquired surface-to-air missiles from Gaddafi’s arsenal, and smuggled them into their own. They were not used in the revolution because the skies were filled with allies of the militias, but American sources worried that as many as 15,000 MANPADs (man-portable air defense systems — or mobile surface-to-air missiles) might have “gone missing.” Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told USA Today:

The frank answer is we don’t know (how many are missing) and probably never will.

He added that the Obama administration took “immediate steps” to secure the weapons, launching an effort to recover them even before collapse of the regime. Which is interesting, because the U.S. claimed to have no “boots on the ground.”

So who was looking for them? And if they found them, what did they do with them?

Some, at least, appear to have emerged in Syria — in August there was a report of a Syrian government plane downed by the rebels. In October, the Russians claimed the rebels had U.S.-origin Stinger missiles. (Stingers are designed to hit helicopters and low-flying planes — they wreaked havoc with Russian aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.) The BBC reported that the Syrians had old Soviet SA-7 missiles that can destroy an airplane flying at higher altitudes.

Whether Russian or American, the introduction of MANPADS into the region would be cause for alarm. The Levant is not isolated to Afghanistan, and the multinational nature of the Syrian rebels puts a number of countries and their interests in harm’s way. A stray shot — or a deliberate diversion — could be used against Israeli commercial or military aviation. Or American aviation. Turkey would have to worry that the Kurdish part of the anti-Assad revolution might divert its energies to assist in the Kurdish guerrilla movement against Turkey; Turkey’s war against the PKK is largely conducted with helicopters. Jordan would have to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood part of the Syrian rebellion could divert its energies to assist the MB in Jordan against U.S. ally King Abdullah II. Russia would worry that missiles could be diverted to the anti-Russian Sunni jihadists of the Caucasus or Central Asia.

In October, the IDF confirmed that a surface-to-air missile, said to be an SA-7, was fired at a helicopter from Gaza. Iran had not provided such weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, perhaps understanding that such an escalation would produce Israeli retaliation. The fact that Israel struck the Sudanese Yarmouk rocket/missile factory at the end of October may have been a reminder of the consequences of escalation.

So far, only the last bit is speculation.

But what if Turkish, Jordanian, Russian, or Israeli concerns about the appearance of MANPADS close to their borders made the administration decide that it had to exercise more control over weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels? What if the State Department told Ambassador Stevens to clamp down on the shipments or to stop them all together? If Stevens had told his militia allies that he was cutting back or cutting off the CIA-organized shipments to Syria, could they have been angry enough to kill him?

Al-Qaeda operatives knew of the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi — either because they had operatives in Tripoli or because they had them in Benghazi. They knew where he was and they attacked after the Turkish ambassador left the compound. This raises the question of why Stevens and the Turkish ambassador were meeting in Benghazi at all, when both are stationed in Tripoli.

Another “what if” involves the administration response to the attack, both initially and when senior members — including the secretary of State, the president’s press secretary, and the U.S. ambassador to the UN — all insisted that the attack was the result of “the video.” Two full weeks later, President Obama pounded the lectern at the United Nations and denounced “the video.”

What if they needed for Ambassador Stevens’ death to be part of a larger event, unrelated to the specifics of arms, militias, al-Qaeda, and Syria?

Remember, we’re speculating here. But if the truth of an arms relationship came out, the administration would have been caught in a major falsehood right before the election — that’s not speculation. Mrs. Clinton had flatly told CBS News in February that the U.S. would not arm Syrian rebels, specifically because of the potential for arming radicals with which the U.S. would not be associated:

What are we going to arm them with and against what? We’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. … We know [al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri] is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria?

It may still fall into the realm of speculation, but it seems we were, and if we were there would be a price to pay.

In what appears to be a related event, in early November Secretary Clinton withdrew U.S. support from the Syrian National Council and proposed a differently comprised coalition that would reduce the SNC’s influence. She said it was needed in part because:

We need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution. There are disturbing reports of extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over what has been a legitimate revolution against a repressive regime for their own purposes.

She didn’t mention their American interlocutors.

That appears to be the final backing-away from an American relationship with al-Qaeda-related militias in Libya that ultimately resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty, and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith.

