Assad needs personal safety guarantees – Russia

Senators slam Obama’s Syria sellout

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker and Russian Premier Dmitry Medvedev

(With news agencies) -- Russia hopes an international peace conference on Syria will be held by year’s end, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, despite reported differences with the United States over opposition representation.

He appealed to both sides in Syria's civil war to compromise and criticized the opposition for demanding assurances of President Bashar al-Assad's departure as a condition for the so-called Geneva-2 talks.

"I hope it will be possible to hold the conference by the end of this year but we understand that the influence of all sides taking part is limited," Medvedev told Reuters in an interview late on Thursday.

"It depends to a great extent on the positions of the Syrian sides. We're pushing them towards this, and I hope everyone who talks to different circles in Syria will do the same," he said.

"It's a difficult process and everyone must compromise, including opposition leaders and the Syrian government, of course."

Russia has been Assad's most powerful backer during the two-and-a-half-year-old conflict, delivering weapons, blocking three UN Security Council resolutions meant to pressure him and saying his exit cannot be a precondition for peace talks.

U.S., Russian and UN envoys are to meet in Geneva on Tuesday as part of preparations for the long-delayed conference, which Russia and the United States first proposed in May.

The latest target date for the talks, November 23, looks likely to be pushed back and sources close to the negotiations say a main point of contention is the role of the Western-backed opposition coalition.

Assad Needs Guarantees

Western and Gulf Arab countries opposed to Assad say the Geneva talks should be between a "single delegation of the Syrian regime and a single delegation of the opposition" led by the coalition.

Russia sees the coalition as just one part of the opposition and has suggested that several delegations, including Damascus-based figures tolerated by the government, could represent Assad's enemies.

"I think that the ideas that are sometimes put forward - let's exclude President Assad and then agree on everything - are unrealistic as long as Assad is in power," Medvedev said.

"He's not mad. He must receive some kind of guarantees or, in any case, some kind of proposals on the development of political dialogue in Syria itself, on possible elections, on his personal fate."

Assad suggested last month that he could seek re-election in a vote scheduled for next year.

Medvedev said Assad might be worried by the fates suffered by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak - who was overthrown and put on trial - and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who met a grisly death after being ousted from power.

"You have to agree that when he recalls the fate of President Mubarak or Colonel Muammar Gaddafi ... his mood probably doesn't get any better," Medvedev said. "So you can't just say 'get out and then we'll agree everything'."

Sen. Bob Corker

In response to U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford's testimony defending the Obama administration's slow delivery of long-promised aid to moderate forces in Syria, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Thursday called the lack of U.S. support for the opposition an "embarrassment," arguing that with Russia's hands "now on the steering wheel" in Syria, the U.S. lacks a strategy for resolving the conflict or for the region as whole, which is causing America's allies to question U.S. "reliability."

The hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee came as the prospects for Geneva-2 appear increasingly gloomy. The only positive note struck at the hearing was about progress on the U.S.-Russia plan to remove Assad’s chemical weapons.

Republican senators blasted the administration for striking a deal with chief Assad ally Russia on chemical weapons when there’s no letup to the killings that occur daily by conventional means.

“Everybody watching understands that, in essence, we’ve thrown out any real strategy there and are just trying to figure out a way out of this,” said Sen. Corker. “We’ve empowered Assad; we’ve weakened ourselves relative to other issues in the Middle East.”

Corker added,  "Let's face it guys: what really happened when the Russian offer came forth, it was less about seizing an opportunity and it was more about our country not having the stomach to follow through on a strategy over the longer term relative to Syria."

“There is no strategy right now for the opposition. None. There is no strategy,” Corker said. “And for that reason there’s unlikely to be a very successful Geneva 2 conference, because who is it that we’re going to be dealing with? Who is it that we’re going to be bringing to the table?”

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the committee chairman, took aim at the State Department’s year-old effort to organize a peace conference in Geneva.

“While the international community holds meetings about meetings, the Assad regime continues its brutal assault on the Syrian people, backed by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah,” Menendez said.

Using loaded language such as “feckless” and “abandonment” to describe U.S. policy, senators quizzed the diplomats and experts before them, not only on the obstacles blocking the Geneva process, but also on difficulties in the chemical weapons removal efforts.

They also asked about the reasons behind America’s failure to deliver on promised aid to the opposition.

