Friends of Syria Core Group -- Final Communiqué

Led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, foreign ministers from 11 countries meeting in Doha cited the presence of foreign fighters in Syria and the use of chemical weapons by Damascus in agreeing Saturday to increase arms shipments to the rebels.

The ministers said in a joint statement they would "provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies and protect the Syrian people."

Full text of their final communiqué:

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar and the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and the United States, met after Rome, Istanbul and Amman in Doha on 22 June 2013 to discuss developments in Syria. After the peace initiative announced by Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry, Bashar al-Assad, Iran and Hezbollah launched military operations against the people of Syria. The Ministers expressed their concern about this offensive calculated to change the situation on the ground to the determent of the peace initiative.

The Ministers expressed their concern about the growing sectarian nature of the conflict in Syria, and the radicalizing risks that accompany such developments to regional and international stability and security. In this regard, the Ministers condemn the intervention of Hezbollah militias and fighters from Iran and Iraq in Syria, who are aiding Syrian regime repression against the Syrian people in locales like Qusayr, Aleppo and Ghouta and other parts of Syrian territory. These actions threaten the unity of Syria, broaden the conflict across the border threatening further militarization that undermines the Geneva initiative and inflame the entire region. The Ministers demand that these fighters leave Syria immediately and called on Hezbollah and the government of Iran to immediately effect such a withdrawal and to take steps to stop sectarian tensions.

In direct response to Assad’s actions and in furtherance of the goal of convening the Geneva conference, the Ministers agreed to take urgent practical steps to support the Syrian opposition. The Ministers welcome the upcoming meeting of the Syrian Opposition Coalition at which they will endorse the completion of their expansion and will elect their leadership so that they will be able to implement their vision for a peaceful, prosperous, unified and sovereign Syria.

The Ministers reviewed the joint statements adopted by the Istanbul meeting on 20 April 2013, and the Amman meeting on 22 May 2013, which note that, in case the allegations that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people prove true, there will be severe consequences. In light of confirmation by France, the UK, the US and other countries about the use of chemical weapons in several areas by the regime, the Ministers call on the regime to allow access to the UN investigating team mandated by UN Secretary General to conduct an investigation into reported use of Chemical Weapons.

In light of all of the above developments, the Ministers have agreed the following actions to change the balance of power on the ground:

• To provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies and protect the Syrian people. In this context, the Ministers direct concerned parties to take all necessary practical measures
• To channel all military support by the relevant countries through the Staff Chairmanship of the Syrian Supreme Military Council.
• The crossing of fighters and militias, who support the regime and are involved in military activities and operations in the Syrian territory, must be prevented.
• To pursue all appropriate avenues in the UN to support and protect the Syrian people.

The Ministers emphasized the need for Iraq and Lebanon to actively safeguard their borders in order to ensure that fighters and equipment do not escalate current tensions.

The Ministers supported reaching a political solution that preserves the dignity of the Syrian people, stops the Syrian bloodshed, and allows the release of prisoners and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people. The Ministers expressed readiness to participate in the Geneva II meeting to fully implement the outcomes of the Geneva I meeting in order to achieve the aspirations and hopes of the Syrian people, preserve the territorial integrity of Syria and promote national unity among all components of the Syrian national fabric. The Ministers affirmed their prior commitments in the previous meetings in favor of negotiations, which would lead to the establishment of a transitional governing body to which full executive powers would be transferred, including military and security institutions, that excludes the central figures and associates whose hands are stained with blood. In this context, Bashar al-Assad has no role in the transitional governing body or thereafter.

The Ministers stressed the responsibility of those with influence over the regime to end the violence and secure a negotiated political solution on the basis of the Geneva communiqué.

The Ministers reaffirm their strong concern over the increasing presence and growing radicalism of the conflict and terrorist elements in Syria -- a matter that deepens the concerns for the future of Syria, threatens the security of neighboring countries and risks destabilizing the wider region and the world.

