The Syrian Opposition: Who's Doing The Talking?

By Charlie Skelton for The Guardian via (Information Clearing House)

The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look … 

A nightmare is unfolding across Syria, in the homes of al-Heffa and the streets of Houla. And we all know how the story ends: with thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, towns and families destroyed, and President Assad beaten to death in a ditch.

This is the story of the Syrian war, but there is another story to be told. A tale less bloody, but nevertheless important. This is a story about the storytellers: the spokespeople, the "experts on Syria", the "democracy activists". The statement makers. The people who "urge" and "warn" and "call for action".

It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business. The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as "official spokesmen" or "pro-democracy campaigners" without, for the most part, scrutinising their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections.

It's important to stress: to investigate the background of a Syrian spokesperson is not to doubt the sincerity of his or her opposition to Assad. But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.

Though it is not yet stated US government policy to oust Assad by force, these spokespeople are vocal advocates of foreign military intervention in Syria and thus natural allies of well-known US neoconservatives who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now pressuring the Obama administration to intervene. As we will see, several of these spokespeople have found support, and in some cases developed long and lucrative relationships with advocates of military intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.

"The sand is running out of the hour glass," said Hillary Clinton on Sunday. So, as the fighting in Syria intensifies, and Russian warships set sail for Tartus, it's high time to take a closer look at those who are speaking out on behalf of the Syrian people.

The Syrian National Council
The most quoted of the opposition spokespeople are the official representatives of the Syrian National Council. The SNC is not the only Syrian opposition group – but it is generally recognised as "the main opposition coalition" (BBC). The Washington Times describes it as "an umbrella group of rival factions based outside Syria". Certainly the SNC is the opposition group that's had the closest dealings with western powers – and has called for foreign intervention from the early stages of the uprising. In February of this year, at the opening of the Friends of Syria summit in Tunisia, William Hague declared: "I will meet leaders of the Syrian National Council in a few minutes' time … We, in common with other nations, will now treat them and recognise them as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people."

The most senior of the SNC's official spokespeople is the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani.

Bassma Kodmani


Here is Bassma Kodmani, seen leaving this year's Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia.

Kodmani is a member of the executive bureau and head of foreign affairs, Syrian National Council. Kodmani is close to the centre of the SNC power structure, and one of the council's most vocal spokespeople. "No dialogue with the ruling regime is possible. We can only discuss how to move on to a different political system," she declared this week. And here she is, quoted by the newswire AFP: "The next step needs to be a resolution under Chapter VII, which allows for the use of all legitimate means, coercive means, embargo on arms, as well as the use of force to oblige the regime to comply."

This statement translates into the headline "Syrians call for armed peacekeepers" (Australia's Herald Sun). When large-scale international military action is being called for, it seems only reasonable to ask: who exactly is calling for it? We can say, simply, "an official SNC spokesperson," or we can look a little closer.

This year was Kodmani's second Bilderberg. At the 2008 conference, Kodmani was listed as French; by 2012, her Frenchness had fallen away and she was listed simply as "international" – her homeland had become the world of international relations.

Back a few years, in 2005, Kodmani was working for the Ford Foundation in Cairo, where she was director of their governance and international co-operation programme. The Ford Foundation is a vast organisation, headquartered in New York, and Kodmani was already fairly senior. But she was about to jump up a league.

Around this time, in February 2005, US-Syrian relations collapsed, and President Bush recalled his ambassador from Damascus. A lot of opposition projects date from this period. "The US money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005," says the Washington Post.

In September 2005, Kodmani was made the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI) – a research programme initiated by the powerful US lobby group, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The CFR is an elite US foreign policy thinktank, and the Arab Reform Initiative is described on its website as a "CFR Project" . More specifically, the ARI was initiated by a group within the CFR called the "US/Middle East Project" – a body of senior diplomats, intelligence officers and financiers, the stated aim of which is to undertake regional "policy analysis" in order "to prevent conflict and promote stability". The US/Middle East Project pursues these goals under the guidance of an international board chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft.

Brent Scowcroft (chairman emeritus) is a former national security adviser to the US president – he took over the role from Henry Kissinger. Sitting alongside Scowcroft of the international board is his fellow geo-strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who succeeded him as the national security adviser, and Peter Sutherland, the chairman of Goldman Sachs International. So, as early as 2005, we've got a senior wing of the western intelligence/banking establishment selecting Kodmani to run a Middle East research project. In September of that year, Kodmani was made full-time director of the programme. Earlier in 2005, the CFR assigned "financial oversight" of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). In come the British.

The CER is overseen by Lord Kerr, the deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell. Kerr is a former head of the diplomatic service and is a senior adviser at Chatham House (a thinktank showcasing the best brains of the British diplomatic establishment).

In charge of the CER on a day-to-day basis is Charles Grant, former defence editor of the Economist, and these days a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a "pan-European thinktank" packed with diplomats, industrialists, professors and prime ministers. On its list of members you'll find the name: "Bassma Kodmani (France/Syria) – Executive Director, Arab Reform Initiative".

Another name on the list: George Soros – the financier whose non-profit "Open Society Foundations" is a primary funding source of the ECFR. At this level, the worlds of banking, diplomacy, industry, intelligence and the various policy institutes and foundations all mesh together, and there, in the middle of it all, is Kodmani.

The point is, Kodmani is not some random "pro-democracy activist" who happens to have found herself in front of a microphone. She has impeccable international diplomacy credentials: she holds the position of research director at the Académie Diplomatique Internationale – "an independent and neutral institution dedicated to promoting modern diplomacy". The Académie is headed by Jean-Claude Cousseran, a former head of the DGSE – the French foreign intelligence service.

A picture is emerging of Kodmani as a trusted lieutenant of the Anglo-American democracy-promotion industry. Her "province of origin" (according to the SNC website) is Damascus, but she has close and long-standing professional relationships with precisely those powers she's calling upon to intervene in Syria.

And many of her spokesmen colleagues are equally well-connected.

Radwan Ziadeh
Another often quoted SNC representative is Radwan Ziadeh – director of foreign relations at the Syrian National Council. Ziadeh has an impressive CV: he's a senior fellow at the federally funded Washington thinktank, the US Institute of Peace (the USIP Board of Directors is packed with alumni of the defence department and the national security council; its president is Richard Solomon, former adviser to Kissinger at the NSC).