One particularly testy exchange occurred between Corker, the panel’s ranking Republican, and Ambassador Ford, who was recalled in 2011 amid safety concerns. Corker suggested that Ford must be “incredibly embarrassed at where we are” on Syria and, his voice rising, demanded of the envoy: “Do you feel good about what our country is doing with the opposition right now?”

Ford, visibly flustered, replied: “There isn’t a person on my team at the State Department who doesn’t feel frustrated – frustrated – by the Syrian problem in general. But I have to say we do provide support to help them against the regime.”

Sen. John McCain

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., long a proponent of some form of military intervention to tip the war in the rebels’ favor, had the harshest criticism for the Obama Administration’s approach. He complained about U.S. diplomats bragging about sending trucks – some pickups from the U.S. were just delivered to the rebel command – at a time when Iran and Russia make sure Assad’s arsenals are full.

McCain said the administration had lodged the U.S. in an “Orwellian situation” in which it was working closely with Russia to dismantle the chemical arsenal but turning a blind eye to the conventional weapons Moscow sent into Syria.

He delivered a blistering criticism of America’s Syria policy, calling it “a shameful chapter in American history.” McCain said he understood why Saudi Arabia had been publicly feuding with the United States over what it views as America’s negligence.

“The reason the Saudis have divorced themselves from the United States of America is because of what you just articulated to Sen. Corker — trucks,” he said to Ford.  “That’s a great thing, trucks, as shiploads of weapons come in to the Russian port, as plane load after plane load lands and provides weapons — all kinds of lethal weapons. And we’re proud of the fact that we gave them trucks,” he said.

"You continue to call this a civil war, Ambassador Ford," said McCain. "This isn't a civil war anymore; this is a regional conflict. It's spread to Iraq. We now have al-Qaeda resurgence in Iraq. It's destabilizing Jordan. Iran is all in. Hezbollah has 5,000 troops there. For you to describe this as a quote, 'civil war,' of course, is a gross distortion of the facts, which again makes many of us question your fundamental strategy because you are — you don't describe the realities on the ground."

McCain was not satisfied, saying Assad's killing of civilians remained unchecked.

"Come on. ...The fact is that he was about to be toppled a year ago, or over a year ago. Then Hezbollah came in. Then the Russians stepped up their effort. Then the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intervened in what you call a, quote, 'civil war,' and he turned the tide. And he continues to maintain his position of power and slaughtering innocent Syrian civilians. And you are relying on a Geneva conference, right?"

The senators also received a grim update on the human toll – a death tally that’s tripled in the past year to 100,000 dead and 2 million refugees, turning a national crisis regional. In addition, 6.8 million people need help, the equivalent of the combined populations of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Connecticut.

“Behind these jarring statistics is the real toll on the Syrian people: the kids who haven’t gone to school for two years, the women who have endured rape and abuse, and the 5 million internally displaced Syrians who don’t have a place to live or enough to eat,” said Nancy Lindborg, the assistant administrator for democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

U.S.-UK ponder strikes against Assad forces

Generals Martin Dempsey (left) and David Richards

America’s top military officer told a Senate panel overnight the Obama Administration is evaluating whether to conduct “direct kinetic strikes” against the Syrian regime.

Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the use of kinetic strikes -- a military term that typically refers to missiles and bombs -- "is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government.”

In interviews to two British newspapers published in London the same day, General Sir David Richards, the outgoing Chief of the Defense Staff, said: “If you want to have the material impact on the Syrian regime’s calculations that some people seek” then “ground targets” would have to be “hit.”

DEMPSEY

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said he would block Dempsey's nomination for a second term as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman until the general gave his personal opinion on what the U.S. should do in Syria.

McCain, who supports a stronger role in supporting opposition rebels, accused the Obama administration of inaction in Syria and questioned the quality of advice Dempsey has provided to the White House over the past two years.

He said the risks of inaction in Syria outweighed risks the United States would face in engaging more actively in supporting rebels.

"We have not been inactive," Dempsey countered.

The White House has said it will arm rebels, but opposition leaders in Syria say they have yet to receive those weapons and momentum is shifting toward President Bashar al-Assad.

Dempsey later acknowledged that the "tide seems to have shifted in his favor.” He also said the momentum ebbs and flows between the two sides.

McCain expressed concerns that Dempsey's advice on arming rebels has shifted.