The Ministers expressed their deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Syria, and called upon the international community to shoulder its responsibilities by taking urgent and tangible actions to alleviate the Syrian people’s suffering. In this context, the Ministers called for cross-border humanitarian access and agreed to consider further possibilities to ensure the flow of humanitarian assistance to the whole Syrian territory, and be delivered to all needy Syrians. The Ministers commended the efforts of the Assistance Coordination Unit of the Coalition (ACU) for its work in helping communities inside Syria and its role in facilitating humanitarian assistance.

The Ministers urged the international community to fulfill its commitments and go beyond by increasing financial support to the neighboring countries hosting Syrian refugees to enable them to address their increasing humanitarian needs, taking into account that the issue of refugees is addressed through appropriate means and procedures in accordance with the principles of burden sharing.

The Ministers agreed to continue to collaborate and coordinate in order to assist the Syrian people.

“You’re not helping me cast out sectarian bigotry”

Saudi national flag (top) and a Shiite banner 

By Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia’s authoritative political analyst, author and kingpin of the impending Al Arab TV news channel, writing in Arabic today for the mass circulation newspaper al-Hayat

If we were to map out Syrian regime supporters, we would regrettably find them mirroring the minority Shiite population’s distribution in the Muslim world.

In this, we are excepting a few voices heard here and there.

Among them, for instance, are Shiite intellectuals in Lebanon issuing a statement, or Hezbollah defectors going live on Arab TV networks, to declare the party does not represent them.

Or to express concern their community is being dragged into a sectarian conflict for which they would have to pay in a predominantly Sunni environment representing most of the Ummah.

The aforesaid exceptions prove, rather than undermine, the premise.

On the fringes of this Shiite landmass stretching from Iran to Iraq and Lebanon, there are in Arab capitals tiny and hardly discernible patches of nationalist intellectuals, Nasserite politicians, or Baathists rooting for Bashar al-Assad.

They also parrot the theory of an American-Zionist conspiracy aimed at undermining the bastion of contrariety and resistance and the ultimate Arab army.

Like the Shiite fundamentalists shepherding the Shiite general public to back Syria’s regime, they do not see the limpid, unobstructed and good-sized “banner of freedom” the Syrian people have been raising for more than two years.

But they clearly notice the Takfiris, the eaters of human organs and the suicides.

They make these out to be the Syrian Revolution, which at heart is nationalist, Islamist, moderate, broad-based and genuinely representative of all spectrums of the Syrian population.

Yes, there are Takfiris linked to al-Qaeda and to hardline Salafist currents fighting in Syria.

True, they are motivated by their hatred of Shiism, modernism and all “The Other.”

They don’t strive for democracy or a modern civil state in which all Syrians are equal.

They can’t be part of a Syrian national body politic, whether headed by a turbaned sheikh or its current leader George Sabra.

They are the same underground movements Syrian Intelligence used to send to Iraq, prompting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (in 2009) to press for the trial of Syria-based terrorists by a UN tribunal.

That was two or three years before the outbreak of Syria’s uprising.

The uprising saw Maliki bury old differences, switch sides, and become Bashar’s partner – a bizarre turnaround that can only be explained by sectarian motives.

Thieves, highway bandits and opportunists joined the mavericks infiltrating the Syrian revolution since revolutions don’t attract honorable people only.

But to put those in the spotlight is sheer escapism, which Bashar cheerleaders use in order to justify turning their back on a bona fide revolution against a tyrant and a repressive regime that people have been itching to bring down for decades.

Bashar’s non-Shiite disciples, on the other hand, can find an excuse for their evildoing.

For example, Lebanon’s Maronite Marada Movement thrived on the Syrian regime’s protection and was able to challenge Lebanese Maronite parties hostile to Bashar. The Marada in other words has a political, albeit contemptible, motive.

That is also the case of Lebanese Gen. Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, except that Aoun will be the first to jump ship when Hezbollah and Bashar lose out.

There are also politicians and journalists endorsing Bashar simply for cash.

In South Lebanon’s port city of Sidon, there is the Popular Nasserite Organization, which suffices with its Nasserite credentials to account for its stance.

