Cynics in Syria

Even as Kofi Annan, the peace envoy from the Arab League and UN was meeting with President Assad in Damascus in late March, Syrian army shelled the northern town of Idlib, and continued its bloody siege of Homs.

Al, how many have you "pacified" today?

Last Thursday the U.N. statement raised the possibility of "further steps" if Syria doesn't implement the six-point peace plan outlined by Kofi Annan, who is also the previous UN Secretary General. Syria has agreed to accept Annan's peace plan on March 25th. It has promised to "immediately" start pulling troops out of protest cities on April 2nd. When the UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan announced the latest Assad's promise, Western nations quickly expressed doubts that the new promises would be kept.

They were right. In recent days, instead of preparing for a withdrawal, troops of the Syrian dictator al Assad have stepped up shelling attacks on residential areas, killing dozens of civilians every day in what the opposition described as a frenzied rush to gain ground. With the deadline looming, Syrian troops on Sunday pounded restive regions in the north and center of the country a day after activists said more than 100 people were killed across Syria.

"Mortar rounds are falling like rain," said activist Tarek Badrakhan, describing an assault in the central city of Homs on Sunday. He spoke via Skype as explosions were heard in the background. The regime is exploiting the truce plan "to kill and commit massacres," he said.

The Syrian regime scuttled the peace process, once again opting for lies to gain time. What will the UN do? The lives of Syrian civilians are on the line, as well as the credibility of UN itself.

Annan said in a statement on Sunday that "the present escalation of violence is unacceptable." What is truly unacceptable is for a joker like Annan to be charged with such a serious mission. After the failure of Arab League's observers in Syria to halt regime's violence, it was clear that only a tough and credible negotiator stood any chance of getting Assad to follow through on his promises.

Annan confronts the price of his failure in Rwanda.

Recall that Kofi Annan was implicated in helping Saddam Hussein violated the oil embargo. "Oil for food" panel rebuked Annan and mentioned corruption. Lastly, the genocide in Rwanda that resulted in a million deaths, happened when Annan was the head of peacekeeping at the UN. Was Annan planning to tell Assad: "While I failed a civilian population from the continent of my own birth, I plan to redeem himself by doing everything possible to ensure the safety of Syrian civilians."

Annan had no business going to Syria as a UN envoy unless he was prepared to say the above. I don't see that type of humanity fueled by humility in Annan. More importantly, it would not sound plausible to Assad. So, this entire expedition was a charade. A tacit agreement between UN and Syria to buy time. The Syrian government has been buying time for over a year, while the UN needs to appear to be attempting to do its job by resolving a rebellion with a negotiated settlement.

The UN's behavior is, therefore, disgraceful. Businessweek just wrote that UN faces a day of reckoning with it's delaying tactics. The scuttling of the Annan's deal was just the latest promise not to be kept by the Assad regime, so why was the UN playing into the hands of a pathological liar?

Just as Annan complained Sunday that the escalation was "unacceptable," Syria said its acceptance of the Annan deal last week was misunderstood and suggested it would not be able to withdraw its troops under current conditions, while killing another hundred.

Assad regime delayed the arrival of observers from the Arab League, then denied their purpose, in a similar way he played Annan. Assad toyed with the Arab League's demands, in the end all they got were lies intended to stall the Arab and Western opposition to his dictatorial rule.

Another fine example of Syrian behavior occurred during a recent "referendum"Syrian artillery pounded rebel-held areas of Homs as President Bashar al-Assad's government announced that voters had overwhelmingly approved a new constitution in a referendum derided as a sham by his critics at home and abroad.

The verdict the some regions there was unanimous: the box "in favor" (of the government) was circled, the box "opposed" was not. 

Those who are opposed were getting their just deserts -- the Syrian artillery has pounded restive voters for almost three weeks in Homs, killing hundreds. The bombardment of Homs was almost as long as the bombardment of Hama 30 years ago, when his father killed over 10,000 to pacify that city.

Assad encourages voting in referendum...

With sad predictability, Annan's peacemaking in Syria failed. In never really had the chance. Assad's new demands of 'written guarantees' were refused by the rebels. Annan has failed again, the diversion is over -- what now? Russia is still supplying Syria with weapons, while the Iranians are helping to smuggle Syrian oil to Europe.