“You testified this February you had advised the president to arm vetted units of the Syrian opposition,” McCain said. “In April, you testified you no longer supported the position. Now we read in published reports that the administration has decided to arm the Syrian opposition units. How do we account for those pirouettes?”

"I wouldn't accept the term pirouettes, sir," Dempsey said. "We have adapted our approach based on what we know of the opposition and if you recall, at the beginning of the year, there was a period where it was pretty evident that the extremist groups were prevailing inside the opposition." He said he supports “the building of a moderate opposition and including building its military capability.”

When pressed again by McCain, Dempsey – in a not-so-subtle reference to Iraq – asked the senator whether he would agree "that situations could be made worse by the introduction of military force?"

McCain said the general disagreed with him in a similar debate in 2006 over whether to send some 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq to quell violence in Baghdad an al-Anbar province. President George W. Bush ultimately ordered the deployment, which was known as "the surge" and credited it with helping to turn the tide of the war.

"I think history shows that those of us who supported the surge were right and people like you who didn't think we need a surge were wrong," McCain said.

McCain asked Dempsey whether regional destabilization is a "good outcome" of the Syria conflict.

"Senator, somehow you've got me portrayed as the one who's holding back from our use of military force inside of Syria,” Dempsey said.

"We've given [President Obama] options," Dempsey said. "The members of this committee have been briefed on them in a classified setting. We've articulated the risk. The decision on whether to use force is the decision of our elected officials."

McCain reminded Dempsey that the general agreed at the beginning of the hearing to provide the committee with his personal opinion, if asked. "I'm asking for your opinion," McCain said.

"About the use of kinetic strikes?" Dempsey asked. "That issue is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government and it would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use."

McCain took the parting shot.

"If it is your position that you do not provide your personal views to the committee when asked, only under certain circumstances, then you have just contradicted what I have known this committee to operate under for the last 30 years," he said.

McCain told reporters after leaving the hearing room he planned to put a hold on the nomination, essentially blocking any further action until he gets an adequate response from Dempsey.

"I want to see him answer the question," McCain said.

Seeking a compromise, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee chairman, asked Dempsey to provide the panel by early next week with an unclassified list of options and the general's assessment of the pros and cons of each. Levin made clear he is not asking Dempsey to share his personal opinion on whether or not to use force in Syria. Dempsey agreed to provide the list.

Levin said he hoped the assessment from Dempsey would give McCain "greater reassurance."

RICHARDS

The outgoing head of the British Army said in turn the West would need to fight a war against Assad if it wanted to have a "material impact" on his calculations.

In interviews to two British newspapers, General Sir David Richards said there were arguments for and against such a course of action and the British government was still debating its options on Syria.

But if a political decision was made to try to change the tide of the conflict to put pressure on the Syrian government, which has notched up military gains in recent months, Britain would need to intervene in the same way as it did in Libya, he said.

The 61-year-old general said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph there was "a lack of international consensus" over how to act over Syria but a shared reluctance to see Western boots on the ground.

“If you wanted to have the material impact on the Syrian regime’s calculations that some people seek, a no fly zone per se is insufficient.

“You have to be able, as we did successfully in Libya, to hit ground targets.

“You have to establish a ground control zone. You have to take out their air defenses. You also have to make sure they can’t maneuver – which means you have to take out their tanks, and their armored personnel carriers and all the other things that are actually doing the damage.

“If you want to have the material effect that people seek you have to be able to hit ground targets and so you would be going to war if that is what you want to do.”

He added: “That is rightly a huge and important decision. There are many arguments for doing so but there are many arguments for not doing so too.”

Richards described the situation as “highly complex” and suggested that the focus of government action was also on ensuring the conflict did not “spread” to neighboring countries.

“We are looking at Syria much more from a regional perspective and making sure that as awful as things are there it doesn’t spread materially to other countries like Lebanon and Jordan,” he said.

Richards separately told The Sun newspaper that Britain “would have to act” if it saw chemical weapons proliferation as a result of the Syrian conflict.

And he also revealed planning for a major new operation in the war-torn country, which Special Forces would lead, is well underway.

Richards said, “The risk of terrorism is becoming more and more dominant in our strategic vision for what we might do in Syria.

“If that risk develops, we would almost certainly have to act to mitigate it and we are ready to do so.