In February this year, Ziadeh joined an elite bunch of Washington hawks to sign a letter calling upon Obama to intervene in Syria: his fellow signatories include James Woolsey (former CIA chief), Karl Rove (Bush Jr's handler), Clifford May (Committee on the Present Danger) and Elizabeth Cheney, former head of the Pentagon's Iran-Syria Operations Group.

Ziadeh is a relentless organiser, a blue-chip Washington insider with links to some of the most powerful establishment thinktanks. Ziadeh's connections extend all the way to London. In 2009 he became a visiting fellow at Chatham House, and in June of last year he featured on the panel at one of their events – "Envisioning Syria's Political Future" – sharing a platform with fellow SNC spokesman Ausama Monajed (more on Monajed below) and SNC member Najib Ghadbian.

Ghadbian was identified by the Wall Street Journal as an early intermediary between the US government and the Syrian opposition in exile: "An initial contact between the White House and NSF [National Salvation Front] was forged by Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist." This was back in 2005. The watershed year.

These days, Ghadbian is a member of the general secretariat of the SNC, and is on the advisory board of a Washington-based policy body called the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS) – an organisation co-founded by Ziadeh.

Ziadeh has been making connections like this for years. Back in 2008, Ziadeh took part in a meeting of opposition figures in a Washington government building: a mini-conference called "Syria In-Transition". The meeting was co-sponsored by a US-based body called the Democracy Council and a UK-based organisation called the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD). It was a big day for the MJD – their chairman, Anas Al-Abdah, had travelled to Washington from Britain for the event, along with their director of public relations. Here, from the MJD's website, is a description of the day: "The conference saw an exceptional turn out as the allocated hall was packed with guests from the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of studies centres, journalists and Syrian expatriats [sic] in the USA."

The day opened with a keynote speech by James Prince, head of the Democracy Council. Ziadeh was on a panel chaired by Joshua Muravchik (the ultra-interventionist author of the 2006 op-ed "Bomb Iran"). The topic of the discussion was "The Emergence of Organized Opposition". Sitting beside Ziadeh on the panel was the public relations director of the MJD – a man who would later become his fellow SNC spokesperson – Ausama Monajed.

Ausama Monajed
Along with Kodmani and Ziadeh, Ausama (or sometimes Osama) Monajed is one of the most important SNC spokespeople. There are others, of course – the SNC is a big beast and includes the Muslim Brotherhood. The opposition to Assad is wide-ranging, but these are some of the key voices. There are other official spokespeople with long political careers, like George Sabra of the Syrian Democratic People's party – Sabra has suffered arrest and lengthy imprisonment in his fight against the "repressive and totalitarian regime in Syria". And there are other opposition voices outside the SNC, such as the writer Michel Kilo, who speaks eloquently of the violence tearing apart his country: "Syria is being destroyed – street after street, city after city, village after village. What kind of solution is that? In order for a small group of people to remain in power, the whole country is being destroyed."



Ausuma Monajed. Photograph: BBC

But there's no doubt that the primary opposition body is the SNC, and Kodmani, Ziadeh and Monajed are often to be found representing it. Monajed frequently crops up as a commentator on TV news channels. Here he is on the BBC, speaking from their Washington bureau. Monajed doesn't sugar-coat his message: "We are watching civilians being slaughtered and kids being slaughtered and killed and women being raped on the TV screens every day."

Meanwhile, over on Al Jazeera, Monajed talks about "what's really happening, in reality, on the ground" – about "the militiamen of Assad" who "come and rape their women, slaughter their children, and kill their elderly".

Monajed turned up, just a few days ago, as a blogger on Huffington Post UK, where he explained, at length: "Why the World Must Intervene in Syria" – calling for "direct military assistance" and "foreign military aid". So, again, a fair question might be: who is this spokesman calling for military intervention?

Monajed is a member of the SNC, adviser to its president, and according to his SNC biography, "the Founder and Director of Barada Television", a pro-opposition satellite channel based in Vauxhall, south London. In 2008, a few months after attending Syria In-Transition conference, Monajed was back in Washington, invited to lunch with George W Bush, along with a handful of other favoured dissidents (you can see Monajed in the souvenir photo, third from the right, in the red tie, near Condoleezza Rice – up the other end from Garry Kasparov).

At this time, in 2008, the US state department knew Monajed as "director of public relations for the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD), which leads the struggle for peaceful and democratic change in Syria".

Let's look closer at the MJD. Last year, the Washington Post picked up a story from WikiLeaks, which had published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables. These cables appear to show a remarkable flow of money from the US state department to the British-based Movement for Justice and Development. According to the Washington Post's report: "Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified US diplomatic cables show that the state department has funnelled as much as $6m to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria."

A state department spokesman responded to this story by saying: "Trying to promote a transformation to a more democratic process in this society is not undermining necessarily the existing government." And they're right, it's not "necessarily" that.

When asked about the state department money, Monajed himself said that he "could not confirm" US state department funding for Barada TV, but said: "I didn't receive a penny myself." Malik al -Abdeh, until very recently Barada TV's editor-in-chief insisted: "we have had no direct dealings with the US state department". The meaning of the sentence turns on that word "direct". It is worth noting that Malik al Abdeh also happens to be one of the founders of the Movement for Justice and Development (the recipient of the state department $6m, according to the leaked cable). And he's the brother of the chairman, Anas Al-Abdah. He's also the co-holder of the MJD trademark: What Malik al Abdeh does admit is that Barada TV gets a large chunk of its funding from an American non-profit organisation: the Democracy Council. One of the co-sponsors (with the MJD) of Syria In-Transition mini-conference. So what we see, in 2008, at the same meeting, are the leaders of precisely those organisations identified in the Wiki:eaks cables as the conduit (the Democracy Council) and recipient (the MJD) of large amounts of state department money.

The Democracy Council (a US-based grant distributor) lists the state department as one of its sources of funding. How it works is this: the Democracy Council serves as a grant-administering intermediary between the state department's "Middle East Partnership Initiative" and "local partners" (such as Barada TV). As the Washington Post reports:

"Several US diplomatic cables from the embassy in Damascus reveal that the Syrian exiles received money from a State Department program called the Middle East Partnership Initiative. According to the cables, the State Department funnelled money to the exile group via the Democracy Council, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit."