Dr. Stephen Bryen, President of SDB Partners, LLC, was Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and the first Director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.

 

[GAP]

Syrian Islamist groups reject Western-backed opposition, declare Islamic state in key city
By: Elizabeth A. Kennedy, The Associated Press 11/19/2012
Article Link

BEIRUT - Syria's increasingly powerful Islamist rebel factions rejected the country's new Western-backed opposition coalition and unilaterally declared an Islamic state in the key battleground of Aleppo, a sign of the seemingly intractable splits among those fighting to topple President Bashar Assad.

The move highlights the struggle over the direction of the rebellion at a time when the opposition is trying to gain the West's trust and secure a flow of weapons to fight the regime. The rising profile of the extremist faction among the rebels could doom those efforts.

Such divisions have hobbled the opposition over the course of the uprising, which has descended into a bloody civil war. According to activists, nearly 40,000 people have been killed since the revolt began 20 months ago. The fighting has been particularly extreme in Aleppo, Syria's largest city and a major front in the civil war since the summer.

Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said Monday the Islamists' declaration will unsettle both Western backers of the Syrian opposition and groups inside Syria, ranging from secularists to the Christian minority.

"They have to feel that the future of their country could be slipping away," Shaikh said. "This is a sign of things to come the longer this goes on. The Islamist groups and extremists will increasingly be forging alliances and taking matters into their own hands." The West is particularly concerned about sending weapons to rebels for fear they could end up in extremists' hands.
More on link

 

[Journeyman]

....... a sign of the seemingly intractable splits among those fighting to topple President Bashar Assad.

Ah yes, splitters -- the Judean People's Front.  :nod:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Ah yes, splitters -- the Judean People's Front.  :nod:

You mean the Judean Popular People's Front....

 

[tomahawk6]

The opposition has been busy while we were focused on Gaza.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/21/gunning_for_damascus

Mideast conflicts have a nasty habit of occurring all at once. And while all eyes have been on Gaza and Israel this past week, several major diplomatic and military developments have occurred on the Syrian front -- some of which may prove decisive to the end game of a 20-month old crisis.

The rebels are winning.  The insurgents on the ground in Syria appear to be winning more and more territory and confiscating more and more high-grade materiel from President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Just as Operation Pillar of Defense was kicking off over Gaza on Nov. 14, the Free Syrian Army took the entire city of al-Bukamal along the Iraqi border, where they also sacked two major airbases, giving the opposition a strong military foothold in Syria's easternmost province, a vital smuggling route for weapons.

The rebels then claimed a massive victory on the night of Nov. 18, sacking the Syrian Army's 46th Regiment, 15 miles west of Aleppo, after a 50 day-long siege. The real score, though, was in confiscated materiel: Rebels made off with tanks, armored vehicles, Type-63 multiple rocket launchers, artillery shells, howitzers, mortars, and even SA-16 surface-to-air missiles. Gen. Ahmed al-Faj of the Joint Command, a consortium of different rebel battalions, told the Associated Press: "There has never been a battle before with this much booty." (For a seemingly comprehensive video accounting of the rebel haul, check out Brown Moses's blog.)

The gains have only continued in the past week. On Nov. 20, rebels hit the Syrian Information Ministry in Damascus with two mortar rounds and stormed an air defense base at Sheikh Suleiman, about 11 miles from the Turkish border, where they seized stocks of explosives before withdrawing to elude retaliatory air strikes. "Assad's forces use the base to shell many villages and towns in the countryside," one rebel said. "It is now neutralized."

There are also signs that bigger gains are on the way. It's "March to Damascus Week" for the revolutionaries, as a multi-pronged offensive has taken shape in and around the capital. On Nov. 19, Ansar al-Islam and Jund Allah Brigades, two Islamist rebel groups, seized the Syrian Air Defense Battalion headquarters near Hajar al-Aswad, just south of Damascus. Another base in Ghouta, a region in the Damascus countryside, was also sacked. Opposition forces are also holding Daraya, a southwest suburb of the capital, despite days of intense aerial bombardment from Assad's Republican Guard.