The civil war in Syria shows no signs of abating.

From Russia with arms

The Russian arm sales to Syria have continued despite Western protests. The photo on the right shows the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, visited Syria shortly after vetoing the proposal of UN Security Council that called for Assad to give up power in Syria. 

From Russia with lovely arms (and a veto)

What kind of arms has Russia been selling to Syria?

One of them is the most powerful mortar system in the world that fires 240 mm shells weighing nearly 300 lbs. The shells come in multiple types, including cluster munitions, with a lethal area equal to four football fields - great for crowd control.

The residents of Homs dig out fragments of large mortar shells from the rubble of their houses.

The tell-tale tail of 300 lbs mortar

240 mm mortar shell, with its distinctive tail

Origin of the shells falling on Homs is unambiguously Russian - no country makes mortar shells exceeding 160 mm. Russian army used these mortars to level Chechnya's capital Grozny in 1990's. 

Syria is known to have purchased the mobile launcher designated 2S4 "Tulip" (Tuylpan in Russian, shown below on the left). The purchase of advanced weapon systems like 2S4, S-300 anti-air rockets, and Yak-130 fighter-bombers shows that Syria has bolstering its capabilities for stand-off fighting. Because the urban fighting will not go well for Syrian army (see below on the right), it is likely to rely on the super-heavy mortars to wipe out entire neighborhoods, as Assad's father has done in Hama by shelling it for three weeks.

2S4 Tuylpan fires man-sizes projectiles

Burned-out BMP-1 in Homs 

Iran's dangerous gamble in Syria

Iran has recently decided to deploy 15,000 troops to help Syria’s dictator Assad. A prominent Syrian lawmaker said that the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force has already arrived in the country to help manage Assad’s regime brutal suppression of an 11-month-long popular unrest.

A number of news sources, including al Arabiya news channel and Jewish newspaper Haaretz have reported the Iranian intervention, but neither has called for involvement of Western or Arab powers to counterbalance the Iranian involvement or to entrap Iran in a civil war. On the other hand, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al-Qaida, has called on Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to join fight against 'pernicious, cancerous regime' of Assad.

The Arab requests for UN involvement in Syria have been stymied by Russia and China, which vetoed the latest resolution of the UN Security Council (UNSC) called for a transition to democracy in Syria. To Syrian people the impotence of the Western powers is indistinguishable from a fundamental lack of concern for human rights.

The side effect of the over-reliance of US to the UN has be to allow Al-Zawahiri, the leader of the Sunni fundamentalists of al-Qiada, to take advantage of the resulting silence of the UNSC and to claim the high moral ground. There's is another cost to this American lapse - Al-Zawahiri's call will further contribute to the increase of sectarian (Sunni-Shiite) tension. It is ironic, but many of the Sunni insurgents who were given free pass by the Syrian dictator Assad to enter Iraq to fight in a jihad against the Americans are now flooding back and joining the Free Syrian Army. These insurgents are turning the weapons and expertise against the Syrians and Iranian regimes, which first set them loose upon the Americans.

Another sign of sectarian conflict is that Sunni Hamas, which had its safe-haven in Damascus, has been forced to find another home for its headquarters. Hamas politburo chief Khalid Mashaal met Jordan king Abdullah II at the Raghadan Palace in Amman at the end of January 2012. King Abdullah refused to take Hamas back onto the Jordanian territory, from which Palestinians were forcibly ejected in late 1970's.

The religious fault-lines between the Sunni majority and the Alawite minority of the rulers in Syria, and its Shiite enablers (Hezbollah and Iran), has the potential to widen the civil war in Syria into a religious conflict that could engulf the Middle East.