The same report highlights a 2009 cable from the US Embassy in Syria that says that the Democracy Council received $6.3m from the state department to run a Syria-related programme, the "Civil Society Strengthening Initiative". The cable describes this as "a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners" aimed at producing, amongst other things, "various broadcast concepts." According to the Washington Post: "Other cables make clear that one of those concepts was Barada TV."

Until a few months ago, the state department's Middle East Partnership Initiative was overseen by Tamara Cofman Wittes (she's now at the Brookings Institution – an influential Washington thinktank). Of MEPI, she said that it "created a positive 'brand' for US democracy promotion efforts". While working there she declared: "There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government … That's an agenda that we believe in and we're going to support." And by support, she means bankroll.

The money

This is nothing new. Go back a while to early 2006, and you have the state department announcing a new "funding opportunity" called the "Syria Democracy Program". On offer, grants worth "$5m in Federal Fiscal Year 2006". The aim of the grants? "To accelerate the work of reformers in Syria."

These days, the cash is flowing in faster than ever. At the beginning of June 2012, the Syrian Business Forum was launched in Doha by opposition leaders including Wael Merza (SNC secretary general). "This fund has been established to support all components of the revolution in Syria," said Merza. The size of the fund? Some $300m. It's by no means clear where the money has come from, although Merza "hinted at strong financial support from Gulf Arab states for the new fund" (Al Jazeera). At the launch, Merza said that about $150m had already been spent, in part on the Free Syrian Army.

Merza's group of Syrian businessmen made an appearance at a World Economic Forum conference titled the "Platform for International Co-operation" held in Istanbul in November 2011. All part of the process whereby the SNC has grown in reputation, to become, in the words of William Hague, "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" – and able, openly, to handle this much funding.

Building legitimacy – of opposition, of representation, of intervention – is the essential propaganda battle.

In a USA Today op-ed written in February this year, Ambassador Dennis Ross declared: "It is time to raise the status of the Syrian National Council". What he wanted, urgently, is "to create an aura of inevitability about the SNC as the alternative to Assad." The aura of inevitability. Winning the battle in advance.

A key combatant in this battle for hearts and minds is the American journalist and Daily Telegraph blogger, Michael Weiss.

Michael Weiss
One of the most widely quoted western experts on Syria – and an enthusiast for western intervention – Michael Weiss echoes Ambassador Ross when he says: "Military intervention in Syria isn't so much a matter of preference as an inevitability."

Some of Weiss's interventionist writings can be found on a Beirut-based, Washington-friendly website called "NOW Lebanon" – whose "NOW Syria" section is an important source of Syrian updates. NOW Lebanon was set up in 2007 by Saatchi & Saatchi executive Eli Khoury. Khoury has been described by the advertising industry as a "strategic communications specialist, specialising in corporate and government image and brand development".

Weiss told NOW Lebanon, back in May, that thanks to the influx of weapons to Syrian rebels "we've already begun to see some results." He showed a similar approval of military developments a few months earlier, in a piece for the New Republic: "In the past several weeks, the Free Syrian Army and other independent rebel brigades have made great strides" – whereupon, as any blogger might, he laid out his "Blueprint for a Military Intervention in Syria".

But Weiss is not only a blogger. He's also the director of communications and public relations at the Henry Jackson Society, an ultra-ultra-hawkish foreign policy thinktank.

The Henry Jackson Society's international patrons include: James "ex-CIA boss" Woolsey, Michael "homeland security" Chertoff, William "PNAC" Kristol, Robert "PNAC" Kagan', Joshua "Bomb Iran" Muravchick, and Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle. The Society is run by Alan Mendoza, chief adviser to the all-party parliamentary group on transatlantic and international security.

The Henry Jackson Society is uncompromising in its "forward strategy" towards democracy. And Weiss is in charge of the message. The Henry Jackson Society is proud of its PR chief's far-reaching influence: "He is the author of the influential report "Intervention in Syria? An Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards", which was repurposed and endorsed by the Syrian National Council."

Weiss's original report was re-named "Safe Area for Syria" – and ended up on the official syriancouncil.org website, as part of their military bureau's strategic literature. The repurposing of the HJS report was undertaken by the founder and executive director of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre (SRCC) – one Ausama Monajed.

So, the founder of Barada TV, Ausama Monajed, edited Weiss's report, published it through his own organisation (the SRCC) and passed it on to the Syrian National Council, with the support of the Henry Jackson Society.

The relationship couldn't be closer. Monajed even ends up handling inquiries for "press interviews with Michael Weiss". Weiss is not the only strategist to have sketched out the roadmap to this war (many thinktanks have thought it out, many hawks have talked it up), but some of the sharpest detailing is his.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

The justification for the "inevitable" military intervention is the savagery of President Assad's regime: the atrocities, the shelling, the human rights abuses. Information is crucial here, and one source above all has been providing us with data about Syria. It is quoted at every turn: "The head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told VOA [Voice of America] that fighting and shelling killed at least 12 people in Homs province."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is commonly used as a standalone source for news and statistics. Just this week, news agency AFP carried this story: "Syrian forces pounded Aleppo and Deir Ezzor provinces as at least 35 people were killed on Sunday across the country, among them 17 civilians, a watchdog reported." Various atrocities and casualty numbers are listed, all from a single source: "Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP by phone."

Statistic after horrific statistic pours from "the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" (AP). It's hard to find a news report about Syria that doesn't cite them. But who are they? "They" are Rami Abdulrahman (or Rami Abdel Rahman), who lives in Coventry.

According to a Reuters report in December of last year: "When he isn't fielding calls from international media, Abdulrahman is a few minutes down the road at his clothes shop, which he runs with his wife."

When the Guardian's Middle East live blog cited "Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" it also linked to a sceptical article in the Modern Tokyo Times – an article which suggested news outlets could be a bit "more objective about their sources" when quoting "this so-called entity", the SOHR.

That name, the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights", sound so grand, so unimpeachable, so objective. And yet when Abdulrahman and his "Britain-based NGO" (AFP/NOW Lebanon) are the sole source for so many news stories about such an important subject, it would seem reasonable to submit this body to a little more scrutiny than it's had to date.

The Observatory is by no means the only Syrian news source to be quoted freely with little or no scrutiny … 

Hamza Fakher

The relationship between Ausama Monajed, the SNC, the Henry Jackson hawks and an unquestioning media can be seen in the case of Hamza Fakher. On 1 January, Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer: "To grasp the scale of the barbarism, listen to Hamza Fakher, a pro-democracy activist, who is one of the most reliable sources on the crimes the regime's news blackout hides."