This map, courtesy of the wonderfully obsessive EA Worldview website, shows how rebel operations have arrived right at Assad's doorstep the last 48 hours. Meanwhile, as EA Worldview's Jim Miller points out, the Syrian north is now effectively anti-Assad country: "The regime has not won a noteworthy military victory in this territory in over two months."

Syria's political opposition is getting its act together. The six Gulf Cooperation Council member states, France, Libya, Turkey and Britain have now all recognized the Syrian National Coalition, which was formed in Doha on Nov. 11, as "the" (not "a," an important distinction in diplomatese) legitimate representative of the Syrian people, in effect making it the new government-in-exile for all those countries. The anti-Assad opposition group has even appointed its own ambassador to France, Munzer Makhous, an Alawite with a background in academia, no doubt selected to signpost its minority-friendly inclusiveness. These moves have led to intense speculation about whether Western countries are prepared to supply the rebels with military assistance, or even the possibility of an Anglo-French-led effort at intervention.

Yet that all still hangs on the United States, which stopped short of fully recognizing the coalition. State Department spokesman Mark Toner called the newborn body, which Foggy Bottom helped midwife, simply "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" -- the same language Washington used with the Syrian National Council. The EU foreign ministers' statement was even more wishy-washy, recognizing the coalition merely as "legitimate representatives of the aspirations of the Syrian people."

This fudge is deliberate, and there are at least two reasons behind it. First, Washington and Brussels understand that while the coalition's optics and rhetoric might be encouraging (President Moaz al-Khatib's alarming website notwithstanding), it still has much work to do in expanding its ranks, building a viable transitional government, and -- most important -- proving rather than simply asserting that it controls the bulk of the armed rebels.

Its control over the men who are waging the insurgency against Assad's military was cast in doubt last week, when members of the Islamist Tawhid Brigade, the largest rebel faction in Aleppo, rejected the new coalition as a "conspiracy" against the uprising. The group quickly reversed course: On Tuesday, a new YouTube video showed Tawhid Brigade spokesman Abdel-Qader Saleh affirming the group's support for the coalition, "as long as it adheres to the objectives of and aspirations of the revolution" and characterizing the earlier statement as a rogue demarche based on the "marginalization of revolutionary groups with an actual presence on the ground, which are leading the liberation of Aleppo."

President Barack Obama's administration may also be wary of going all in with the coalition because it realizes that it could increase the pressure to intervene in Syria, which it is loathe to do. If the coalition is described as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, then a credible case can be made to designate Assad's forces an "invading" presence in Syria -- making it all the more urgent to expel them by force.

Turkey gets its Patriots. For the last fortnight, Turkey had been playing its usual will-we-or-won't-we games with the media over whether it would move for NATO to position Patriot missile systems on its border with Syria. It ended the suspense on Nov. 20, when Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that a deal had indeed been struck to better fortify Turkey's 560-mile border with Syria with the kind of surface-to-air batteries that made Saddam Hussein's life very unpleasant in two Gulf wars. Though NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has claimed that the Patriots would exclusively be used to counter cross-border Syrian mortar rounds, there's always the chance they could be used to shoot down Syrian aircraft that fly too close to the border, thus creating a no-fly zone.

Creating a no-fly zone might not require too much heavy lifting for the United States. Lt. Col. Eddie Boxx and Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Peace have argued that if Patriot systems were stationed on the Turkish and Jordanian borders and were used in conjunction with three types of U.S. aircraft -- the E-3 AWACS, RC-135 Rivet Joint, and E-8 JSTARS -- they could "give the FSA a protected arc some 40-50 miles from the borders."

 

[a_majoor]

Events may be spiraling from bad to worst. Reports of activity around Syrian Chemical and Biological weapons sites have morphed form activities designed to protect them from the rebels to reports of preparation for use. (One might also ask just where these weapons came from in the first place? I can find little or no open source literature indicating Syria ever had a WMD program until their presumptive nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israeli Air force.) Releasing WMD for any reason will probably be the trigger for interventions by outside parties, with all the issues that would bring:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/03/matt-gurney-syrian-chemical-weapons-activity-draws-warning-from-washington/

Matt Gurney: Syrian chemical weapons activity draws warning from Washington

Matt Gurney | Dec 3, 2012 11:45 AM ET
More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney

There’s something afoot at Syria’s chemical weapons storage facilities. And it has Washington and the allies worried.