The organization’s icon in Cairo is former presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi who doesn’t hide his affinity for Bashar.

Other than those, you hardly find in Arab capitals any Bashar partisans, except perhaps the habitués of state-run Syrian TV.

They are what I would call “Speakers’ Corner forces” or “political megaphones” with no presence on the streets or in national assemblies.

One exception perhaps is in Jordan, specifically in its al-Karak city, which is home to some members of the pan-Arab Command of the Syrian Baath Party who are now lying low in view of the circumstances.

All the tiny pockets cited above are swamped by an Arab torrent sympathetic to the Syrian people.

Taking a second look at the Shiite landmass in our midst, we come up against a cohesive bloc ready to fight and die on Bashar’s side.

That’s what Hassan Nasrallah did in Qusayr and is still doing elsewhere in Syria.

Likewise, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is propping up the Syrian regime with arms and oil and allowing Iraqi Shiite volunteers to stream into Damascus. He is very familiar with the regime they will be fighting for.

These volunteers include politicians and clerics entrusted with the task of exonerating crimes committed by Shiites against their Sunni brothers.

A Kuwaiti parliamentarian has also openly defended and backed the interventions.

The sectarian commitment we are seeing is both unparalleled and alarming.

Even the Marjas (or highest authority on religious laws in Shiite Islam) who regularly issue fatwas and opinions have fallen silent.

They neither spoke in the revolution’s favor nor denounced the Shiites’ intervention in favor of the offender.

In my country, Saudi Arabia, the Shiite religious scholars and dignitaries kept mum on happenings in Syria.

They seem perturbed when asked, “What’s your position on the affront of the century that has seen the death so far of 100,000 Syrian Muslims?”

One cleric mouthed off: “Are we supposed to issue a statement on each occurrence? It’s a sedition and we’re distancing ourselves from it.”

My Shiite friend wanted to be amiable. He wrote to me saying, “I sympathize with the Syrian people. They deserve better than the regime killing them. But they also merit other than the Free Syrian Army.”

He probably believes he made me a big concession by saying what he did.

My answer is this: “My friend, I don’t want to be sectarian. I hate my growing sectarian penchant. But you’re not helping me.”

Syria: Will Obama’s key women make a difference?

From L., Obama, Power, Dilon and Rice (White House photo by Pete Souza)

Would the two women named to major national security posts this month by Barack Obama eventually convince the president of America’s “Responsibility to Protect” the Syrian people – by military means if necessary?

Praising their “integrity and their heart” on June 5, Obama elevated Susan Rice to National Security Advisor and nominated Samantha Power as American ambassador to the United Nations.

The two are veterans of his 2008 campaign and have strong personal relationships with the president.

But a third woman doubts whether the two prominent advocates of liberal interventionism could prod into action a president who has persistently resisted intervening in Syria’s ongoing human rights disaster.

The third woman is Marah Buqai, a Syrian American academic researcher, professor and published poet who was nominated by the Middle East Forum’s Campus Watch project as one of the most thoughtful and balanced scholars among the Middle East Studies faculties in North America.

Writing this week for Aljazeera news portal, Ms Buqai makes three main observations:

(1) Ms Rice is the voice for humanitarian intervention, which going to war not for imminent national-security needs but to save innocent lives. As the ambassador to the UN, she pushed through the March 17, 2011 Security Council vote of 10-0 to take “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. Rice was a staffer at the National Security Council in 1994 when the world failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda. A participant in deliberations on the crisis, she later said the White House failed to see the larger moral imperative to act and later told her friend Ms Power, a Harvard scholar at the time and now her likely successor at the UN, "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."

(2) For Ms. Power, who has also leaned toward intervention and made her name as a journalist covering the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia was a formative experience. In her 2002 Pulitzer Prize book “A Problem from Hell,” she presented a history of genocide in the 20th Century and a withering critique of the failure of the United States and other countries to respond to them.

