“Saudi-Russian arms deal alive and kicking”

Putin and Abdullah in Riyadh in 2007 and the sort of Russian arms sought by the Saudis

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s phone call to Saudi King Abdullah on Sunday (after the crackup in U.S.-Saudi relations) has revived talk of the oil-rich kingdom offering to buy billions of dollars worth of arms from Moscow.

That’s the view of diplomatic sources quoted by Political Consultant/Analyst Nasr al-Majali, writing today for Elaph news portal.

Saudi businessman, journalist and author Othman al-Omeir, a former editor-in-chief of the Saudi newspaper of records Asharq Alawsat owns Elaph.

A statement by the Kremlin said the Russian President and Saudi monarch on Sunday discussed international issues over the phone.

During the conversation requested by the Russian side, the two leaders focused on the Syrian conflict and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the statement said without elaborating.

Western countries suspect Iran of using its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons, a claim Iran has consistently denied. Tehran claims it needs atomic technology for producing electricity, although it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas.

Majali quotes diplomats and various Russian sources as saying the arms deal in the making would include such Russian military hardware for Saudi Arabia as:

• T-90 battle tanks
• Mi-17, Mi-26 and Mi-35 attack helicopters
• BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles
• S-400 surface-to-air missiles
• Pantsir-S1, a short to medium range ground based air defense system, wheeled, tracked or stationary.

According to Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute, if Riyadh concludes a major arms deal with Moscow in return for reduced Russian backing of Syria’s Assad regime, it will come at the expense of U.S. influence in the Middle East and possibly across the world.

Henderson wrote last August:

From the moment it was announced, the July 31 Moscow meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan was clearly of political significance. The "long and serious" discussions between the two reportedly lasted four hours and left the Saudis "in a positive mood."

According to an August 7 Reuters report, Riyadh offered to buy $15 billion worth of weapons from Moscow and avoid threatening Russia's position as the main natural gas supplier to Europe, in return for Russia easing its strong support for the Assad regime and agreeing not to block any future UN Security Council resolution on Syria. According to unidentified diplomats quoted in the story, the Russian response has so far been inconclusive, though Moscow reportedly pressured Damascus to allow [the] visit by a UN mission investigating suspected chemical weapons use.

The Saudi diplomatic push shows Riyadh's determination to force the Assad regime's collapse, which the kingdom hopes will be a strategic defeat for Iran, its regional rival in both diplomatic and religious terms. It also reflects Riyadh's belief, shared by its Gulf Arab allies, that U.S. diplomacy on Syria lacks the necessary imagination, commitment, and energy to succeed…

West is “supporting” Assad – FSA ex-commander

One of the top rebel commanders in Syria has accused "hesitant" American and British policy-makers of effectively backing the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi

Col Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi said by accepting Assad's offer to scrap his chemical weapons, the United States gave him space to step up conventional attacks.

"The West is supporting the criminal Assad regime," he told Tim Whewell in an interview for BBC Newsnight.

It was his first foreign interview since stepping down this week as head of the Aleppo military council.

The council forms part of the Free Syrian Army, which the West regards as the main moderate grouping on the rebel side.

"When Mr. Obama says chemical weapons are a red line, that gives the green light to conventional weapons," the colonel told the BBC.

"Ballistic missiles, Scud missiles, fighter jets like MIGs and Sukhois, helicopters, rocket launchers and tanks - all these can be used by the regime to kill Syrians. So the Western stance has been very negative towards the Syrian revolution."

He described Britain's approach as "very hesitant."

"They have not provided anything. They didn't stand with the revolution at all.

"If you want to compare the British and French and American position towards [Libya's Moammar] Gaddafi and towards Assad, then the difference is enormous."

Col. Okaidi said Assad has been given space to intensify conventional warfare

"They made a quick decision there by removing the Gaddafi regime and providing help for the Libyan people to remove that dictator -- while here we are about to go into the third year and Britain and the whole world is standing by and watching."

Col Okaidi, a former career officer in the Syrian army, was speaking in the Turkish city of Gaziantep, ahead of a two-day meeting of Syrian opposition politicians in Istanbul starting today.

They will debate whether to attend the so-called "Geneva-2" peace conference.

Western powers and Russia are pushing for the talks to go ahead.

Geneva 'doomed'

But Col Okaidi said he opposed the plan.

"It will not succeed while the regime continues to kill people, bomb them from the air and direct artillery fire at them.

"I don't think under such circumstances anybody can go into negotiations and peace talks with such a criminal regime," he said.