Consider this headline from UK's Telegraph : "Assad's gunmen 'murder three entire families in Homs'". Islam is a major force behind the Arab Spring, and has long been of the major elements which define and separate people in the Middle East. When these people think about involvement of Iran in Syria they see them through the prism of religious terms, which I've added in italics into a quote from the article:

[Alawite and Shiite] Gunmen loyal to President Bashar al Assad murdered three entire families [of Sunni's] in Homs on the night of Ferbruary 7th, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

How should the U.S. and Europe act in this situation? To help the Syrian opposition openly, means to become responsible for its conduct, which entails problems such as those of newly liberated Libya. To remain on the sidelines, as the Obama administration has done in 2009 after the Green Revolution in Iran, when the youth protested a stolen election was clearly a lost opportunity, which further diminished the American standing in the region, in terms of both Realpolitik as moral authority. There is a middle ground, which Obama has (inappropriately) pursued in Egypt -- calling for the ouster of a brutal dictator.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of the civil war in Syria, the U.S. should be on the record doing everything possible politically to provide support to the people's right for self-determination. That Syria is becoming an Islamist country, unlike Egypt, would not be such a grave loss for the American interests in the region. Egypt's authoritarian rule was friendly to the U.S., while Syria is a key ally of Iran, and one of the main sources of volatility in the region.

Iran's support of the bloody repression of a civic uprising in Syria showcases the brutal nature of theocracy and its willingness since its inception to export violence outside its borders. The involvement of the Iranian proxy Hezbollah and especially of its handlers in Al Quds Force (a part of the are Republican guard) in helping Assad's forces to butcher his people, presents a unique opportunity for the West to reclaim the moral high ground, and the deliver a strong blow to the Iranian regime.

Iranian hand in suppression of a civil uprising in another country exposes it to similar dangers that entrapped the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Conflicts against people and ideas are much more complicated to win than conflicts against armies and governments. Syrian diaspora is a reservoir of opposition and a permanent lobby for Arab and Western support at the grass-roots levels, beyond Assad's control. Such a movement is virtually impossible to stamp out. Iran needs to prop-up Syria, but bringing in its forces into the ravaged country holds great risks for the mullahs. It is an opportunity for the Saudis and Turks, among other Sunnis, to push back against the Iranian hegemony in the region.

The West should not miss the opportunity provided by direct Iranian involvement in Syria. The former chief of Mossad Efraim Halevy, said two weeks ago that the Syrian unrest an "enormous opportunity", because "what happens in Damascus will impact all the Middle East." The same day, WSJ columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote about Syria: "It’s not just about freedom".

I would go further - the Syrian situation should be viewed by the West through the prism of national security - it is an opportunity to deliver a body blow to Iranian theocracy. It is important for the West to act in accordance with its belief in the right of people for self-determination; however, such altruism is not sufficient to warrant action by itself. Furthermore, West has a terrible record trying to transplant democracy in the Middle East (and is struggling even to maintain democracy in its own lands). The only thing the West can do is to provide a principled stance - to deny the murderous Assad's regime any legitimacy, and deliver a potentially fatal wound to the Iranian theocracy.

For the US to really take bring pressure on Assad would require the Obama administration to admit that it's hopes to turn Assad into a 'reformer' of Syria were completely naive, as was its cuddling of Russia and soft approach to Iran. The opinion of the top Republican on the Armed Services committee, Arizona Senator John McCain, that the U.S. should consider "all options including arming the opposition" did not sway the Obama administration, however. "We never take anything off the table. The president does (or) doesn't. However, as the president himself made absolutely clear and as the secretary has continued to say, we don't think more arms into Syria is the answer," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

This is the cheap defense of an equivocation trying to conceal a negative answer - the administration refused even to send medicine to the embattled Syrians.In a recent article in The Huffington Post, Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, wrote that there is a double standard in the United States' reaction to the unrest in Syria compared to Libya: "We're not doing enough." "It's clear that this administration is sitting back on its laurels in Libya, and as a result the Syrian people are paying the price for the administration's reluctance under the argument it doesn't want to militarize the situation any further. It really needs to get more involved".

'Stimulus', Iranian-style.

There is no shortage of naivete in the West, so its leaders may not wise up to the dual benefits of siding with the majority of the Syrian people in time. It's ironic, that almost exactly five years ago the Syrian dictator Assad repeated his lies about lack of involvement in facilitating terrorism in Iraq to ABC's Diane Sawyer. Assad said, "If you stoke [terrorism], it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria … So saying this [that Syria aids Iraq's insurgency], it's like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest."