He goes on to recount Fakher's horrific tales of torture and mass murder. Fakher tells Cohen of a new hot-plate torture technique that he's heard about: "imagine all the melting flesh reaching the bone before the detainee falls on the plate". The following day, Shamik Das, writing on "evidence-based" progressive blog Left Foot Forward, quotes the same source: "Hamza Fakher, a pro-democracy activist, describes the sickening reality …" – and the account of atrocities given to Cohen is repeated.

So, who exactly is this "pro-democracy activist", Hamza Fakher?

Fakher, it turns out, is the co-author of Revolution in Danger , a "Henry Jackson Society Strategic Briefing", published in February of this year. He co-wrote this briefing paper with the Henry Jackson Society's communications director, Michael Weiss. And when he's not co-writing Henry Jackson Society strategic briefings, Fakher is the communication manager of the London-based Strategic Research and Communication Centre (SRCC). According to their website, "He joined the centre in 2011 and has been in charge of the centre's communication strategy and products."

As you may recall, the SRCC is run by one Ausama Monajed: "Mr Monajed founded the centre in 2010. He is widely quoted and interviewed in international press and media outlets. He previously worked as communication consultant in Europe and the US and formerly served as the director of Barada Television …".

Monajed is Fakher's boss.

If this wasn't enough, for a final Washington twist, on the board of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre sits Murhaf Jouejati, a professor at the National Defence University in DC – "the premier center for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)" which is "under the direction of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff."

If you happen to be planning a trip to Monajed's "Strategic Research and Communication Centre", you'll find it here: Strategic Research & Communication Centre, Office 36, 88-90 Hatton Garden, Holborn, London EC1N 8PN.

Office 36 at 88-90 Hatton Garden is also where you'll find the London headquarters of The Fake Tan Company, Supercar 4 U Limited, Moola loans (a "trusted loans company"), Ultimate Screeding (for all your screeding needs), and The London School of Attraction – "a London-based training company which helps men develop the skills and confidence to meet and attract women." And about a hundred other businesses besides. It's a virtual office. There's something oddly appropriate about this. A "communication centre" that doesn't even have a centre – a grand name but no physical substance.

That's the reality of Hamza Fakher. On 27 May, Shamik Das of Left Foot Forward quotes again from Fakher's account of atrocities, which he now describes as an "eyewitness account" (which Cohen never said it was) and which by now has hardened into "the record of the Assad regime".

So, a report of atrocities given by a Henry Jackson Society strategist, who is the communications manager of Mosafed's PR department, has acquired the gravitas of a historical "record".

This is not to suggest that the account of atrocities must be untrue, but how many of those who give it currency are scrutinising its origins?

And let's not forget, whatever destabilisation has been done in the realm of news and public opinion is being carried out twofold on the ground. We already know that (at the very least) "the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department … are helping the opposition Free Syrian Army develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training."

The bombs doors are open. The plans have been drawn up.

This has been brewing for a time. The sheer energy and meticulous planning that's gone into this change of regime – it's breathtaking. The soft power and political reach of the big foundations and policy bodies is vast, but scrutiny is no respecter of fancy titles and fellowships and "strategy briefings". Executive director of what, it asks. Having "democracy" or "human rights" in your job title doesn't give you a free pass.

And if you're a "communications director" it means your words should be weighed extra carefully. Weiss and Fakher, both communications directors – PR professionals. At the Chatham House event in June 2011, Monajed is listed as: "Ausama Monajed, director of communications, National Initiative for Change" and he was head of PR for the MJD. The creator of the news website NOW Lebanon, Eli Khoury, is a Saatchi advertising executive. These communications directors are working hard to create what Tamara Wittes called a "positive brand".

They're selling the idea of military intervention and regime change, and the mainstream news is hungry to buy. Many of the "activists" and spokespeople representing the Syrian opposition are closely (and in many cases financially) interlinked with the US and London – the very people who would be doing the intervening. Which means information and statistics from these sources isn't necessarily pure news – it's a sales pitch, a PR campaign.

But it's never too late to ask questions, to scrutinise sources. Asking questions doesn't make you a cheerleader for Assad – that's a false argument. It just makes you less susceptible to spin. The good news is, there's a sceptic born every minute.

Sibel Edmonds : Syrian Revolution is not Syrian

Two months of "Putin Power" in Russia - so far so good

On on 7 May 2012 Vladimir Putin was inaugurated, again, as the President of Russia having successfully completed what is called a "castling move" in Russia - he exchanged positions with (now) former President Medvedev. Even though only two months have passed since his inauguration, it is already possible to make a preliminary assessment of his first 60 days in power.  I will take a look at his performance issue by issue:

1) Formation of a new government: B

As some might remember, I was initially rather disappointed by Putin's Presidential Administration and Medvedev's new government.  In my opinion, the new administration and new government lacked any particularly inspiring people and the best that could be said about them was that even though they included many new faces, the overall impression made by this new team was one of continuity rather than charisma.

I was particularly appalled at the fact that such a spineless and mediocre figure as Defense Chief of Staff Nikolai Marakov was left on this post.  Yes, I know, he is technically neither a member of government nor a member of the Presidential Administration, but the changing of Presidents would have made it very easy to give Makarov the boot and appoint a more competent and more trusted figure such as, for example, Lieutenant-General Vladimir Shamanov. I was also disappointed by the fact that Anatoly Serdyukov was kept as Defense Minister and that Dimitri Rogozin did not get his position. I would now nuance that opinion on the following grounds: for all his faults and mistakes, Serdyukov has proven to be an effective manager of the much needed and much delayed reform of the armed forces, whereas Rogozin has been put in an absolutely crucial position inside the Russian defense establishment: "Vice-Premier of Russian Government in charge of defense industry and Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian government".  That is his official title.  Semi-officially, he is in charge of purging the Russian military industrial complex from its corrupt officials while at the same time making sure that the 23 trillion Rubles (that is 23'000'000'000'000 Rubles, see here to visualize that amount) the Russian military will get in the next decade are well spent.