(3) Australia’s international policymaker and former politician Gareth J. Evans is the godfather of the Responsibility to Protect concept. “The core idea of the Responsibility to Protect (often abbreviated as 'R2P' or 'RtoP'), as endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit, Wikipedia writes on Evans’ profile page, “is that every state has the Responsibility to Protect its population from genocide and other mass atrocity crimes; the international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own; and that if the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene with appropriate measures, with coercive military intervention, approved by the UN Security Council, available as a last resort. The concept was expressly designed to supersede the idea of 'humanitarian intervention', which had failed to generate any international consensus about how to respond to the 1990s catastrophes of Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.

“Evans has been widely acknowledged as playing a crucial role in initiating, and advocating the international acceptance of, the concept, first as Co-Chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which introduced the expression in its 2001 report of that name, and subsequently as a member of the UN Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Co-Chair of the Advisory Board of the Global Centre on the Responsibility to Protect, and as the author of the Brookings Institution-published The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All and many other published works…”

Ms Buqai writes in her think piece, “In May 2012, I handed Ms Rice at her State Department office a legal memorandum outlining the case for the Responsibility to Protect civilians in Syria.

“Today, as Ms Rice prepares to assume her new and influential role as National Security Advisor, it is a national duty to take up where we had left and revisit the case of the Responsibility to Protect civilians in Syria.”

Buqai says the policy legacy of Tom Donilon, the man Ms Rice will be replacing, is the Obama Administration’s shift in priorities from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the fast-growing economies of Asia.

The substantial shift in focus from the Middle East and South Asia toward Asia proper could live on after Donilon’s departure.

Can the two newcomers make a big difference when Obama’s own presidential priorities do not include getting involved in another Middle East war?

Probably not, Buqai says.

“The most America will be doing now is drag the two sides to the conflict – a fading opposition and a keyed up regime – to the negotiating table, where the Syrian revolution would be nipped in the bud.”

Putin-Assad twosome comes out on top

G8 Superstar Vladimir Putin

The Vladimir Putin-Bashar al-Assad alliance emphatically won yesterday’s G8 summit finals in Northern Ireland, according to Abdelbari Atwan.

The publisher/editor-in-chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi writes in Arabic this morning:

Proof the Russian president came out on top at the G8 meeting is corroborated by three peculiarities in the summit’s final statement on Syria, namely:

1. Absence of any explicit and unambiguous call on his partner Assad to stand down as the sine qua non of a political solution to the Syria crisis.
2. Strong endorsement of Geneva-2, where the Syrian regime will be represented by Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem. This translates into recognition of the regime’s legitimacy.
3. A commitment by the G8 leaders to fight and destroy Islamic extremist groups affiliated to al-Qaeda or other Muslim Jihadist organizations.

Thus, after a 26-month uprising and over 100,000 chiefly innocent Syrian fatalities, G8 leaders agree with Assad that he is fighting armed gangs.

This conclusion must have shocked and shaken the armed Syrian opposition, its supporters and its sponsors, especially the Gulf Arab states.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, one of the most ardent Western advocates of arming the Syrian opposition, said, “Yes, there are elements of the Syrian opposition that are deeply unsavory, that are very dangerous, very extremist, and I want nothing to do with them.

“I'd like them driven out of Syria; they're linked to al-Qaeda. But there are elements of the Syrian opposition who want to see a free, democratic, pluralistic Syria that respects the rights of minorities, including Christians, and we should be working with them...

“We have to learn the lessons of Iraq by ensuring the key institutions of the state are maintained through the transition and there is no vacuum.”

Cameron used two very indicative expressions – drive out Islamic extremists and avoid a political vacuum.

The question that begs an answer is this: Who would drive out the extremists and how? The Free Syrian Army under the command of Chief of Staff Gen. Salim Idriss, who was picked by the U.S, and the West as sole conduit of arms aid to opposition forces? Given the arms and funds, the man is presumably prepared to do the job. Gulf countries can chip in and provide both.

Cameron’s suggestion of ridding Syria of extremists is easier said than done, if not impossible in the foreseeable future. The Jihadists groups already have a pervasive presence in Syrian opposition ranks.