The Iranian's made a great strategic mistake by getting involved in Syria, because now the Sunni insurgents have something truly worthwhile to do - save their coreligionists from butchery by apostate Shiites and Alawites. The two dictatorships will stoke the antagonism of the Sunnis and undermine their standing in the region. Fortunately, the West cannot cut any deals with either the butchering Syrians or the intransigent Iranians to muck this up.

Scandalous Russian behavior at UN

Despite the killing of more than 400 people by Syrian army on Saturday, Russia vetoed the UN resolution the same day, with China following suit. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said the resolution made too few demands of anti-government armed groups, and that Moscow remains concerned that it could prejudge the outcome of a national dialogue among political forces in Syria.

Like Father, like Son.

Before the latest round of intense negotiations at the UN, Vladimir Chizhov, Russian ambassador to the EU, said it was still "missing the most important thing: a clear clause ruling out the possibility that the resolution could be used to justify military intervention in Syrian affairs from outside". In an effort to placate Russia, UN had dropped specific references in the resolution to Mr. Assad’s ceding power and calls for a voluntary arms embargo and sanctions, and added language barring outside military intervention. However, a source close to the negotiations said that the Russians new demand was for a clause to cover all future resolutions as well. "One UN resolution cannot bind future resolutions," the source said.

Underscoring the frivolous nature of Russia position is that Syrian opposition (unlike Libyans, who opposed Gaddafi) have recently refused Western military intervention in Syria in a signed an agreement between the Syrian National Council (SNC) and National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC).

“It’s quite clear — this [Russian veto] is a license to do more of the same and worse,” said Peter Harling, an expert on Syria at the International Crisis Group. “The regime will take it for granted that it can escalate further. We’re entering a new phase that will be far more violent still than what we’ve seen now.” The veto is almost sure to embolden the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which brazenly carried out the assault on Homs on the very day that the Security Council had planned to vote. It came, too, around the anniversary of its crackdown in 1982 on another Syrian city, Hama, by Mr. Assad’s father, in which at least 10,000 people were killed in one of the bloodiest episodes in modern Arab history.

“What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked at a news conference in Munich. “To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.”

Clinton squared off over Syria with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, to whom she delivered the infamous "Reset" button almost three years ago. Responding to Lavrov, who asked, “What’s the endgame?” Clinton replied: “The endgame in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war.”

Moscow has acknowledged that the situation on the ground in Syria amounts to a civil war, but refused to act, while providing vain hope that it didn't view the resolution as “hopeless,” but in need of adjustment to avoid “taking sides in a civil war.” In fact, Russia is taking sides in a civil war - the side of murderous Assad regime. As I pointed out recently Russia has continued to supply Assad with weapons for repression, and to sign new deals. It has provided a political firewall for Assad in UN. What else could Russia do to help prop up Assad, short of sending in its own military?!

Russia earned uncommonly harsh rebuke for its behavior from the Western and nations, and Morocco, the sole (temporary) Arab nation on the UN Security Council. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said America is "disgusted" by the vote. "For months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members," Rice said. Hillary Clinton said in Munich: "Almost 30 years to the day after the infamous Hama massacre, the international community must send Assad a clear message: By repeating the horrors of Syria’s past, you have lost your place in Syria’s future. The French Ambassador Gerard Araud said Russia and China had "made themselves complicit in a policy of repression carried out by the Assad regime."

President Obama is finally waking up to reality, as well: “the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs,” saying in a statement that Assad “has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community.” He accused Syria of having “murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children.” Better late, than never.

Lavrov defended Russia's position, saying: "The problem is, the peaceful protesters have our full support, but they are being used by the armed groups, who create trouble. And this is reaching quite dangerous proportions." Lavrov said that Russia stands by the Syrian people but not the "armed groups" in Syria that he alleged were contributing to the violence. He said Russia would not agree to any resolution that amounts to outside interference or presupposes the political outcome in Syria other than supporting a dialogue between the two sides. So, Russia supports peaceful demonstrations ... being dispersed with live ammunition, tanks and mortars it continues to sell to Syria.