Syria, which remains in the grips of a full-on civil war, has long been known to possess enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons — including ultra-lethal nerve gases. Several months ago, the regime surprised observers by suddenly confirming that it did indeed have chemical weapons, and biological ones, too, before quickly walking back the admission. On top of whatever weapons the regime possesses, it also has surface-to-surface weapons sufficient to deliver them to targets in neighbouring countries — long a very real concern of Israel.

Months ago, when the above-mentioned admission was made by Syria, Washington officials quietly told the press that they weren’t worried. There had been quite a bit of activity at Syria’s weapons depots, the officials granted, but the activity all seemed indicative of defensive measures Syria was undertaking to safeguard its stockpiles from destruction or seizure by the rebels. The increased activity at the sites, rather than alarming the West, actually reassured officials here. It showed that Syria was taking the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands or being accidentally released during a firefight seriously — exactly what we wanted to see.

But something seems to have changed. NATO-member Turkey, next door to Syria and site of several recent border clashes with Syrian forces, urgently requested NATO Patriot missile batteries. The reason: To defend itself against any possible missile attack from Syria, missiles that would potentially be carrying chemical or biological payloads. NATO is considering the request, which would not be well received by Syria, but is expected to agree to the deployment.

Beyond Turkey’s concerns, there is increasing worry among NATO allies that Syria is, simply put, up to something. U.S. defence officials, speaking anonymously, say that there is renewed activity at the chemical weapon depots, including the transfer of parts and components. A U.S. official tried to sound a reassuring note when he said that there seem to be no imminent signs of hostile intentions, and that’s good news as far as it goes.

But it’s also a very different note than was being struck before. The last time we detected activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites, everyone over here was relieved by that, because it showed that Syria was tightening up its security protocols and making sure its most dangerous weapons stayed securely tucked away. Now? The best we can seem to conclude is that there appears to be no imminent risk.

Ahead of a NATO meeting that will consider (and likely approve) Turkey’s request for Patriot missiles, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Syria that the U.S. would consider any move toward using chemical weapons a “red line” that would trigger an unspecified U.S. response. In reality, this would almost certainly mean a major U.S.-NATO assault on Syria’s air defence network, to blow open a gap that would permit a precision strike against Syria’s weapons stockpiles.

Blowing up chemical and biological weapons on the ground, or in hardened bunkers, is risky and complicated — there’s a high risk of exploded warheads scattering contaminants whichever way the wind is blowing. It would require a considerable effort to get enough bombers into Syria, carrying enough firepower, to not just destroy the weapons, but thoroughly destroy them, so as to minimize any potential downwind fallout. And that attack could only happen amid a general smashing of Syria’s air force, which would itself be a challenging task. The heavy American aircraft best suited to bombing runs against hardened targets are also those most vulnerable to the kind of defences Syria possesses.

But despite Washington’s clear (and justified) reluctance to get into the thick of things with Syria, Ms. Clinton should be taken at her word. The U.S. might not see any strategic reason to get involved in a Syrian civil war that stays contained within Syria. It might not even feel compelled to do much if it spills over a bit into neighbouring countries. But if there’s even a chance that Syria might be preparing to use its weapons of mass destruction, on its own rebellious population or its neighbours, expect a forceful American response. A short, focused pre-emptve air war against Syria is a far preferable option than dealing with a Middle East caught in the grips of an escalating exchange of weapons of mass destruction.

National Post
[email protected]

 

[tomahawk6]

Assad wouldnt really use chemical weapons against his enemies would he ?