For all their differences and mutual dislikes, both Serdyukov and Rogozin are known to be ruthless managers and I can understand why Putin did not want to simply toss Serdyukov out in such a crucial moment.  As for Makarov, it was announced that he would retire in two years.  All in all, I would give the new administration and government a little, modest, grade of 'B'.

2) Dealing with the internal opposition: A+

The way Putin dealt with the internal opposition is, in my opinion, nothing short of brilliant.  Basically, the opposition was hopelessly discredited as a "5th column" for US interests which, of course, is *exactly* what it is.  This was done by implementing the following steps:

a) The opposition was energetically attacked on ideological grounds; Putin claimed - correctly - that absolutely nobody in the opposition had any kind of constructive political program while what is referred to as "non-system opposition" (hardline opposition activists such as Navalnii, Nemtsov, Novodvorskaia & Co) were basically US puppets, which is absolutely true.

b) The claim of electoral fraud was comprehensively debunked by installing cameras streaming live from each polling station and by allowing monitors from all the parties everywhere possible.

c) Fines for illegal demonstrations, attacks on police forces and hooliganism were dramatically increased to make it very expensive to simply "hire demonstrators" as had been done by pro-US organizations for decades.

d) Finally, in an absolutely brilliant move, the ruling party passed a new law which made it mandatory for all non-government organizations financed from abroad to register as "foreign agents", to declare their sources of income and be regularly audited.  Even though this law created an absolute panic amongst Western-paid NGOs in Russia, it was easily adopted by the Duma by a by 323 to 4 vote (in the 450-seat chamber).  Considering that for many decades the US has used its financial power to hire puppets in Russia and create numerous "independent" "civil" and "democratic" organizations, the passage of this law is a deadly blow to the single biggest lever of US power inside Russia, hence the hysterical panic amongst pro-US NGO in Russia who all understand that their days are now numbered.  The beauty of this law is that it does not ban foreign interests of financing Russian NGOs, it just forces these NGOs to openly admit that they are paid for by foreign money.  I can only say one thing about this: absolutely *brilliant* move!!!

3) Relations with the US/NATO block: A-

All in all, Putin has done everything right so far but in a more timid (or cautious) manner than I would have preferred.  He has, so far, categorically refused to budge on the Syrian issue, which is good.  And yet, the fact that Hillary Clinton has dared to openly threaten Russia (and China) at the Paris meeting of the "Friends of Syria" tells me that the time has come for both Russia and China to bare their fangs more openly and explain to a crazed US administration that it cannot act like a petty street thug in its dealings with major sovereign powers like China or Russia.  Interestingly, influential Kremlin advisors, such as Igor Korotchenko or Alexei Pushkov, are far more outspoken about the extremely antagonistic and overly hostile US/NATO policies towards Russia and I think Putin and Lavrov are simply waiting for the right moment to openly denounce the imperialistic and aggressive actions of the US.  My sense is that Putin will do everything in his power short of a military confrontation to prevent a repetition in Syria of what happened in Libya.  This is morally and pragmatically the correct course to take for Russia.

4) The "Near Abroad": too early to call

The Russian "near abroad" (the ex-Soviet Republics) is in a period of turmoil right now and it is hard to discern what, if anything, Russia is doing to stabilize or improve this situation.  The Baltic countries - under the approving gaze of the US, NATO and the EU - are merrily going along in supporting Latvia's Apartheid laws against the large Russian minority living there (while the international banking cartels continue to ruin Latvia).  In Belarus, Lukashenko's egomania makes it hard to deal with him even though the Russian and Belarussian people are basically one and the same and want to live together.  The Ukraine is still in chaos, while Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Tadzhikstan are overly taking a gradually pro-US course and anti-Russia course.  Finally, Saakashvili is every bit as crazy as he was in 2008 and he still is constantly threatening to create yet another "invincible" army to take on Russia.  Two months are far too little to discern and access of how successful Putin will be in his dealings with the near abroad.

5) Latin America, Asia, Africa: A-

Putin himself has not been personally involved with these tree key continents globally, but he as made it very clear that for him the BRICS countries are a top priority.  In its pursuit of a multi-polar world Russia is clearly engaged in a determined effort to strengthen its relations with not only BRICS, but also SCO countries.  In his first two months in office Putin has not taken any high-visibility initiatives in Latin America, Asia or Africa, but this can be logically explained by the multiple crises happening elsewhere and  I am confident that Putin will not neglect these regions in the future.

The above is just a short, incomplete and superficial survey of the very short period of time Putin has been in power, but I think it constitutes a reasonable basis for some realistic optimism.  The US influence network inside Russia has been dealt a crushing blow, Russia is holding steadfast against US/NATO pressures and threats, and if Putin has done nothing brilliant yet, he certainly has not committed any blunders either.  We will only see what kind of leader he really is during a real crisis, which the US covert war on Syria might soon trigger, but I think that we can say the following with some confidence: so far so good.

The Saker

"Friends of Syria" should be call "Friends of Western Intervention"

Straight from the horse's mouth

Sent to me by Gilad Atzmon (thanks brother!) who wrote the following foreword on his website:

The following article was published on the popular Zionist site Times Of Israel. It actually confirms everything we say and write about Jewish power, Jewish identity, Jewish left and Jewish AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists) . It is also consistent with each and every finding in my latest book The Wandering Who? We are dealing here with a racist chauvinist political identity. Zionist honesty is a rare product, make sure that you read this article carefully and make the most out of it.

The Times of Israel reports: (emphasis added by me - VS)

Jews DO control the media

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.

But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.

And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.

Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.

Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.

But let’s look at it a bit deeper.

Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?

I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.

First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?

The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.

The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.

This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.

Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.

Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.

I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”

Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.

The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.

But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.

Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.

Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.

by "Manny Friedman " (assumed name)

High level defection from, and heavy battles in, Syria

The BBC, CBS and other are reporting this morning that Syrian Republican Guard Brigadier General Manaf Tlass has "defected" to France via Turkey.  According to CBS:

Brig Gen Manaf Tlass

The al-Arabiya television network quoted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius as saying the defected general was already on his way to Paris, where he is known to have many personal connections, and where the international "Friends of Syria" conference was taking place.

Say again?!   An acting Brigadier General of the Syrian Republican guard was "known to have many personal friends" in Paris and amongst the participants of a conference which is clearly organized and run by the US CIA?!  Any the (in)famous Syrian Mukhabarat did not find that a sufficient cause to at the very least have him removed from his position and investigated?