Russia views its brinkmanship as consistent with its responsibility as a permanent member of the UNSC: "We are not friends or allies of Assad," Lavrov protested the suggestion that Russia going to end up on the wrong side of history by supporting Assad, "We try to stick to our responsibilities as permanent members of the security council and the security council doesn't by definition engage in the internal affairs of states, it's about maintaining international peace and security." As I wrote recently Syria, which is ruled by minority Alawites (10%), has recently invited Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah to help out with repression of Syrian Sunni majority (74%). Allowing Assad to continue his repression is the most likely way to spark a wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.

Mr. Lavrov said Saturday that Moscow still had two objections: that it did not place sufficient blame for the violence on the opposition, and that it unrealistically demanded that the government withdraw its military forces back to their barracks (which Assad agreed to do in November, pursuant to the Arab League's demands). In a television interview quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency, he said that ignoring Russia’s objections would result in “another scandal.”

Allies shake hands over bodies of the dead in Homs

“The scandal is not to act,” Peter Wittig, the German ambassador to the United Nations, said. “The scandal would be failure to act.” The resolution’s Western and Arab sponsors said they had compromised enough, and pushed the measure to a vote, virtually daring Russia to exercise its veto and risk mounting international opprobrium for preventing action to stanch the escalating death toll in Syria. Russia did not disappoint in showcasing its scandalous behavior. "An angry response by American Ambassador Susan Rice reflected the frustration of the U.S. that even a diluted Resolution - which had removed all sanctions and an arms embargo - could not pass," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk. Russian intransigence seems obtuse. Why is Russia doing this?

As I suggested recently, there may be more to Russian intransigence than mere ideological support of a 'brother' dictator, and profit from sales of arms. Russia  is facing several political pressure from the West. It is likely Russia may be concerned about a possible embarrassment over it's illegal sales of WMD to Saddam in the 1990's and the transfer of remaining materials by Spetsnaz to Syria.

It may be difficult to explain Russia's behavior, but it's easy to predict it - just imagine the actions of a patron saint of dictators, with no conscience and no shame.

Russia facilitates civil repression in Syria

Arab and western governments joined forces on Tuesday to urge the UN to condemn the violent suppression of protests in Syria and to endorse a plan for President Bashar al-Assad to step aside.

Ahead of the UN meeting in New York, Gennady Gatilov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said that the draft resolution was a “path to civil war” and insisted that it would not lead to a “search for compromise”. Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, also declared that he “guarantees” Moscow will block a resolution proving military intervention in Syria, according to the Interfax news agency.

Why is Russia is refusing to back any pressure on Syria? Perhaps for the same reason it refused to sanction Iran, and provided political cover for Muammar Gaddafi - because it is a patron saint of dictators everywhere.

Russia supplied cruise missiles to Syria in December 2011. Although that deal was signed in 2007, the delivery took place many months after the start of bloody repression of a popular insurrection. Russia has similarly supplied Gaddafi with arms in deals worth billions that predated the civil war in Libya. However, Russia is not merely fulfilling its obligations in arms deals. Recently, Russia announced a new deal to provide Syria with 36 Yak-130 aircraft well-suited for ground attack of small mobile groups of the opposition. This deal is openly in defiance of international efforts to put pressure on Assad’s regime, which has faced broad condemnation for its brutal crackdown on an uprising. More than 5,600 people have died over 11-month  insurrection.

Russian technology for Syrian repression

Russia‘s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week that Moscow doesn’t consider it necessary to offer an explanation or excuses over suspicions that a Russian ship had delivered munitions to Syria despite an EU arms embargo. He told a news conference that Russia was acting in full respect of international law and wouldn’t be guided by unilateral sanctions imposed by other nations. “If some intend to use force at all cost … we can hardly prevent that from happening,” Lavrov said at a news conference. “But let them do it at their own initiative on their own conscience. They won’t get any authorization from the U.N. Security Council.”

Lavrov accused the West of turning a blind eye to attacks by opposition militants and supplies of weapons to the Syrian opposition from abroad and warned that Russia will block any attempt by the West to secure United Nations support for the use of force against Syria.