 

[tamouh]

Events may be spiraling from bad to worst. Reports of activity around Syrian Chemical and Biological weapons sites have morphed form activities designed to protect them from the rebels to reports of preparation for use. (One might also ask just where these weapons came from in the first place? I can find little or no open source literature indicating Syria ever had a WMD program until their presumptive nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israeli Air force.) Releasing WMD for any reason will probably be the trigger for interventions by outside parties, with all the issues that would bring:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/03/matt-gurney-syrian-chemical-weapons-activity-draws-warning-from-washington/

Syria have had chemical & biological weapons since mid-late 1970s. Syria have had active chemical and biological weapons program long before the nuclear reactor destruction. As for how they got them, most likely through Soviet facilitation from Eastern Europe. The Baath parties in Syria and Iraq are foes for most of the 1980s/1990s. There is even suggestion that they've might tried to topple each other regime. So it would be logical if Iraq possessed chemical weapons during the 80s that the Syrians had that same capability at the time.

As far as I'm aware, Syria had never used their biological/chemical weapons before. The stockpile is old but could have been reproduced or refurbished in the past 10-15 years.

I think the Syrian regime will not hesitate to use anything at their disposal in the final hours, or at the very least create a havoc in the region by either transporting some sensitive weaponary to Hezboallah or in the hands of extremist elements.

 

[a_majoor]

Syria have had chemical & biological weapons since mid-late 1970s. Syria have had active chemical and biological weapons program long before the nuclear reactor destruction. As for how they got them, most likely through Soviet facilitation from Eastern Europe. The Baath parties in Syria and Iraq are foes for most of the 1980s/1990s. There is even suggestion that they've might tried to topple each other regime. So it would be logical if Iraq possessed chemical weapons during the 80s that the Syrians had that same capability at the time.

Sources?

 

[tamouh]

Sources?

Among others:

2007 Interview published with Dr. Jill Dekker:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Jerry_Gordon/Syria%27s_Bio-Warfare_Threat%3A_an_interview_with_Dr._Jill_Dekker/

I quote from that interview: "Contrary to how the US State Department and other agencies tend to downplay the sophistication of the Syrian biological and nuclear programs, they are very advanced. Syria has always had the most advanced chemical weapons program in the Middle East"


2012 OPCW Statement:
http://www.opcw.org/special-sections/the-opcw-and-syria/syria-and-the-opcw/

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting links, and providing a few clues to follow up:

In the mean time, there is one possible "out" for the Assads and a few choice henchmen. In the larger game, the minorities may well have to start planning a retreat into whatever defensible terrain exists and hold out from there; or become victims to a vengeful majority:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/05/jonathan-kay-the-best-hope-for-syria-putting-the-assads-in-a-russian-dacha/

Jonathan Kay: The best hope for Syria? Putting the Assads in a Russian dacha

Jonathan Kay | Dec 5, 2012 1:16 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 5, 2012 1:26 PM ET
More from Jonathan Kay | @jonkay

An estimated 40,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, and many more have been displaced or wounded. By now, Bashar Assad must realize that his days as the country’s dictator are limited: Fighting has metastasized to the capital, Damascus. And the Syrian army is spread too thin to secure even critical installations such as airports and border crossings. Moreover, even Syria’s once-steadfast great-power supporter, Russia, is now wavering. Apparently, Vladimir Putin does not want to be on the losing side of history.

The Russians have an interesting status on the world stage — that of what might be called a “semi-rogue,” or perhaps “rogue-enabling” state. On one hand, they have a veto on the UN Security Council, and are high-level players in everything from the oil trade to the G8. Yet Mr. Putin also does business with Iran, sells weapons to Syria, and generally takes every chance to poke Uncle Sam in the eye. This includes filling the Russian television media with anti-American conspiracy theories, and accusing Western NGOs of acting as presumptively subversive foreign agents within Russia’s borders.

Yet Russia’s Jekyll-and-Hyde status may actually prove useful in finding a solution in Syria. The West can’t do business with the full-on rogue state of Iran, Syria’s other ally. But Russia is another story: It’s semi-rogue status means it is just benign enough to be an interlocutor for the West, and just malign enough to be an interlocutor for Syria.

If Mr. Assad is amenable to some sort of peaceful relinquishment of power in Damascus, and foreign exile, Moscow may be the key to making it happen. Just as Saudi Arabia eventually provided exile to Uganda’s murderous Idi Amin, perhaps the Assad clan can be allowed to live out their years in a well-guarded Russian dacha.