"I think it is a very big question. If we saw chemical weapons proliferate as a result of what is happening in Syria then we would have to act.

“Obviously we have contingency plans for everything.”

Pressed on whether that meant a brand new theater of war for the armed forces, the general added: “Some could characterize that, even though it might be for a limited period, as a war”.

Britain is only likely to act alongside the US, Richards suggested, adding: “We would have to do it as part of a wider effort because you know the scale of the challenge would be too much for any one country.

“But it has huge strategic implications beyond what might be actually quite a straightforward tactical effort.”

Obama must act decisively on Syria – McCain

On the heels of his trip to Syria and stops in Jordan, Turkey and Yemen, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday delivered this address at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. on “U.S. policy in Syria and the broader Middle East”:

Senator John McCain at Brookings yesterday

Thank you, Martin (Indyk), for that kind introduction.  

It is always a pleasure to return to the Brookings Institution, this bastion of conservative thought. It is nice to see so many friends, as well as a few enemies, in the audience this afternoon. I would like to make a few opening remarks, and then I’d be happy to respond to any comments, or questions, or insults you may have.

As most of you know, I traveled last week to Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, and Syria. This was my twelfth separate trip to the region since the events known as the Arab Spring began in December 2011. And what I can say categorically today is that I am now more concerned than at any time since the darkest days of the war in Iraq that the Middle East is descending into sectarian conflict.  

The conflict in Syria is at the heart of this crisis. Last week, together with General Salim Idriss, the chief of staff of the Supreme Military Council, I met with more than a dozen senior Free Syrian Army commanders in southern Turkey and northern Syria. They came from cities across Syria, including Qusayr, Homs, Damascus, and Aleppo. Many of them were joined by their civilian counterparts. And all of them painted the same grave picture of the state of the conflict in Syria.

Assad has turned the tide of battle on the ground. His foreign allies have all doubled down on him. Iran is all in. Russia is all in. Shiite militants are flowing into the fight from Iraq. And Hezbollah fighters have invaded Syria by the thousands. They were decisive in retaking the critical city of Qusayr, and now they are leading the attacks on Homs and Aleppo. Assad is using every weapon in his arsenal, from tanks and artillery, to air power and ballistic missiles. And according to a recent U.N. report, there are, quote, “reasonable grounds” to believe that Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons. The President’s red-line appears to have been crossed, perhaps more than once, and it should come as no surprise that new claims of chemical weapons use by Assad are already surfacing, as I heard in Syria.

The result of this onslaught is that Syria as we know it is ceasing to exist. More than 80,000 people are dead. A quarter of all Syrians have been driven from their homes. The Syrian state is disintegrating in much of the country, leaving vast ungoverned spaces that are being filled by extremists, many aligned with al-Qaeda. Some now put the number of these extremists inside Syria in the thousands. They are the best armed, best funded, and most experienced fighters. And every day this conflict grinds on, these extremists are marginalizing moderate leaders like the commanders I met last week – Syrians who don’t want to trade Assad for al-Nusra.

The worsening conflict in Syria is now spilling outside of the country and stoking sectarian conflict across the region. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are each straining under the weight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. Indeed, ten percent of Jordan’s population is now Syrian refugees. This would be equivalent to the entire population of Texas suddenly crossing our own border. And that number is expected to double this year. Terrorist bombings have struck Turkey, and Syrian groups are firing rockets into Shiite areas of Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria. Old sectarian wounds are being reopened in Lebanon.

The situation is even worse in Iraq. The conflict in Syria, together with Prime Minister Maliki’s unwillingness to share power, is radicalizing Iraq’s Sunni population. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is back and stepping up its attacks on Iraqi Shiites. In response, Shiite militias are remobilizing and retaliating against Iraqi Sunnis. More than 1,000 Iraqis were killed last month alone, the highest level of violence since 2007. Some experts now believe that one watershed event, similar to the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006, could tip Iraq back into full-scale sectarian conflict.

Extremist forces are also gathering momentum elsewhere in the region. The fall of governments across the region has opened up ungoverned spaces that now stretch from the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa, across North Africa, all the way down into Mali and even northern Nigeria. Al-Qaeda affiliated extremist groups are now on the march throughout these vast ungoverned spaces. Iran is also seeking to exploit the present chaos. Indeed, every Yemeni and U.S. official I met last week in Sana’a said that Iran is a greater threat in Yemen today than Al-Qaeda.