Assad told the German premier daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an interview published on the eve of the G8 summit: “My current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave.

“I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in a lifeboat!

“If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum.”

A Russian president like Putin, who keeps saying he won’t allow a no-fly zone over Syria and he will continue arms shipment to Damascus, backs Assad.

An American president with trembling knees, who was stung by two defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and half or quarter of a victory in Libya, backs the Syrian opposition.

Isn’t Assad justified to relax and stretch his legs?

For the nth time, their Western and Arab “friends” have duped the Syrian people.

G8 leaders agree laughable Syria statement

G8 leaders issued a closing statement on the second and final day of their summit in Northern Ireland backing calls for Syria peace talks in Geneva "as soon as possible."


The UK's David Cameron said leaders had "overcome fundamental differences,” but there was no timetable for the Geneva talks or mention of Bashar al-Assad's future role.

The Kremlin refused to support any statement making Assad's removal from power an explicit goal.

Answering one of his final questions, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said Western states should think "very carefully" before arming the Syrian opposition.

He mentioned the recent fatal stabbing of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London, comparing "many" of the Syrian rebels to the perpetrators.

"We fulfill legal contracts" delivering weapons to Assad, Putin said, adding non-government Syrian groups should not be supplied with arms.

French President Francois Hollande said it's necessary to give the Syrian opposition all the support it needs -- humanitarian, material, and political -- whilst weeding out "terrorist" elements.

He said Putin accepted participating in discussions about Syria in order to try to find joint positions, including the need for an enquiry into the use of chemical weapons.

The French leader said the proposed Geneva conference "could happen within a short period of time" and it represents a chance for a political transition. It was in Putin’s interests to make the Geneva peace conference on Syria happen, he said.

Here is what the G8 leaders said on Syria in their final statement:

Foreign Policy

82. We are determined to work together to stop the bloodshed and loss of life in Syria and to support the Syrian people to establish peace and stability through political means. We are gravely concerned at the appalling human tragedy that the UN estimates has cost the lives of over 93,000 people and led to 4.2 million internally displaced persons and 1.6 million refugees. We acknowledge the vital humanitarian role played by neighboring countries hosting Syrian refugees, above all Lebanon and Jordan, in dealing with the significant economic and security pressures they are facing as a result of the conflict and refugee influx. 

83. Given the extraordinary humanitarian need as reflected in the latest UN appeal for $5.2 billion in 2013, we are resolved to make exceptional contributions commensurate with the scale of the problem. At this meeting G8 Leaders confirmed additional contributions of almost $1.5 billion to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and its neighbors. We recognize that further contributions will be needed given the scale of the challenge. We urge other countries and organizations to make similar commitments. We call for aid agencies to be given immediate access to provide humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need, in accordance with humanitarian principles and international law, particularly in the worst affected areas such as Qusayr. 

84. We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.  We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva Conference on Syria to implement fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, which sets out a number of key steps  beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. As the Geneva Communiqué says, the public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However all governmental institutions and state offices must perform according to professional and human rights standards, operating under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body. 

85. Both sides at the Conference must engage seriously and constructively. They should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation. We will engage actively with the parties in order to achieve successful outcomes.  

86. We are deeply concerned by the growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria, and also by the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict.  Syria must belong to all Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organizations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other non-state actors linked to terrorism.  We will support UN planning for Syria’s transition, recovery, and reconstruction needs, in particular by maintaining continuity of state institutions during transition and helping to ensure that the security forces are effective, accountable and able to deal with the threat of terrorism and extremism. 

87. We condemn any use of chemical weapons in Syria and call on all parties to the conflict to allow access to the UN investigating team mandated by the UN Secretary-General, and drawing on the expertise of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and World Health Organization (WHO), in order to conduct an objective investigation into reports of use of chemical weapons. The UN team should make their report and deliver it to the UN Security Council for their assessment. We are determined that those who may be found responsible for the use of chemical weapons will be held accountable.  We emphasize the need for the secure and safe storage of all chemical weapons in Syria, pending their destruction under international verification. We also condemn in the strongest possible terms all human rights violations and abuses in Syria, committed by anyone, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians. We call on all sides to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, noting the particular responsibility of the Syrian authorities in this regard.