In a perfect world, of course, that wouldn’t happen: Mr. Assad would be put to justice at the ICC or a regional tribunal, such as was the case with Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia’s Charles Taylor. (Or justice would be rendered George Jonas-style, and Bashar would simply be shot.)

But the world isn’t perfect, and the primary goal of civilized nations must be to stop the slaughter in Syria, not obey the principles of due process. If Mr. Putin can get Mr. Assad out of Damascus, and end Syria’s civil war (or, at least, end the Assads’ role in it), the nations of the West, Canada included, should provide their support.

National Post
[email protected]
Twitter @jonkay

 

[muskrat89]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs.
Sarin is an extraordinarily lethal agent. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces killed 5,000 Kurds with a single sarin attack on Halabja in 1988.

U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated U.S. warnings to Assad not to use chemical weapons, saying he would be crossing "a red line" if he did so.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Assad's have made asylum inquiries with a few Latin American countries. Probably countries that dont have extradition agreements.

 

[cupper]

The Assad's have made asylum inquiries with a few Latin American countries. Probably countries that dont have extradition agreements.

He could move into the German ex-pat community. ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

It would appear that the response to the Syrian Air Force preparing bombs with sarin,are threats by NATO to intervene in Syria using the Libya model. The US,UK and France have an array of major warships with Marines off the coast of Syria.A Special Operations task force is in place.Intervention could occur at any time or the threat of intervention may be enough to get Assad to leave the country now.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It would appear that the response to the Syrian Air Force preparing bombs with sarin,are threats by NATO to intervene in Syria using the Libya model. The US,UK and France have an array of major warships with Marines off the coast of Syria.A Special Operations task force is in place.Intervention could occur at any time or the threat of intervention may be enough to get Assad to leave the country now.

Or we could just leave them alone to keep on killing one another and wait to see what comes out at the end.

I am about 99% certain that we will not much like the outcomes, no matter how much we might intervene ... or not.

 

[a_majoor]

Bad idea alert. We have even less compelling national interests to intervene in a Syrian civil war than we did in Libya, and being sucked into a regional war in the Middle East is something we are neither prepared or equipped to do:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/07/canada-not-ruling-out-syria-action-as-baird-warns-of-serious-consequences/

Canada not ruling out Syria action as Baird warns of ‘serious consequences’

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | Dec 7, 2012 9:43 AM ET
More from Postmedia News
 
OTTAWA — Canada joined the international community Thursday in warning of “serious consequences” if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians.

The warning came amid signs Russia may be backing off its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, and as a report emerged in France that some NATO members are preparing a military attack against Assad’s chemical-weapon stockpiles.

Asked about the French report of a Western strike, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada has been “actively talking” with its allies about Syria, but he would not confirm that an attack is in the works, or whether Canada would be involved.
Related
   
The international community has long known the Syrian government possesses chemical weapons like sarin gas, and has warned Assad and his forces against their use throughout the country’s more than 20-month civil war.

But U.S. intelligence reports this week indicated Assad’s forces may be preparing to deploy the weapons against anti-government forces and civilians.

This comes after Syrian rebels scored a number of victories throughout the country, even taking the fight to the suburbs of the capital Damascus.

U.S. President Barack Obama said earlier this week that the use of chemical weapons is “totally unacceptable” and would result in unspecified consequences, a threat Baird echoed in the House of Commons on Thursday.

“These reports are deeply disturbing and are absolutely unacceptable,” Baird said. “Our government has been very clear that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime on the Syrian people.”

Like Obama, Baird did not say what consequences the Assad regime might face.

For its part, the Syrian government has rejected allegations it is about to deploy chemical weapons, describing the reports as a pretext for Western military intervention.

Baird also reiterated calls for Russia and China to use what leverage they have “to prevent this serious crisis from entering a new disastrous phase.”

A government official said Baird addressed the issue of Syria’s chemical weapons during a meeting with China’s ambassador to Canada earlier this week.