Col. Okaidi warned that the failure of the West to supply weapons to moderate rebel groups was strengthening the hand of the better-armed Islamists.

He said: "In terms of weapons and ammunition we have not received anything at all.

"Some communication kits -- that's all, and some ready meals from the U.S. I don't know how many because my fighters refused to eat them."

Syria: John Kerry’s model of preemptive surrender

By Amir Taheri*, writing today for the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat

Offering a curtain raiser to planned talks on Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has offered an analysis that is sure to doom the enterprise from the start.

“The outcome of this [the Syrian civil war] will not be determined on the battlefield, but at the negotiating table,” he said.

While such a platitude might be useful for table talk, adopting it as the basis for policy-making is scandalous. Had Kerry been familiar with history, he would have known that the outcomes of all wars are determined on the battlefield.

Wars happen when a status quo that assures a balance of contradictory powers within a polity ceases to function. When that happens, the status quo becomes intolerable for one or more of the elements coexisting within it. Then one or more of those elements try to break the status quo by force, triggering conflict with other elements that continue to see their interests reflected in the existing order.

Politics in general, and diplomacy in particular, could be effective in preventing the breakdown of the status quo. Once the breakdown has happened, politics and diplomacy become weapons of war.

Put another way, war could be described as the continuation of politics by other means. Politics and diplomacy are also useful tools in organizing the aftermath of a war by helping the loser accept defeat and encouraging the winner to temper his triumph.

However, while a war is going on the only thing that matters is seeking victory on the battleground. The party that entertains the illusion of winning through negotiations is certain to emerge as loser.

As far as the protagonists are concerned, politics and diplomacy could be used to mobilize domestic support, find external allies and split the adversary’s camp. Outside powers interested in the outcome of a war could also use politics and diplomacy to garner support for the side they favor. The most important political decision to make is to choose the side one wishes to support. The power that chooses not to take sides becomes an objective ally of the party that happens to be on the ascendancy on the battlefield at any given time.

At the start of the Syrian conflict, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood these facts.

When he stated unequivocally that President Bashar Al-Assad “must go,” he appeared to have chosen a side.

Three years later, Kerry, reflecting the changed position of his boss, cancelled that choice. He now pretends that the U.S. is pinning its hopes on a “political solution.”

One need not go back to the earliest records of human warfare at the dawn of history to realize that no war ever ended without victory for one side and, more importantly, admission of defeat by another.

Even wars that could last centuries, such as the duel between the Roman and Persian Empires or the Hundred Years’ War between England and France did not end until one side admitted defeat.

In the First World War, attempts at fixing the outcome through diplomacy started soon after the first shots were fired.

However, the outcome was only determined when Germany admitted defeat. Even in the Second World War, diplomatic efforts were not late in coming. The Nazis dispatched Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s second in command, on a secret mission to England to negotiate a deal. It didn’t work.

From 1942 until 1944, the Allies, Britain, Russia and the United States, conducted secret talks in Stockholm with Hitler’s emissaries in pursuit of a “diplomatic solution.” The outcome, however, was decided on the fuming ruins of the battlefield in Berlin.

What applies to wars between nations is also true in the case of civil wars.

The earliest examples, such as the Roman civil wars that pitted Marius against Sulla or Caesar against Pompeii, and the Iranian civil war between Khosrau II and Bahrām Chobin, reconfirm the pattern.

There is no standard duration for civil wars; they could last a few weeks or decades.

The English Civil War lasted almost a decade. The American Civil War lasted four years, while the one in Mexico took almost 10 years. The Russian civil war after the Bolshevik seizure of power took three years, as did the Spanish one that ended with Phalangist victory. The Malayan civil war of the 1950s took 11 years, while the Nigerian civil war of the 1960s ended after just four years.

The Lebanese civil war took more than 15 years. The Congolese civil war lasted 20 years and, in a sense, still continues until this day.

In civil wars, external powers end up taking one side or another. Powers that do not take a side end up on the loser’s side.

The position the U.S. chooses is of special importance for two reasons.

The first is that, like it or not, the U.S. is the only outside power that could help shorten a civil war by taking sides. The second reason is that unless the U.S. takes the lead, other countries capable of making a difference by supporting the anti-Assad rebellion will do nothing beyond diplomatic gesticulation.

By refusing to take sides, the Obama Administration gives the powers that support Assad, notably Russia and the Islamic Republic in Tehran, an advantage by reducing the costs of their policy of repression in Syria.

The Obama–Kerry decision to accept defeat without even attempting to make a stand could enter political history as a model of what one might term: preemptive surrender.