(…)

Obama and Putin: We remain at odds on Syria

Chilly body language on display

Prospects of agreement between the American and Russian presidents on how to end the Syria war dimmed dramatically at the G8 meeting in Northern Ireland.

Speaking after their face-to-face talks, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin said they failed to find common ground on Syria.

Correspondents say both leaders looked tense as they addressed journalists afterwards, with Putin staring at the floor as he spoke about Syria and Obama only glancing occasionally at the Russian leader.

Putin said:

"We also spoke about problem spots on the planet, including Syria. And, of course, our opinions do not coincide, but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria, to stop the growth of victims, and to solve the situation peacefully, including by bringing the parties to the negotiations table in Geneva. We agreed to push the parties to the negotiations table."

In Obama's words:

"With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they're neither used nor are they subject to proliferation; and that we want to try to resolve the issue through political means, if possible. And so we have instructed our teams to continue to work on the potential of a Geneva follow-up to the first meeting."

The chilly bilateral meeting between the two leaders ended with a stiff exchange of diplomatic pleasantries.

Obama tried to lighten the mood by joking about their favorite sports. He cited Putin's expertise in judo and "my declining skills in basketball." Then he added, "And we both agree that as you get older, it takes more time to recover."

Putin cracked a brief smile before adding an awkward admission of the tension: "The president wants to relax me with his statement."

In a sign of the tensions, the French president, François Hollande, criticized Russia for sending weapons to Assad's forces and considering deliveries of a sophisticated missile system. "How can we allow that Russia continues to deliver arms to the Assad regime when the opposition receives very few – and is being massacred?" he asked.

BBC News posted today two excellent eye-openers on the G8 meeting and Syria.

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North America editor, writing just as Obama and Putin prepared to meet, had this comment:

This was a tale of two President Barack Obamas, the one with high dreams and the one who must deal with grubby realities.

In the Belfast hall there was some of the old excitement. As the crowd waited for Mr. Obama to appear, the rather staid dignitaries in the upper gallery performed a Mexican wave, to the delight of the school children in the audience.

Here, he still has some lingering rock star status. His words were lofty, serious and inspirational. He told the young people that many around the world looked to Northern Ireland as an example of how to make peace.

He urged them not to rest there but to break down more walls, heal more wounds. There is a feeling here that peace has become so entrenched, so normal that many are content to accept the gains and not try to improve the two communities.

This is the president as the inspirer-in-chief.

It reminded me of his speech in Israel. That was a more important moment, but similar in that he was exhorting young people to reach for their better selves over the heads of bickering politicians, using his own background and America's civil rights struggle as an example of what can be achieved.

It is where cynics think, "What a president he would make! Oh, hang on, he already is."

For this was surely an opportunity missed.

He was talking about ending conflict and bringing peace, yet he still has not talked about the biggest conflict in the world today -- Syria.

He has made no attempt to explain his shift in policy. That is not to claim there are easy, glib answers, but he's good at complexity and this is a serious issue that needs grown-up debate.

He wants to avoid getting embroiled in another Middle East war and to avoid the U.S. dictating outcomes in the region, but he doesn't want Syria to spiral further into chaos or President Bashar al-Assad to continue in power.

His meeting with Vladimir Putin will be interesting, because the Russian president knows what he wants and says it.

At the moment the U.S. and the UK look irresolute -- talking about increasing help to the rebels without spelling out what they are doing, talking about a diplomatic solution when none is in sight.

Russia, on the other hand, appears firm, arguing a no-fly zone would be illegal, and that backing the legitimate government and selling arms to them should be behavior beyond reproach.

The president's rhetoric may inspire school children, but it is unlikely to melt Mr. Putin.

Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, wrote earlier:

What we used to call the West finds itself in a pretty strange place when it comes to Syria and Vladimir Putin knows it.