Looking at this grinning play-boy with the obligatory cigar in his mouth I am reminded of my good Syrian friends who more than 10 years ago were telling me how incompetent and corrupt the Syrian regime was and how its security services were feared, but only by regular people, not the regime's elites.

By the way, Tlass is not Alawite, but Sunni.  Just saying...

On a related topic, I just watched a report by Russian TV crews from the Syrian city of Duma, near Damascus.  The city was recently retaken by government forces following many days of battle against al-Qaeda units and the footage made by the Russian TV crews of the ruins of Duma reminds me of similarly looking images of Grozny after the eviction of the Chechen insurgency.  Clearly, these were heavy battles against much more than just a few "snipers" or "terrorists".   The Syrian government soldiers interviewed by Russian reporters said that their opponents were very well trained (in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq) and that they were also very well armed.

I hope that I am mistaken in my hunch, but it sure looks to me like the regime is in very bad shape and could begin crumbling apart.

The Saker

Strait History and Iran’s Options

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

George Santayana wisely said: “"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Oblivious to history and its lessons, America and its Western allies are repeating their actions of the 1950’s -- that of imposing an oil embargo on Iran. The American-led alliance has forgotten the past.

Iran remembers.

When under the leadership of the nationalist Dr. Mossadegh, Iran opted to nationalize its oil industry, the British Royal Navy blocked Iran’s oil exports to forcefully prevent if from nationalizing its oil. In retaliation to Iran’s nationalistic ambitions, and to punish Iran for pursuing its national interests, the British instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil.

In the 1950’s, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. The subsequent events is described in The New York Times1 article as a “lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid” when an oil-rich Third World nation “goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.” Iran learnt that sovereignty and nationalism necessitate tactical/military strength and determination.

Not heeding the aftermath of the 1950’s, the American-led Western allies have once again imposed an oil embargo on Iran. In retaliation, Iran has drafted a bill to stop the flow of oil through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz, to countries which have imposed sanctions against it. This bill is not without merit and contrary to the previous oil embargo, it would appear that Tehran has the upper hand and the heavy cost associated with the embargo will not be borne by Iran alone.

Iran’s Legal Standing 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage. Although Iran has signed the Treaty, the Treaty was not ratified, as such, it has no legal standing. However, even if one overlooks the non-binding signature, under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”2.

Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every oil-tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, these inspections and subsequent delays would maintain or contribute to higher oil prices. While higher oil prices would benefit Iran and other oil-producing countries, they would further destabilize the European economy which is already in crisis.

The Military Option 

Although American-led Western allies are flexing their muscles by sending battle ships to the Persian Gulf, Washington’s own war game exercise, The Millennium Challenge 2002 with a price tag of $250 million, underscored America’s inability to defeat Iran. Oblivious to the lesson of its own making, by sending more warships to the Persian Gulf, the United States is inching towards a full scale conflict. The inherent danger from the naval buildup is that unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, the forces in the Persian Gulf are not confined to two leaders who would be able to communicate to stop a run-away situation. Nor would the consequences of such a potential conflict be limited to the region.

Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. While only 1.1 millions barrels per day goes to the United States, a significant amount of this oil is destined for Europe. Surely, one must ask why the United States demands that its “European allies” act contrary to their own national interest, pay a higher price for oil by boycotting Iranian oil and running the risk of Iran blocking the passage of other oil-tankers destined for them?

Again, history has the straight answer. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the United States and not the oil-producing countries has used oil as a weapon. Some examples include the pressure the United States put on Britain in the 1920s to share its oil concessions in the Middle East with U.S. companies. Post World War II, the United States violated the terms of the 1928 Red Line Agreement freezing the British and the French out of the Agreement.

In 1956, the United States made it clear to Britain and France that no oil would be sent to Western Europe unless the two aforementioned countries agreed to a rapid withdrawal from Egypt. The U.S. was not opposed to the overthrow of Nasser, but as Eisenhower said: “Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it"3.

Demonstrably, although Europe is a major trade partner of the United States, the U.S. does not concern itself with Europe’s well being when it comes to executing its foreign policy. This should come as no surprise, especially since the United States sacrifices its own national interest to promote the Israeli agenda and that of the military industrial complex. But this does not explain why Europe would shoot itself in the foot at a time when its economical woes have passed the crisis point.

It is possible that the leaders of Western European countries are beholden to special interest groups – the pro-Israel lobbies, as the United States is, or they believe Iran will not call their bluff by ratifying the bill passed by Majlis and their oil will be delivered unhindered; perhaps both. Either way, they are committing financial suicide and their demise may well come before Iran’s resolve is shaken.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
-------
1 THE IRANIAN ACCORD”, The New York Times, Aug 6,1954, cited by S. Shalom

2 Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1. 

3 Stephen Shalom; The Iran-Iraq War citing Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p. 651 

Saker comment:

My good friend Soraya is making a lot of very interesting points, in particular one which is wholly overlooked by the corporate media: that Iran's legal position about the what constitutes "innocent passage" is rock solid.  Check out what Article 19 of Section 3 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea actually says:

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Interesting, no?  All the US saber-rattling and assorted threats against Iran would, in fact, legally allow Iran to prevent the passage of US ships through the strait.  Of course, considering the wholesale disregard and systematic violation of pretty much any and all forms of international law by the US and Israel such legal trivialities will make no difference to them.  The only thing that will matter them is whether or not Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz or not.  Unlike most observers, I do not believe it can.   As for the 2002 Millennium Challenge exercise, it was a very controversial exercise designed to validate concept of network centric warfare and not a rehearsal of actual US strike plans on Iran.  Furthermore, from a military point of view any military exercise in which the "good" sides "looses" is a perfect opportunity to learn the important lessons before the real shooting begins.  It would be foolish to expect the USN to attack Iran exactly according to the main lines of a scenario it fully knows will results in a defeat.  In fact, we can be darn sure that having learned all the lessons from that exercise the USN will strike in a very different manner than what was tested already a full decade ago.

I agree that Iran would have the full right to shut down the strait to any vessel deemed in violation of the UNCLOS, and I agree that Iran would be able to shut down the Strait if Hormuz, but what I don't believe in is Iran's capability to maintain the Strait closed for a extended period of time.  Finally, I am also very concerned that any Iranian move to close down the Strait of Hormuz would offer the Zionists a perfect pretext to further demonize Iran and paint it as an enemy of the rest of mankind.