The good news is that the Syrian people are made of stronger stuff than Obama and Kerry.

* The author was executive editor-in-chief of Iran’s daily Kayhan from 1972 to 1979. He has worked or written for innumerable publications and published 11 books. In 2012, the British Society of Editors and the Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards named Taheri International Journalist of the Year.

“U.S., Russia looking for pliant Syrian opposition”

Clockwise from top L.: Bogdanov with Rifaat al-Assad, Kassis, Muslim. Jamil, Tlass and Manna'

The leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat today suggests in its front page lead that the Americans and Russians are working hand in hand to put together a pliant Syrian opposition to negotiate with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Geneva.

The paper says U.S. and Russian representatives held talks this week with opposition figures outside the Syrian National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces, which most Western and Arab countries recognize as sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

Asharq Alawsat’s report follows remarks by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov saying he would be meeting separately in Geneva Wednesday with each of:

Rifaat al-Assad, who fled Syria and went into exile in Europe in 1984 after staging a failed coup attempt against his brother Hafez al-Assad, the then president and father of Bashar. A sworn opponent of the current regime from which he has firmly distanced himself, there are no international sanctions against him. But human rights groups accuse him of playing a leading role in the bloody crushing of a 1982 uprising against his brother, in which tens of thousands were killed in Hama. He has denied the accusations.

More recently, French anti-corruption campaign groups have accused him of corruption, money laundering, embezzlement of public funds and misuse of corporate assets.

Siwar al-Assad, a son of Rifaat, told The New York Times in a telephone interview from Geneva his father wanted to attend the proposed peace talks, known as Geneva II, as an opposition figure whose presence would reassure government supporters and help bring about a compromise.

He said his father did not insist that President Assad step down as a prerequisite for talks.

“By putting preconditions, nothing will change, and every day people are dying,” Siwar al-Assad said, calling President Assad’s imminent departure “a fantasy” and adding, “I’m not pro-Bashar, but I’m a person who is realistic.”

It was unclear whether other parties would accept even sitting with Rifaat al-Assad at talks, much less whether talks will take place. But the Russian move was a sign of casting about for new ways to break the impasse.

The meeting between Rifaat al-Assad and Bogdanov drew scorn from many opponents of the president. They call Rifaat al-Assad the Butcher of Hama, a reference to his role in the bloody suppression of a violent uprising in that Syrian city in 1982.

Siwar al-Assad said his father did not want to be president and advocated a gradual handover of power under a transition council including government and opposition members, a new constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press and an independent judiciary, and transparent elections in which anyone, including Bashar al-Assad, could run. Asked if Rifaat al-Assad expected to meet soon with American officials, Siwar al-Assad told The NYT, “maybe.”

Manaf Tlass, a former Brigadier General of the elite Syrian Republican Guard and a member of Bashar al-Assad’s inner circle until his defection in July 2012. He is the son of Mustafa Tlass who served as defense minister for 32 years from 1972 to 2004.

Haytham al-Manna’ of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCC), denies meeting Rifaat al-Assad in Geneva on Wednesday. “I am one of the people who started the criminal case against Rifaat al-Assad… I am still a member in Arab Commission for Human Rights (ACHR) and not the commission to protect dictators.”

He said he does not have any contact with Rifaat or Qadri Jamil or any regime figure.

Saleh Muslim, leader of the Democratic Union Party, a Syrian affiliate of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), and the most powerful member of the Kurdish opposition in the Syrian civil war

Qadri Jamil, one of the top leaders of the People’s Will Party and the Popular Front for Change and Liberation and a former member of the Assad government. Assad dismissed him last month from the post of deputy prime minister for economic affairs for acting without government permission when he met with U.S. officials in Geneva.

Ms Randa Kassis, president of the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and member of the Syrian National Council. She is also an anthropologist and journalist.

Syria troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi had hoped to hold the Geneva-2 peace conference this month.

But he said he was not able to announce a date, despite a day of meetings first with senior diplomats from the U.S. and Russia, then with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the UK, France and China -- as well as Syria's neighbors Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey.

Brahimi said he was still "striving" for a summit by the end of the year.

Attempts to set up a conference have been going on for months amid disputes over who should attend and its agenda.

The Syrian opposition has insisted President Assad should resign before any talks can take begin, but the government has rejected this.

The U.S. and Russia disagree on whether Syria's key regional neighbor Iran should be present.