Speaking at Downing Street the Russian president was completely unapologetic for arming the Syrian government -- it was quite legal he said -- and looked unimpressed when his host, the prime minister, called President Assad a "murderous dictator".

The renewed talk of arming the rebels was meant to put pressure on Putin so that he would, in turn, pressurize the Syrian regime to agree to peace talks. Here's why that strategy may not work.

The U.S. president talks of supplying the rebels with arms but shows little sign of wanting to do so whilst the British prime minister sounds positively enthusiastic about sending weapons but cannot persuade his own government, let alone parliament, to do so.

There is a stark contrast in the way the U.S. and the UK have talked about this issue. Last week it fell to a relatively lowly U.S. figure to announce America's change of policy.

He did it in words so vague and ambiguous that some in the U.S. administration briefed that it might mean a no-fly zone and the supply of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles whilst others suggested it meant only small arms and ammunition. We still don't know the answer. We still haven't heard from the president himself.

Compare that with the words of David Cameron almost two weeks ago. Speaking to the House of Commons on 3rd June the prime minister condemned "those who argue against ... doing more to support the opposition" as "making some of the same arguments used in the Bosnian conflict 20 years ago."

He went on "we were told then, as we are now, that taking action would have bad consequences, but not taking action is a decision too, and in Bosnia it led to the slaughter of up to 200,000 people and did not stop the growth of extremism and radicalization, but increased it. We should be clear, however, about the nature of what is happening in Syria today. It is not just a tragedy for Syria; it could end up being a tragedy for us, too, if we do not handle it properly."

For months Cameron has been trying to do to Obama what Tony Blair did to Bill Clinton over Bosnia in the late 90s -- to persuade America that it must intervene and that there can be no hope for peace talks if it doesn't.

The prime minister sees Bashar Assad as a modern day equivalent of Slobodan Milosevic -- in other words a dictator who must be shown that "he cannot fight his way to victory or use the talks to buy more time to slaughter (people) in their own homes and on their streets."

The irony is that Cameron, unlike Blair, cannot deliver military support himself. That's why the prime minister found himself having to strike a very different tone when he told SKY News: "I think where we can actually give the greatest assistance to the official proper Syrian opposition, is advice, is training and is technical support" - and not weapons.

His deputy Nick Clegg made the coalition's position plain when he told the BBC that "we don't believe it (arming the rebels) is the right thing to do at the moment."

No wonder the Russian president is not budging. He faces a British prime minister who cannot do what he believes in and an American president who doesn't show much sign of believing in what he's apparently committed to doing.

Rohani, the guardian jurist and Iran’s key

Two days before winning Iran's presidential vote earlier this week, reformist-backed cleric Hassan Rohani gave a glimpse of his plans if elected.

He was answering questions emailed to him by the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat.

Here are some of his salient remarks:

• Decisions on major foreign policy issues constitutionally require the support of the supreme leader... If elected, I expect to receive the same support and trust from the supreme leader on initiatives and measures I adopt to advance our foreign policy agenda.
• Nuclear weapons have no role in Iran’s national security doctrine, and therefore Iran has nothing to conceal. But in order to move towards the resolution of Iran’s nuclear dossier, we need to build both domestic consensus and global convergence and understanding through dialogue… The P5+1 can be one channel for such negotiations, provided that they are prepared to be a vehicle for understanding and resolution of the issue rather than a tool for procrastination and political blackmail.
• In my view, and in order to find a fair and generally agreed solution, Iran can play a mediatory role between the Syrian government and those in the opposition who strive for democracy and good governance… The year 2014 is very important, as President Assad’s term of office expires. A genuine election, free from foreign intervention and subversion, and the establishment of an elected government could restore stability and security in Syria.
• If elected, improving and expanding relations with neighboring countries at all levels is a major priority in my future administration. Iran shares borders with fifteen countries over land and sea. All of them are important for us. On your question regarding Saudi Arabia, I plan to reverse the recently exacerbated [and] unfortunate rivalry between the two countries into mutual respect and mutually beneficial arrangements and cooperation to enhance security and restore stability in the region.
• If elected, I will do my best to secure the release of those who have been incarcerated following the regrettable events of 2009. I know that the constitutional powers of the president in Iran do not extend to the areas outside the realm of the executive branch of the system. However, I am quite optimistic that I can muster the necessary domestic consensus to improve the present situation of Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi.
• The Iran–US relationship is a complex and difficult issue. A bitter history, filled with mistrust and animosity, marks this relationship. It has become a chronic wound whose healing is difficult but possible, provided that good faith and mutual respect prevail…