Put simply, the space for moderate politics is collapsing as the Middle East descends deeper into extremism and conflict. A sectarian battle-line is being drawn through the heart of the region – with Sunni extremists, many allied with al-Qaeda, dominant on one side, and Iranian-backed proxy forces dominant on the other.  

What is more disturbing, however, is how little most Americans seem to care. Most are weary of war and eager to focus on domestic issues. But some hold a more cynical view: They see the Middle East as a hopeless quagmire of ancient hatreds and a huge distraction from worthier priorities, whether it is rebalancing toward Asia or nation-building at home. For those of us who believe otherwise, and who believe the United States must lead more actively in the region, we have to answer a fundamental question: Why should we care about the Middle East?

One reason is that we have enduring national interests in the Middle East that will not be diminished – not by our fatigue with the region and its challenges, not by our desire to focus on domestic issues, not by the growing importance of other parts of the world, and not even by the prospect of American energy independence. The Middle East has always been more important than oil. It still is.  

The United States has friends and allies in the Middle East who depend on us for their security, and who contribute more to the defense and well-being of our nation than most Americans will ever know. But believe me, Americans will know it very quickly if global trade and energy flows, not to mention U.S. warships, can no longer transit the Suez Canal, through which approximately 8 percent of the world’s seaborne trade passes. They will know it if we lose key Arab partners, such as the Kingdom of Jordan, along with their vital military, intelligence, and counterterrorism cooperation. And they will absolutely know it if Israel becomes beset on all sides by even more hostile governments and more violent extremists.

In short, if the Middle East descends into extremism, and war, and despair, no one should think America would be able to pivot away from those threats. Our national security interests will suffer. That is an inescapable reality. It is the lesson of September 11, 2001. And to believe otherwise is not only naïve; it is dangerous.  

The Middle East also matters because much of the rest of the world views it, rightly, as a test of American credibility and resolve. For decades, Presidents of both parties have said the United States will deter our enemies and support our friends in the Middle East. They have said we would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapons capability. And they have said, as this President has said about Syria, that we would not tolerate the use or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If the United States now signals that it is unwilling or unable to meet its own stated commitments and enforce its own declared red-lines, that message will be heard loud and clear, far beyond the Middle East. It will demoralize our friends, embolden our enemies, and make our world a far more dangerous place for us.

But ultimately, there is a more positive reason why we have to care about the Middle East. This region is now experiencing a period of upheaval unlike any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Over the past three years, we have seen millions and millions of ordinary men and women rise up peacefully, and lift their voices, and risk everything on behalf of the same values we hold dear: freedom and democracy, equal justice and rule of law, human rights and dignity. They are doing so against impossible odds and, at times, in the face of merciless oppression and violence. These brave men and women are taking a chance on themselves, many for the first time. And they are asking us to take a chance on them – not after they have succeeded in their struggles, but now, when they need it most, when their fate hangs in the balance, and when American leadership can still be decisive.

I know some of our initial hopes for the Arab Spring have dimmed quite a bit – in part because of a lack of U.S. leadership.  But these hopes have not gone out. And so long as men and women across the Middle East still harbor hopes for a future of peace, and freedom, and prosperity, the Arab Spring will remain the greatest repudiation of everything that al-Qaeda stands for. Ultimately, this is how our long fight against global terrorist groups will be won. This is how conditions of lasting peace will finally be secured across the Middle East. Not through drone strikes and night raids alone, but by helping people across the region lift up democratic governments and growing economies that offer hope.

The entire Middle East is now up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning. Moderate forces and aspiring democrats are fighting for their futures and their very lives. The only power that is not fully committed in this struggle is us. And as a result, leaders and people across the region who share our interests and many of our values are losing ground to violent extremists.  

Our friends and allies in the Middle East are crying out for American leadership, as I heard again last week. We must answer this call. We must lead. We need an alternative strategy that creates space for moderate leaders to marginalize extremists and for people to resolve their differences peacefully, politically.  

An alternative strategy must begin with a credible Syria policy. I want a negotiated end to this conflict. But anyone who thinks that Assad and his allies will ever make peace when they are winning on the battlefield is delusional. I know that the situation in Syria is hugely complicated, and that there are no easy or ideal options. But we have to be realistic: This conflict will grind on with all of its worsening consequences until the balance of power shifts against Assad and his allies. And the longer we wait to take action, the more action we will have to take.

