Senate [Middle East discussion] Syria's civil war, Egypt's elections, cyberwar with Iran, and more

The UNSC has been briefed by its envoy to Syria via video link. The Syrian ambassador to the UN has blamed 'terrorists' for the atrocity, denying government tanks were in Houla.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18229870

Russia says "both sides" are to blame, but the main responsbility falls with the Assad regime, and that their military was in the area at the time of the massacre.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...sia-blames-both-sides-for-syria-massacre?lite

Your second sentence is the answer to your first. Trying to play in Syria would be completely insane, as it has an important part to play in pretty much every potential or actual conflict in the entire region. I should gladly keep the lid on Pandora's box closed for once, thank you.

But if Assad's regime falls in Syria, then Iran would be completely isolated, and Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off (Hamas has already renounced Iran & Hezbollah).

How would assisting the Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad "open Pandora's box"?

Simply toppling the Assad regime is not enough. Who takes his place? If we give enough assistance to any one group that it can maintain real control over the country, we're implicitly taking some responsibility for reconstruction. If we do not, I'd say there is a fair likelihood of civil war as a bunch of armed groups suddenly try to jump into the power vacuum at the top. Iraq and Lebanon would look like mild cases of proxy war in that scenario, as I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who wouldn't want to get involved. Add to that the way that (unlike in prior instances), many of the surrounding powers already have a fair degree of instability themselves, and I think there's a very real potential for spillover.

I'm not saying we should never get involved in Syria. But it would be a mistake to pretend it's at all like Libya. Stakes are higher, and the baseline situation is more complex.

Yes, precisely as opposed to Libya. You really don't see the geopolitical differences between the two? To begin with, Libya was never the major Arab ally to the nation with aspirations (and, post-Iraq, a somewhat credible bid) to be the most important regional player. Nor did Libyan refugees flee directly into countries still shaky from their own bloody civil wars fought along exactly the same ethnic/cultural lines the Syrian revolt would inflame.

There is one way in which it is similar to Libya, though. Have you been following that country at all? Unlike Egypt or Tunisia, they aren't moving forward with a peaceful democratic process or having organized elections. Instead, the nominal central government has very little control at all (even though they were light years more organized than the "Free Syrian Army" is). A bunch of people are armed to the teeth thanks to revolution, and most of them express loyalty only to their local commander. That results in a wildly variable and in fact arbitrary way of life from place to place, since it mostly relies on the restraint and acumen of whoever the local boss is. If you armed everyone in Syria, why wouldn't something similar happen? Why would everyone be inspired to put down their arms, when they just saw that fighting for political power works, they have no relationship with whoever the declared "leaders" are, and it's also quite evident that various foreign powers are favoring one side or another militarily?

The UN still has a moral responsibility to intervene in Syria regardless of who is in line to succeed Dr. Assad
Under R2P (Responsibility to Protect)

1. States have the primary obligation to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. This responsibility also includes prevention of these crimes, including incitement.
2. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility.
3. The international community should support the UN in establishing an early warning capability.
4. The international community also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means under Chapter VI and VIII of the UN Charter to help protect populations threatened by these crimes.
5. When a state “manifestly fails” in its protection responsibilities, and peaceful means are inadequate, the international community must take stronger measures including Chapter VII measures under the UN Charter, including but not limited to the collective use of force authorized by the Security Council

The UN will act, but due to its bureaucratic nature, the process will inevitably take time. I have faith in the UNSC to act appropriately.

This site provides a good albeit slightly dated overview of the crisis.

I'm never too certain as to who people mean when they say "we". Considering Americans are well reprsented on these boards, a lot of "we"s refer to the US government. In this context who is "we", NATO? The United Nations? Arab League? Because I for one don't think the US should independently act using hard power in Syria (not that I think they would)

Wasn't Syria actually the first nation to seriously be considering reforms and everything, years before the Arab Spring, before they blew the guy up in his limo in a plot out of a BattleTech novel? (they lined an entire section of street with explosives underneath the street and blew the whole thing?).

One of the slightly more major issues with Syria vs. Libya is that Libya poses very little threat to Israel in its death throes; if Syria undergoes the same type of issues that Libya went through, that would be very, very dangerous in the region.

On the original topic, I'm pretty sure I'm okay with Bahrain and The Kingdom forming up together, other than I seem to recall Bahrain being slightly more permissive currently than Saudi Arabia. As long as UAE doesn't join up with them and potentially eliminate the bulk of the Dubai financial support to the region/country, there shouldn't be that much downside... or am I crazy? (those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive)

If you're up for it, here's a 90 minute panel discussion about the nuclear negotiations.

Another op-ed about the negotiations, this time on the website of PBS' Tehran Bureau. The opposition all but absent and president Ahmadinejad slightly sidelined by the Supreme Leader makes the Iranian political elite unified to a rare degree, which makes the time for negotiations, too, rarely ripe. Normally, I would consider this a bad thing but in this particular instance, the lack of opposition and infighting might make for a smoother more expedient diplomatic process, that hopefully may yield an agreement in the not too distant future. However, it must also be noted that this piece was written before the Baghdad talks.

Excerpt (emphasis mine):

I apologize for double posting, but this op-ed from yesterday in The National Interest, I feel, summarizes the status quo in the nuclear negotiations in a short concise way, while identifying the challenges ahead.


His final sentence especially, I feel, hits it straight home:

Diplomacy is hard, but the taboo of sustained U.S.-Iran dialogue has been broken—and that is diplomacy’s great promise: one can never predict where discussions will lead once they have started. With that in mind, as policy makers prepare for talks in Moscow, they should remember that nuclear talks with Iran are a marathon, not a sprint.

"With that in mind, as policy makers prepare for talks in Moscow, they should remember that nuclear talks with Iran are a marathon, not a sprint"

But Israel thinks it's a "ticking time-bomb" situation.

For them it is a ticking time bomb situation. Let's say talks are "ongoing" while Iran is happily continuing nuclear establishment. If they DO create bombs, they can reach Israel right now -- they can't reach the US. The stakes are dramatically higher for Israel (and some former-Soviet states, Turkey and potentially Pakistan and India) than it is for the immediate US perspective, not discounting the possibility of tactical suitcase devices. That's somewhat irrelevant to the original topic, I'd think though, unelss Iran is in talks to join up with the singular nation-state. Are they and I missed it?

But Israeli intelligence and other government officials has officially said that they don't believe Iran is building the bomb.

And as I said in the first post, this is the thread for all Middle East discussion. The thread title can be changed to discuss Syria/Iran/Egypt's elections, but the [Middle East discussion] should stay.

Ah, fair enough.

And of course everyone denies it; they'd deny it though whether it was true or not. Ultimately, I think we have to take past as prologue -- they've tried, repeatedly, in the past to build bombs. Building a bomb is also the surest way to gain Western concessions in negotiations, but in this particular instance sucks for (almost) everyone in the immediate vicinity.

Now, I will admit: it's 100% possible for Iran to just be seeking nuclear assistance in power generation and other such legal uses for the country in exchange to moderating some of the more egregious issues and thereby reducing sanctions (or eliminating). Do I think that's the most likely possibility? No, but I've been surprised before.