The idea of a conference was first mooted in May, and in September UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced a tentative date of mid-November after the Security Council passed a binding resolution on Syrian chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, aid agencies have warned that more than nine million Syrians, almost half the population, are now in need of humanitarian relief, and 6.5 million were now homeless within Syria.

Iran buries 2nd top commander killed in Syria

The funeral of Gen. Mohammad Jamali-Paqaleh in Kerman

A funeral has been held in southeastern Iran for a Revolutionary Guards commander killed by rebel forces in Syria.

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Jamali-Paqaleh was buried with full honors in Kerman.

He had volunteered to "defend the Syrian people against terrorists" and "protect the [Shiite] holy shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab" in the southern suburbs of Damascus, the semi-official Mehr news agency, said.

The area around the mosque revered by Shiites as the burial site of a granddaughter of Prophet Mohammad has been the scene of heavy fighting.

Iran has invariably denied sending combat troops to support President Bashar al-Assad.

On Monday, a Guards spokesman insisted its personnel were only in the country to “provide advice and transfer its experience in the defense field.”

Iran also provides billions of dollars of aid and an undisclosed number of military advisers to Syria.

Iran’s cat’s-paw in Lebanon, Hezbollah, openly acknowledges its guerrillas are fighting for Assad, but Tehran denies its troops have been engaged directly in combat in Syria.

"As we have said many times before, Iran has no battalions in Syria and only advisers are present to transfer their defensive experience to the defenders of that country," Sepah news agency quoted Gen. Ramazan Sharif, head of public relations for IRGC, as saying on Monday.

Mehr reported that Gen. Jamali-Paqaleh was killed "in the recent days", without giving a specific date or location.

He was a veteran of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, and trained at the same Guards facility as Gen, Qasem Soleimani, head of its elite overseas operations.

At his funeral, the Guards' deputy chief Gen. Hossein Salami vowed the era of military intervention in Islamic countries by "arrogant" world powers had “come to an end.”

"They will have to succumb to the rooted determination of the Iranian and other Muslim nations," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

Earlier this year, Iran lost its point man in both Lebanon and Syria.

He was presumably ambushed and killed by Syrian opposition forces while travelling overland to Beirut from Damascus.

Prominent Iranian clerics, military commanders and politicians led mourners at his mid-day funeral at a mosque in north Tehran on 14 February 2013.

They included Hojatoleslam Ali Saidi, representing Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Revolutionary Guards chief Ali Jaafari, Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi.

The semiofficial Fars news agency identified the slain Revolutionary Guards commanding officer as Hassan Shateri.

Footage of the service broadcast on state TV showed mourners carrying aloft a coffin with his portrait.

Fars said Shateri was a veteran of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and served in Afghanistan before going to Lebanon. He was buried in his hometown of Semnan, some 150 kilometers east of Tehran.

In Lebanon, Shateri posed as “Hessam Khoshnevis,” head of an Iranian agency set up to help rebuild Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon devastated by the 2006 war with Israel.

Syria’s DAESH and the Emir of Peshawar

Balakot after the October 2005 earthquake (top).  Below is a DAESH poster

This is the weekly think piece penned in Arabic by Saudi mass media celebrity Jamal Khashoggi for pan-Arab daily al-Hayat

Balakot is a strange Pakistani town and the gateway to the Kaghan Valley.

The river Kunhar runs through the town, which is still a famous dwindling tourist destination in the region.

Balakot also falls within the Pakistani Taliban region where inhabitants have yet to reconcile with the Pakistani army. When they don’t attack a Pakistani army convoy, they suffice to torch a few pirated video movies in a shop.

The people of Balakot cherish Saudi Arabia, which helped rebuild their town when it was completely destroyed in the massive earthquake of October 8, 2005.

Syed Ahmad Shaheed (1786-1831), a Muslim activist from India against the Sikhs in the Punjab, is buried in the town.

He set up an Islamic state there in the 1830s that British Intelligence described at the time as being “Wahhabi.”

Syed Ahmad Shaheed was influenced by the teachings of Shah Waliullah (1703-1762), an Islamic reformer and founder of modern Islamic thought in India. He was credited with propagating the Madrassa (religious school) of Hadith (account of the Prophet’s deeds and sayings) and Tawhid (oneness of God).

Waliullah arrived in the Hijaz on a pilgrimage in 1724 and stayed there for eight years studying Hadith and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

In Medina, he became a schoolmate of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. The pair studied under Sheikh Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi, a prominent Muslim scholar, chancellor of al-Masjid al-Nabawi and Chief Justice of Medina, who instilled in them the principles of Tawhid (oneness of God), shunning fads, following the Salaf (first generation of Muslims, including the Prophet’s companions) and the establishment of God’s Sharia on earth through Da’wah (preaching of Islam) and Jihad.