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat, writes in Arabic today of “Rohani, the Guardian Jurist and the Key.” In his view:

Hassan Rohani did well to have chosen the image of a key to symbolize his presidential campaign. The doors are shut and the horizon is blocked.

He perhaps wanted the symbol to rekindle the optimism of the generation of young Iranians who no more suffice with blowing the coals of the Islamic Revolution and denouncing Great Satan.

Caution – and lots of it -- is imperative when writing about Iran.

The Persian carpet of democracy was diligently woven under the cloak of the Guardian Jurist. The carpet knots are so fine that they block out yarns and threads. Islamic Revolution institutions tolerate differences in detail, not in substance.

Suppression of the Green Movement was emphatic. Iran’s spring was nipped in the bud before spring winds uprooted others.

Hassan Rohani is a legitimate son of the Iranian revolution.

He joined Khomeini as he prepared his homecoming to overthrown the Shah’s regime.

He explored the Islamic Republic’s corridors of power in parliament, in councils and in the army, information and national security dossiers.

He knitted a strong relationship with Hashemi Rafsanjani and won the confidence of Mohammad Khatami who chose him as his chief nuclear negotiator with the West.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s two terms of office were long and taxing.

True, they secured Iran “conquests” in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Equally true, they ended as they did, with economic sanctions squeezing Iran financially, the national currency falling to record lows, unemployment soaring to new highs, confrontations escalating and isolation mounting.

Rohani, as the regime’s scion, is aware the president is not the policy-maker on nuclear and foreign policy matters.

The tenet is unambiguous: the key sits in the Guardian Jurist’s drawer.

There is no point describing the economic situation. The Internet is replete with figures of losses. Tension with the West is evident. Iran has to pump huge amounts of cash to allow its ally in Damascus to soldier on with the war. The fact Hezbollah joined the fray adds to the political and economic burdens.

Iran looks like having rushed into a life-or-death battle, risking all its credit.

None of the aforesaid is blown out of proportion. Iran’s isolation is blatant.

The Sunni-Shiite rift risks cordoning off Iran with walls and fences. Some believe Iran expanded more than its economy could afford, mirroring the mistake committed by the now-defunct Soviet Union.

The triumph at the ballot box of a president with the attributes of rationality, realism and moderation undoubtedly polished the regime’s image, which was badly tarnished by its plunge into the Syria war.

Rohani knows this and is aware of what the regime did to Khatami, and to Rafsanjani before him.

But the situation today is more intricate and threatening.

Iran was never as cut off as it is today. Continuing to tread the current path is fraught with security, political and economic risks. And reneging previous commitments could mean drinking a second poisoned chalice, if not more.

Faced with this grim reality, Hassan Rohani chose the image of a key to symbolize his presidential campaign. He fought the presidential battle and came out on top in the first round. The remarks he made to Iranian TV after his victory confirm his intentions; “It was the triumph of wisdom, moderation, growth and awareness over extremism and fanaticism.”

He dwelt on hope and new openings, except that the test won’t be long in coming.

Can the Iranian president use the key or is he simply the senior employee in the Guardian Jurist’s office?

Did the Guardian Jurist admit the regime needs to open a window or will the hardliners quickly remind Rohani doors can’t be opened except with the Guardian Jurist’s key?

We have to wait to witness Rohani’s style, the key’s fate and the new demarcation lines between the hardliners and the temple guards.

But the dark clouds gathering over the region might not afford Rohani the luxury of a calm search for the key and the opportunity to use his mandate.

We could awaken one day to the heat of a major wildfire.