No one should think that we have to destroy every air defense system or put thousands of boots on the ground to make a difference in Syria. We have limited options. We could use our stand-off weapons, such as cruise missiles, to target Assad’s aircraft and ballistic missile launchers on the ground. We could enable a provisional government to establish itself in a safe zone in Syria that we could help to protect with Patriot missiles. And we could organize a full-scale operation to train and equip Syrian opposition forces. After all, Assad is getting weapons. Al-Nusra is getting weapons. The only forces in Syria that are not getting weapons are moderate commanders like those I met last week, who said their units desperately need ammunition and weapons to counter Assad’s tanks, artillery, and air power.

Would any of this immediately end the conflict? Probably not. But could it save innocent lives in Syria? Could it give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed? And could it help to turn the conflict in Syria into a strategic disaster for Iran and Hezbollah? To me, the answer to all of these questions is yes.  

More decisive action in Syria could create new leverage to defuse sectarian tensions and counter Iran’s ambition of regional hegemony. In the Gulf, this would mean making the military threat more credible and apparent as Iran continues its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. And in Lebanon, this would mean making the strategic defeat of Hezbollah in Syria the centerpiece of a wider campaign to target its finances, cut its supply lines, delegitimize its leaders, and support internal opposition to its role as an armed force in Lebanese politics.  

An alternative Middle East strategy must also include a greatly enhanced effort to build the capacity of security forces across the region, especially in North African. Egypt needs a new police force. Tunisia needs help with border security. Libya is trying to build new national security forces from scratch. Mali basically needs a whole new army. One bright spot is actually Yemen, which is engaged in a promising restructuring of its armed forces and internal security units. These governments, and others like them, don’t want al-Qaeda affiliates exploiting their countries any more than we do. They have a lot of will to resist these groups. They just need help with the means. The U.S. military can play this role better than any force in the world. And it is in our interest to do so far more than we are currently.

More broadly, we must renew our leadership on behalf of human rights and democracy in the Middle East. This will take different forms in different countries. In Yemen, for example, where a managed transition is proving more successful thus far than many could have expected, we must continue to provide assistance as requested. In Jordan, Morocco, and the Gulf states, we must shore up the stability of these vital partners while also urging them to continue responding to their peoples’ desires for change, including through greater political reform.  

And then there is Egypt, where the high hopes that many of us, and many Egyptians, had back in January 2011 are being deeply disappointed. I am a friend of Egypt and a long-standing supporter of our assistance relationship. But after this week’s conviction of 43 NGO workers, Congress must reevaluate our assistance to Egypt. Our foreign aid budget is shrinking while the demands on it are growing. As a result, Egypt must show that it is a good investment of our scarce resources – that the return on this investment will be a freer, more democratic, more tolerant Egypt. If not, Congress will spend this money elsewhere. That is just a fact.

At the same time, we must make it clear that the United States does not align itself with any one ruler or group in Egypt. Rather, we stand for the principles and practices of democracy, for the freedoms of civil society, and for the basic rights of all Egyptians. We must not simply exchange a Mubarak policy for a Morsi policy. We need to have, at long last, an Egypt policy.  

Finally, any strategy to bolster moderates in the Middle East must include an effort to seek peace between Palestinians and Israelis. As always, such an effort must be weighed against its opportunity costs. With so many urgent priorities now demanding high-level attention in the region, especially Syria, I hope the President and his new national security team are carefully considering these trade-offs.

Each of the steps I have described today is necessary if we are to have a more effective strategy to advance our interests and values in the Middle East. But none of these steps will be sufficient without one additional factor: the sustained, outspoken, and determined leadership of the President of the United States.

Only the President can explain to the American people how high the stakes are in the Middle East. Only the President can change public opinion and rally the American people behind him. Only the President can push our government to be bolder, and more imaginative, and more decisive than it is inclined to be. Only the President can pull our friends and allies together and shape their individual efforts into decisive, unified international action. Only the President can do these things. And that is what we need from him now more than ever. We need him to lead.