Each returned to his country to change the course of history.

Waliullah’s disciples did not only spread the concept of monotheism in Islam, but they turned out to be a thorn in the side of the British for decades by preaching Jihad.

It seems British Intelligence officers in Basra and Bombay compared their respective reports and ended labeling followers of Waliullah and his disciple Syed Ahmad “Wahhabis” because they shared the adherence of their counterparts in the Arabian Peninsula to the purity of Islam and their passion for Jihad.

But great ideas are often trashed by overzealous followers lacking experience and wisdom.

After Syed Ahmad succeeded in turning the Pashtun tribes into Mujahideen, he endeared to them an Islam, which is unadulterated by fads and myths. He had them uphold Sharia instead of Pashtuwali, which the non-written ethical code and traditional lifestyle that the indigenous Pashtun people follow.

At the same time, he set up in that remote part of India an Islamic state after defeating the Sikhs and their army there. He thus entered Peshawar victorious in 1830 amid a warm welcome from its people and tribal elders.

Syed Ahmad did not stay there long.

After spending a few celebratory weeks, he appointed a deputy leader, Mullah Mazhar Ali, and retreated to his mountain stronghold among the Pashtun tribes. Inside two months, Mazhar Ali squandered all what Syed Ahmad achieved over a decade by antagonizing the Peshawar region’s population.

For several months in 1830, Syed Ahmad tried to conciliate established power hierarchies, but before the end of 1830 an organized uprising occurred and his close aides in Peshawar and plain villages were murdered and his Islamic movement retreated to the hills.

Syed Ahmad was killed in Balakot by the Sikh army in 1831.

Thus a genuine liberation and religious reform movement was defeated because of a few follies.

History always repeats itself.

Why this long story?

The reason is none other than the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” organization, better known by its Arabic acronym DAESH, and what it is doing to the Syrian revolution now passing through its darkest moments since its outbreak two-and-a-half years ago.

As soon as it joined the fray, DAESH looked down at all the other rebel organizations. It haughtily asked all of them to obey its Emir, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who insists on remaining incognito and never received a pledge of allegiance in a public place.

Let no one believe that DAESH’s use of the word “state” in the organization’s name or the designation of its leader as “Emir al-Mu’minin” (leader of the faithful) express a whim or a lust for power.

In effect, it is an abbreviation contrived by DAESH to win recognition of its juridical rule. In other words, a “victorious sect” is demanding the loyalty of every Muslim who is aware of its existence and is mindful of the designation of its Emir by its faithful.

Accordingly, the group’s argument goes, the Muslim should pay allegiance or obedience to DAESH or be sentenced to death as an alien breaking away from the congregation.

From Egypt to Syria, it is the season of Fatwas (or legal judgments) concerning Takfir (the practice of one Muslim declaring another an unbeliever) and murder.

While rebel commanders have been forced to accommodate DAESH on the ground, having been starved of cash and weapons, and now that people realize the alternative to DAESH is the Syrian regime, voices criticizing the group are growing louder by the day.

One preacher called DAESH fighters “outsiders” who needed to be eradicated before retractin, saying his words were taken out of context.

The preacher in question can’t be blamed. DAESH’s reach is long and rough. It also has links to hardliners living in our midst who often justify its actions and intimidate its critics.

Time is bound change all that. A few months ago the media was describing Jabhat al-Nusra as a prototype of extremism and an offshoot of al-Qaeda. Politicians were warning against it and the Americans were using it as a scarecrow not to arm the rebels.

Today, Jabhat al-Nusra looks like a guardian angel compared to DAESH.

Jabhat al-Nusa has even consolidated its relations with moderate Islamist rebel groups such as the Tawheed and Ahrar al-Sham brigades, which since their inception opposed suicide operations and the targeting of minorities.

It is only a matter of time before DAESH takes on these moderate Islamist organizations.

DAESH is akin to the Emir of Peshawar, who squandered years of hard work with his follies and Fatwas.

DAESH is the group that will bring nothing but ruin to Syria’s people and neighbors. It will bring nothing but ruin wherever it roosts, including Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, the sub-Saharan desert, Yemen and Somalia.

Could an apolitical religious summit bring together the Islamic nation’s God-fearing scholars to blackball DAESH and its Khawarij (outsiders) and rebuild the true moral code and religious law of Islam?

I doubt!

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.