As I wrote in 2007 in my piece Iran's asymmetrical response options, I believe that Iran better asymmetrical responses than closing down the Strait of Hormuz (the 2007 article is in some aspects dated today - in particular in what regards US deployments in Iraq and the Gulf - but its basic rationale still holds, I believe) which could be summed up as "the strategic version of Hezbollah's tactics in 2006": ride out the strikes and reply with missiles on US regional targets.

FYI: here is what shipping in the SOH looks on a typical day (click on image for full size) - already chaotic without any missiles flying; just imagine the panic which would result from any US strike on Iran even without the Iranians taking defensive action at all.

Shipping density in the SOH on 7/5/2012

US "mega base" at Al Udeid, Qatar: an ideal target?

The US subversion model: Bosnia v.4, Kosovo v.3, Libya v.2 and now Syria v.1?

Does anybody remember how the USA prevented the Bosnian-Serbs from participating in any negotiations about their own future?  The USA came up with trick to say that the only Serbs invited to any negotiations would be the Serbs from Yugoslavia, representatives of the Milosevic regime.  With the brilliant move, the USA made it look like the Bosnian-Serbs were nothing but a proxy for an expansionist Serbian Yugoslavia hell-bent on creating a "Greater Serbia".  That option also made it possible for the USA to use a very compliant, if not subservient Milosevic, against the Bosnian-Serbs (does anybody remember that Yugoslavia participated in the NATO blockade of the Bosnian-Serbs or is that fact totally lost in the memory hole?).

Anyway, the USA has now pulled off a similar trick.  Check out who is participating in the negotiations over the future of Syria:

• The Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the League of Arab States
• The Foreign Ministers of China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Turkey, Iraq (Chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States), Kuwait (Chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the League of Arab States) and Qatar (Chair of the Arab Follow-up Committee on Syria of the League of Arab States)
• The European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy

Now if we set aside the official nonsense about all these folks being independent actors we have the following parties in presence: the US/Israeli Empire represented by the US and its vassal states (UK, Turkey, EU, Kuwait, Qatar) while all the others are I would call "independent third parties" including Russia, China and Iraq (present only as the chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States and not as a sovereign country).  The only real ally of Syria, Iran, has been prevented from participating by the categorical refusal of the USA.  Russia expressed "regrets" about this state of affairs, but accepted it.

This is very reminiscent of the tactics used by the USA against the Bosnian-Serbs or, for that matter, against the Palestinian people and Hamas.  How does the current situation of the Syrians compare to situation of the Bosnian-Serbs?

I would argue that it is marginally better a simple reason: Russia and China are large and powerful nations which cannot be blackmailed, pressured or co-opted like Milosevic was.  Regardless of the US/NATO propaganda, Milosevic was used by the US and NATO against the Bosnian-Serbs, and that is most likely not going to happen with Russia and China.

And yet, I don't think that these countries can be trusted to represent the interests and views of the Syrian regime so, just as was the case in Bosnia, these negotiations are hopelessly lopsided and heavily skewed against Syria.  So it is rather unsurprising that all what these folks came up with is yet another vague and rather insipid statement about yet another a "road-map" for Syria beefed-up by some equally vapid, if well-meaning, remarks by the UNSG.

From the US point of view the key sentence in this text is the following one:

The establishment of a transitional governing body which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place. That means that the transitional governing body would exercise full executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.

Hillary Clinton immediately "explained" that this meant that "Assad will have to go because "he will never pass the mutual consent test".  Well, both parties can play this game.  For example, Assad could follow the Israeli "negotiating model" and declare that he will never negotiate with "anybody with Arab blood on their hands" thereby excluding the entire insurgency.  Or Assad could do the exact opposite: declare that he will negotiate with anybody, even the worst of the worst, and set no preconditions.  Such a move could make it very easy for him to blame the insurgents for refusing to talk to him.

Regardless, the insurgents immediately rejected this plan (just as they had after every single offer to negotiate or cease-fire made by Gaddafi).

All this immediately brought back memories of the Bosnian war to me, especially when I read the following sentence of the "Agreement":

All parties must cooperate with the transitional governing body in ensuring the permanent cessation of violence. This includes completion of withdrawals and addressing the issue of the disarming, demobilization and reintegration of armed groups. Effective steps to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected and immediate action is taken to address humanitarian issues in areas of need.

This is exactly what happened in Bosnia: the USA declared that all parties must be disarmed and civilians protected (in safe areas), only to initiate a massive arms transfer to the Bosnian-Muslims who used the "safe areas" as rear bases and assembly points for their armed groups.  Today, as is now well-known, the USA is already arming the Syrian insurgents while various Gulf States (lead by Qatar) are financing it all.  Finally,  just as in Bosnia, Wahabi Jihadists (aka  "foreign fighters") are being brought into the country from all over the region.

Of course, all of the above applies to the wars in Kosovo and Libya.  We can really speak of a "Bosnia v.4, Kosovo v.3, Libya v.2, Syria v.1" model.  Let's summarize it here:

1. Identify some minority and/or opposition group and "help" it (in the name of democracy and human right, of course) by providing it with money and visibility
2. Try to foment some civil unrest and/or violent incidents
3. Encourage and assist the minority and/or opposition group to denounce any governmental reaction to the unrests/incidents
4. Spread rumors about all sorts of atrocities already committed or soon to be committed
5. Back up these rumors by making sure that atrocities are actually committed against the minority/opposition, against the regime and against civilians, bystanders and random people
6. Initiate phase one of a strategic psyop campaign in the corporate media which will present a simple narrative explaining that the minority/opposition are "innocent victims who only want freedom, democracy and human rights" while the "hated regime" in power is "bloody" and "dictatorial"
7. Begin sending special agents tasked with unifying the various minority/opposition groups and take control, via typically via exiles, of the top echelons of the opposition
8. Initiate phase two of the strategic pysop campaign in the corporate media which will present the unified opposition as the "sole legitimate representative" of "the people"
9. Demand negotiations between the "sole legitimate representative" of "the people" and the regime and create some "troika", "quartet" or "action group" composed of vassal states to participate in the "negotiations"
10. Declare that the regime has lost all "credibility or "confidence" and therefore reject any and all offers of negotiations or cease-fires proposed by the regime as "not credible"
11. Create one or more false flag atrocities against the minority/opposition
12. Initiate phase three of the strategic psyop campaign in the corporate media and flood the public with outraged statements about "crimes against humanity" and even "genocide"
13. Demand an arms embargo on all the parties to the conflict and immediately initiate a large scale deliveries of weapons and "foreign fighters"
14.  Seize the assets of the regime and its officials and use it to covertly finance the insurgency
15. Respond to any military success by the regime by demanding the "protection" of civilians, preferably under Chapter VII of the UN Charter
16a.If a Chapter VII UNSC Resolution is adopted, make sure that NATO countries provide the bulk of the military forces engaged
16b.If a Chapter VII UNSC Resolution is not adopted, vehemently denounce the UNSC members which vetoed it, and create a "coalition of the willing" justified under the "Duty to Intervene" (“le devoir d'ingérence" in French) theory
17. Send special operation forces, including forward air controllers, to coordinate the insurgency and the upcoming air campaign
18. Apply the Combined Joint Task Force doctrine to send enough troops (and mercenaries) to secure key facilities and objectives in the country
19. Hunt down ex-regime officials and send them to the Hague
20. Declare victory, built a few military bases and let the corporations take over the resources of the country 

