Even before President Barack Obama put his plans to strike the Syrian regime on hold, hewas losing the battle of public opinion about military intervention. Part of the credit, no doubt, goes to a successful media blitz by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s regime and its supporters. In an interview aired on Monday night
Amid the global diplomacy, Damascus is trying to sow doubt about its use of chemical weapons and is arguing that, like the US, it is fighting al-Qaeda
A pro-Assad protest in Washington DC. In addition to waving the Syrian flag, an Israeli flag is seen among the crowd. Photograph shared by Eiad Charbaji on his public Facebook page
Russia could pull off diplomatic coup with Syria weapons plan
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad marks his 48th birthday with the threat of US-led strikes against his regime in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack apparently receding
The US will not intervene militarily in Syria for the time being, President Barack Obama said on Tuesday in his address to the nation. First the Syrian regime is to be given the opportunity to place its chemical weapons under international control. While some commentators welcome the announcement as a victory for diplomacy, others say Bashar al-Assad has come out the winner.
What is the Obama administration plan in Syria?
It depends on whom you ask and when.
At 9 p.m. Tuesday, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had ?asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force
Last year, Slate published an illustrated guide to the members of Bashar al-Assad?s family. In the 19 months since, the death toll in Syria has surpassed 100,000 as the country descended into civil war.
Monday afternoon, President Obama sat for six interviews about Syria, one with each of the major U.S. TV networks. He tried to deliver the same talking points each time: that chemical weapons are ?indiscriminate,
Opposing military intervention in Syria is not support for the brutal Assad regime. The BRICS countries can rely on strong legal and political reasons against such intervention; the Responsibility to Protect language is easily manipulated. Prudent internationalism is the better way ? supporting negotiated solutions and eschewing military force to impose democracy.
Will members of the Senate and the House grasp the opportunity to undertake an urgently needed reassessment of America?s War for the Greater Middle East?
In 1973, to aid in a surprise attack on Israel, North Korea reportedly sent hundreds of troops to Syria. The conflict, which became known as the Yom Kippur War, was an embarrassing defeat for Syria — Israeli troops made it within dozens of miles of Damascus. Like so many dictatorships, the Syrian government tried to fashion a triumph out of a loss. On the outskirts of Damascus, the October War Panorama museum, a castle-like structure built with the help of North Koreans, memorializes Syria’s “victory” over Israel.
If you want to understand the Obama administration’s objectives in Syria, don’t just listen to what officials say ? watch what they bomb, writes Seth G. Jones. There are at least four sets of potential political objectives. Each is linked to a different set of targets.
Like the measured attacks that may soon strike Syrian targets, America’s first military attacks on Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan were not aimed at regime change. Their purpose was to retaliate for attacks or coerce changes in policy.
France will put a resolution to the UN Security Council to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control so they can be destroyed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday called on Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and destroy them. In doing so he seized on a comment made by his US counterpart John Kerry which, according to the State Department, was only meant “rhetorically”. The initiative could indeed serve to prevent a military strike, some commentators say, expressing surprise that Moscow of all places has come to the US president’s rescue.
Syrian foreign minister said Syria has “already agreed” to an initiative by Russia for Damascus to hand over its chemical weapons stocks
The Obama administration keeps undermining its own case for a punitive strike in Syria. If the president wants permission from Congress and support from the American people, he and his aides had better get their story straight.
Major events taking place across Syria have been overshadowed by the chemical attack saga.
A US attack on Syria would unleash major unintended consequences, potentially including the creation of a haven for extremists stretching across northern Syria and into the Sunni areas of Iraq. Indeed, an attack would most likely increase America?s reliance on unsavory Islamist rulers throughout the wider Middle East.
The political balance in the west is moving against military involvement in Syria. Such a choice will ensure the prolongation of war, chaos, extremism, and humanitarian disaster. Only intervention will open the way to a political settlement, says Bashar Haydar.
This is what desperation looks like.
With the White House selling an increasingly skeptical Congress and public on airstrikes in Syria, President Obama and his lieutenants have rolled out just about every possible argument to marshal support on the Hill ahead of Obama’s big Syria speech on Tuesday evening. It’s akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.
The morning on this side of the Atlantic started with John Kerry?s hoarse voice on the radio, addressing journalists in London and bellowing that the U.S. was not talking about going to war when it talked about military aggression against a state that never attacked the U.S. Acts of war, apparently, are never committed by the U.S.,