Russia has been a strong ally of Syria since Soviet times when the country was led by the president’s father Hafez Assad. It has supplied Syria with aircraft, missiles, tanks and other modern weapons.

Here's a copy of the draft resolution on Syria currently being discussed inside the U.N. Security Council. It calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy and says additional measures would be taken if he doesn't comply within 15 days.

"We are looking for a resolution that reflects the commitments that the Arab League was seeking from the Syrian government, that -- in its November 2nd agreement, which unfortunately has not been lived up to by the Syrian side," said spokesperson for the US Department of State Victoria Nuland.

She indicated the United States was hopeful that Russia, which has been openly supporting Assad and sending him weapons, will work with the rest of the Security Council to produce a resolution that is strong and effective. Russia and China vetoed European resolution on Syria last fall and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said last Friday that Russia would veto any resolution that seeks to remove Assad from power.

"We continue to want to work with the Russians so that the whole U.N. Security Council is united in sending the strongest possible message to the Assad regime that the violence has got to end, and we've got to begin a transition," Nuland said. Russia does not seem to be concerned about its unsightly support a murderous dictator.

Syrians mark the 30-year anniversary of massacre in Hama 

The reasons for Russia's intransigence may be more than merely wanting to maintain its influence and a weapons market in a failing dictatorship. There are reasons to believe the Russian special forces, Spetsnaz, were involved in transfer of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq to Syria in 2003, prior to US invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Why would Russians risk involvement in such a dirty operation in the first place? A lot of Saddam's WMD stocks came from Russia, for which Saddam paid in illegal oil shipments against UN embargo. Russia is likely concerned that the new Syrian regime, like that of Libya will open itself to international inspections. Their indifference to the suffering of Syrian may backfire - if Assad falls, the new regime will be very antagonistic towards Russia.

Meanwhile, Syrian government continues to butcher its own people: 'least 217 Syrian protesters killed in Homs' today with Russian weapons, no doubt.

A spark for Sunni-Shiite conflagration

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced that Hezbollah responded to Iranian request to 'safeguard Syrian assets'. It is a sign of desperation on the part of Syria and Iran to admit this. Hezbollah is a Shiite terror group. The US State department has officially designated it as a terror group after it carried out the first large-scale suicide bombings with its 1983 attack on US barracks in Beirut that killed over 200 US servicemen, and about 50 Frenchmen. For Syria to admit using these thugs to repress their own people is unseemly. Then again, they don't care very much what the world thinks, only what it does.

The tension between Sunni and Shiites also manifested itself in Egypt, where Sunnis (Salafists) have taken over the patronage of Hamas from Iran. Now, Egypt is becoming an Islamist power itself, with Islamist winning three quarters (!) of seats in the parliament. Hamas no longer needs to follow Shiite Iran, as it did when it was the sole explicitly Islamist power in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Arab League is going to ask today for a month-long extension of its ineffectual mission, which has failed to halt the murder of Syrians by their own government. At the same time Saudi Arabia is pulling out its 10 monitors from Syria, citing total failure of the mission. The unusual dissonance between the Arab League and Saudi Arabia is a sign of sharpening of divisions between the Sunni and Shiite blocks. Saudi Arabia has successfully helped Bahrain to repress Shiites incited by Iran, which could only complain at the time. This potential spark for Sunni-Shiite conflict was too small, and was extinguished too quickly to lead to an enlargement of the conflict.

The entry of Hezbollah into Syria for repression of Sunnis is very significant. It has the potential for internationalization of the simmering civil war in Syria into a fully-fledged Sunni-Shiite conflict, involving bigger players. Roughly three quarters of Syrians and Sunnis. They have been ruled by Alawite minority (~ 10% of population) to which the Assad clan belongs. Now, Shiite terrorists from Lebanon and going to start repressing the Sunni majority (74% of population) in Syria at the behest of its Iranian puppet masters.

Modern Nazis

Their flag or advertisement for Kalashnikov rifles?

How are those sanctions workin’ out, Mr. Obama?

Obama already apologized for America, who more do you people want? Hillary, is it time for another UN meetin and another sterm resolution?