CHEMICAL ARSENAL

U.S. intelligence agencies say Syria has spent decades developing chemical weapons, starting with the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The work includes stockpiling the necessary ingredients and working out how to weaponize aircraft, ballistic missiles and artillery rockets

The chemicals are thought to include the blister agent mustard gas, used in the First World War, and highly toxic nerve agents, such as sarin (used by the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult in its 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway), tabun and the hard to produce VX, one of the V series of toxins

Turkish, Arab and Western intelligence agencies estimate Syria’s chemical weapons’ stockpile at approximately 1,000 tonnes, stored in 50 towns and cities.

Plants are thought to be located in As-Safir, southeast of Aleppo; near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast; near Dumayr, 25 km northeast of Damascus; Khan Abu Shamat, 35 km east of Damascus; and Al-Furqlus, Homs province.

Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention or ratified the Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention

The trigger for the latest concern is the apparent recent loading of mixed nerve agents into aerial bombs near or on Syrian airfields.

Sources: Center for Strategic & International Studies, Royal United Services Institute for Defence & Security Studies

The official said Canadian diplomats in Moscow and Beijing have also been instructed to highlight Canada’s position with Chinese and Russian officials.

This comes as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, met to discuss Syria on the sidelines of a conference in Dublin on Thursday.

The meeting ended with hopes the Russian government might scale back its support for Assad after months of providing his forces with weapons and blocking United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for international action.

That might pave the way for a Western military strike, which a French magazine reported this week is already in the works.

Le Point reported that France is preparing a military strike that would involve other NATO nations, including the United States, United Kingdom and possibly Turkey. There was no mention of Canada.

The article indicated the attack would not consist of a ground invasion or a sustained air-and-sea campaign like that used in Libya.

Rather, it would be comprised of special forces soldiers supported by helicopters and aircraft who would hit the Assad government’s chemical weapons stockpiles and perhaps its military aircraft as well.

The Canadian Forces admitted over the summer it was drawing up its own plans on how to intervene in Syria.

But it said such planning is done as a matter of course to ensure the military is ready should the government call upon it to get involved in the conflict.

It was unclear from Le Point whether France was planning an imminent strike or simply preparing should circumstances — such as the use of chemical weapons — dictate a response.

Asked about the French report in the House of Commons, Baird refused to comment on any specifics, saying only that “we have for some time been actively talking with our allies.”

“I think President Obama spoke loudly and clearly for the civilized world when he said these actions, if they did follow through on them, would be absolutely unacceptable and there would be serious consequences to be paid.”

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said the threat of chemical weapons being used on the Syrian population is extremely serious, and said Canada should be ready to act with its allies.

However, he held out hope that the talks between Clinton and Lavrov would result in some type of solution that would keep the Assad government from deploying its chemical stockpile and prevent the need for Western military action.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar supported Canada drawing a line in the sand on the use of chemical weapons, but said it is too early to consider military intervention.

“China and Russia have to understand that this is a line that can’t be crossed,” he said. “We have to work with the UN, the international community to ensure prevention of these weapons being used.”

If Canada and its allies launched a military attack on Syria, they would find a very different situation from what existed in Libya.

Libya was a thinly populated, internationally isolated country with a small, poorly equipped military that was almost custom-built for a bombing campaign.

Syria’s population of 22.5 million is fives times that of Libya, yet packed into a space one-tenth the size, significantly increasing the chances of civilian casualties from the air.

In addition, the Syrian military is also much larger and better equipped, complete with a complex anti-aircraft network, and there are no clear battle lines between government and rebel forces.

Further, the West and its Arab allies would be reluctant to launch attacks against Assad’s forces for fear of Russia becoming involved.

There are also concerns about the conflict spilling over into neighbouring countries, including Iran, Turkey, Lebanon and possibly even Israel.

And it remains unclear whether Canada and its allies have the stomach for another military intervention.

 

[GR66]

Totally naive question here.  Would there be any possibility that the Syrians could load their most valuable nerve agents (VX?) on aircraft and try to dash across northern Iraq to Iran (200km or so?) if there is a real risk of the rebels winning?  That would give the regime some sort of at least hope of restoration.  Iran would gain a serviceable air force as well as a chemical detergent to bridge the gap until they can produce nuclear weapons.