That is also what our friends and allies in the Middle East want from our President. They want him to lead, and they want America to lead. That is what I heard last week in Jordan. That is what I heard in Yemen. That is what I heard in Turkey. And that is absolutely what I heard in Syria. That is what people and leaders tell me again and again as I travel throughout the region. They tell me they want America to lead because they are confident that America can still be decisive in shaping the future of the Middle East. In short, our friends and allies still believe in America. What they want to know is whether we still believe in ourselves.

Renewing American leadership in the Middle East should be a Republican goal. It should be a Democratic goal. And if the President makes it his goal, he will have my full support. 

1998 Adana Accord as Turkey’s gateway to Syria

Bereaved mother of Ali Shaaban (al-akhbar.com/Haytham Musawi)

Syria-watchers have their eyes trained on Turkey now that Kofi Annan’s mission is twitching in its final death throes.

And Turkish political analyst Abdullah Bozkurt expects Ankara to eventually invoke the 1998 Adana Agreement to justify a military intervention in Syria.

This is after Damascus spurned Annan’s April 10 ceasefire deadline by escalating, instead of abating, its violent crackdown on restive population centers and by firing across its borders overnight, killing TV cameraman Ali Shaaban in Lebanon and wounding Syrian refugees in Turkey.

It was the first time Syrian fire from across the border had hurt people on Turkish soil.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his government would take its own “steps” against Syria if it failed to abide by the April 10 deadline, including measures “we don't want to think about.”

Erdogan's office said the prime minister would pay an official visit to Saudi Arabia later this week to confer on Syria with King Abdullah.

“Turkey... supports illegal Syrian militant groups, supplies them with weapons... and lets them illegally cross into Syria,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said at a press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Moscow. “How can we (fulfill the plan) if there are still illegal arm deliveries and moving of militants from Turkey?”

Muallem said Turkey, in violation of the Annan plan, harbors armed gangs who attack Syrian troops and allows them to smuggle weapons across border, calling its northern neighbor a “part of the problem.”

Turkey has taken in some 4,000 Syrians since last Thursday, pushing up the number of refugees on its soil to over 25,000.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, who met with Turkish President Abdullah Gul Monday in Istanbul, might visit the Syrian refugee camps and monitor the situation on the Turkish-Syrian border

Several scenarios are being floated by the Turkish press, including the setting up of a buffer zone along the 900-kilometer border to protect the large numbers of refugees.

Turkish analyst Abdullah Bozkurt, of Today’s Zaman, believes Ankara is inching toward military intervention in Syria.

Bozkurt says Ankara has been preparing for “the inevitability of sending troops into Syria to establish a humanitarian corridor. The corridor would be used to reach cities and towns under siege and possibly create a safe buffer zone for internally displaced persons (IDPs).” The Turkish Red Crescent (Kizilay) said last week it was getting ready to deliver humanitarian aid to Syria should Turkey or the international community call for a “humanitarian aid corridor” to be carved inside Syrian territory.

In the event Russia and China continue to block UN-mandated action against Syria, Bozkurt writes, “Ankara will probably invoke the 1998 Adana Agreement with Syria to justify the military intervention” and invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. “Since the Assad regime allows the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its affiliates to launch attacks on Turkish soil and harbors some 1,500 to 2,000 hardcore PKK militants in areas close to the Turkish border, Turkey can very well utilize the NATO security cover for assistance.”

Bozkurt recalls that the governments of Turkey and Syria signed the Adana Agreement on October 20, 1998. In it, Damascus not only agreed to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization but also pledged to cease all aid to the PKK and to deport its leader Abdullah Ocalan.

The Adana Agreement was complemented by the security agreements of 10 September 2001, 23 December 2009 and 21 December 2010. Bozkurt says the latter, ratified by the Turkish parliament on 6 April 2011, “gives both parties the right to conduct joint operations in each other's territory. If Turkey officially recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) as sole legitimate representative of Syria, which is likely to happen in the upcoming Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria if Assad failed to follow through on the Annan plan, it could very well secure SNC consent to launch joint operations with the Free Syrian Army against Assad forces.”

Bozkurt says Ankara “clearly prefers the multilateral approach for the time being. But when push comes to shove, Turkey will not hesitate to act alone, as it did in 1998 in Syria or in 1975 in Cyprus. Watch out for the signal that will indicate that Turkey is ready to act: When the government decides to seek a mandate from the Turkish Parliament for troop deployment in a foreign country, as it must according to the Constitution, it would mean the real warning shot for military incursion into Syria has already been fired.”