With a few variations, this is the model the USA has used in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and, is now applying to Syria.   The case of Iraq under Saddam, and Iran for that matter, are somewhat different since they did not have a minority/opposition strong enough to be used as a lever by the USA, hence all the propaganda about these countries developing (or even having) weapons of mass destruction.

So will this model work in Syria?

It's hard for me to tell as there is practically zero useful information coming out of Syria right now.  And while during the Bosnian war I could get UNPROFOR intelligence delivered to me every morning,  now I only have access to public, and mostly unreliable and uninteresting, sources. Still, as far as I know, the insurgency currently controls no territory at all, at least not permanently.  Or, if it does, it is not a significant amount.  This tells me that the insurgency is currently rather weak.  Hence the endless stream of bomb blasts in Damascus and other major cities.

Turkey is clearly acting as a rear base for the insurgency and a forward command post for US/NATO forces, just like Croatia did during the war in Bosnia, but the incident with the Phantom shot down in Syrian air space seems to indicate that the regime is serious about keeping control of the Syrian-Turkish border.  Finally, Russia and China have made it quite clear that no Chapter VII UNSC Resolution will be adopted against Syria.  All in all, it appears that the situation is currently frozen somewhere around phases 14-16 of the model above.  In other words, Syria is at the brink of a complete collapse, but its not quiet over yet and as long as the regime can hold on to most of Syria's territory the US will not be able to implement the latter stages of its subversion model.

I might be mistaken here, but I don't see a "coalition of the willing" (aka "NATO") simply attack Syria, not only because the Syrian military might offer some non-trivial resistance, but because the public opinion is currently not in the type of hysterical interventionist frenzy which is needed to justify an illegal intervention.

Furthermore, NATO will not send in special forces and forward air controllers if there is a real risk of them being captured by the regime.  Libya is a big country and the Libyan insurgents controlled large parts of the country, whereas Syria is rather small and most of it is controlled by the regime.  This being said, there is a very real risk of Turkey triggering some kind of military incident with Syria and then demand a NATO response under the Article 5 of the NATO Charter.  That is definitely a possibility, but the blowback from such a decision could be formidable as the reality of Turkey essentially aggressing an Arab country will not sit well with the so-called "Arab street".

My feeling is that Turkey will grandstand and shake its fists, and that it will gladly provide a rear base for US/NATO covert operations, but I am not quite convinced that it would be willing to trigger a real, full-scale, war against Syria.  Turkey might be a far superior military power then Syria, but the Syrian military is not completely toothless either and the example of Iraq has shown that an easy initial victory can rapidly turn into a nightmare for the "victorious" occupying force.

My other hope is that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are all using their formidable intelligence capabilities (some of the best on the planet) to disrupt US/NATO covert operations and to assist Syrian security forces.  Contrast that situation with the one of the Bosnian-Serbs were completely alone and whose intelligence capabilities were minimal.

If all these speculations are not too far off the mark, then it appears that the US/NATO and the Syrian regime have arrived at some kind draw in which neither side can really "win" or "loose".  There appear to be little or no prospects for phases 17-20 to be implemented by the US, but neither can the regime achieve a convincing victory against the insurgency, in particular if it decides to follow the Chechen model and transform itself into a purely terrorist underground, capable of blowing up bombs here and there, but with no hope of actually achieving anything meaningful.

So in the long term it is likely that the Syrian people themselves will have to decide whom they dislike least - the regime or the insurgency - and herein lies a very real danger for Syria: the majority of Syrians are Sunni Arabs (74%) with the rest of the population consisting of various Shia sects (for a combined total or 12%), Christians (10%) and Druze (3%).  Officially, Syria is a secular republic founded by the Baath party, but just as in Iraq most of the people in power are from a religious minority and this fact could potentially be used to turn a majority of Syrians against the regime.  I honestly don't know.

The Syrian people are really facing a terrible choice: on one hand, a corrupt, despotic, secular, Baathist regime with roots in a minority of the population and on the other, a federation of various Jihadi groups, federated and overseen by the US/NATO puppeteers.  At least Assad is NOT (please see note below) a clueless megalomaniac Baathist clown like Saddam or Gaddafi, but so far his performance in dealing with the conflict as been mediocre at best.  My hope is that the Russians, Iranians and Chinese have some kind of plan to slowly ease him out of power and replace him with an anti-Wahabi Sunni leader (like Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnia).

The Bosnian, Kosovan and Libyan model can still be avoided in Syria, but very strong and concerted action needs to be taken by the countries who do not want Syria to turn into yet another US/NATO colony in the Middle-East.  So far I see no signs of that, but I will keep hoping.

The Saker

NOTE: the word "NOT" was missing from my original text, and I only added it after Christella B. Krebs and Brian posted comments challenging my apparent characterization of Assad as a clown.  Please not that my sentence begins with "AT LEAST" which could have indicated that the missing "not" was a typo.  So, to make clear, I do NOT believe that Assad is a clueless clown like Saddam and Gaddafi were (in my opinion).  But I do believe that "so far his performance in dealing with the conflict as been mediocre at best".

I apologize for this typo and I thank Christella and Brian for bringing my attention to it.