West readies attacks after Syria gas 'obscenity'

Tue, Aug 27 08:04 AM EDT 1 of 9 By Erika Solomon and William Maclean BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. allies were drafting plans for air strikes and other military action against Syria on Tuesday, as President Bashar al-Assad's enemies vowed to punish a poison gas attack that Washington called a "moral obscenity". Facing Russian and Chinese disapproval that will complicate hopes for a united front backed by international law, and keen to win over wary voters at home, Western leaders seem in no rush to pull the trigger. British Prime Minister David Cameron called parliament back from recess for a session on Syria on Thursday. U.N. experts trying to establish what killed hundreds of civilians in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday were finally able to cross the frontline on Monday to see survivors - despite being shot at in government-held territory. But they put off a second visit until Wednesday. However, U.S. officials said President Barack Obama already had little doubt Assad's forces were to blame. Turkey, Syria's neighbor and part of the U.S.-led NATO military pact, called it a "crime against humanity" that demanded international reaction. The Syrian government, which denies using gas, said it would press on with its offensive against rebels around the capital. Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said U.S. strikes would help al Qaeda allies but called Western leaders "delusional" if they hoped to aid the rebels to create a balance of power in Syria. In Britain, whose forces have supported the U.S. military in a succession of wars, Cameron called for an appropriate level of retribution for using chemical weapons. "Our forces are making contingency plans," a spokesman for Cameron told reporters. London and its allies would make a "proportionate response" to the "utterly abhorrent" attack. Top generals from the United States and European and Middle Eastern allies met in Jordan for what could be a council of war. GASSING "UNDENIABLE, INEXCUSABLE" On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said: "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people ... What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. "The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. "And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable." How such an intervention, likely to be limited to some form of air strike, would affect the course of Syria's civil war is far from clear. Obama, Cameron and French President Francois Hollande face tough questions on how far they want to use force to achieve a long-stated common goal of forcing Assad from power. Turmoil in Egypt, whose 2011 uprising inspired Syrians to rebel, has underlined the unpredictability of revolutions. And the presence of Islamist militants, including allies of al Qaeda in the Syrian rebel ranks, has given Western leaders pause. They have held back so far from helping Assad's opponents to victory. Russia, a major arms supplier to Assad, has said rebels may have released the gas and warned against attacking Syria. Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov criticized Washington for cancelling bilateral talks on Syria that were set for Wednesday. "Working out the political parameters for a resolution in Syria would be exceptionally useful now, when the threat of force hangs over this country," Gatilov wrote on Twitter. REGIONAL CONFLICT The Syrian conflict has split the Middle East along sectarian lines. Shi'ite Muslim Iran has supported Assad and his Alawite minority against mainly Sunni rebels, some of them Islamists, who have backing from Gulf Arab states. In Tehran, a foreign ministry spokesman said: "We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region. "These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region." Syrian foreign minister Moualem, who insisted the government was trying to help the U.N. inspection team, told a news conference in Damascus that Syria would hit back if attacked. "We have means of defending ourselves, and we will surprise them with these if necessary," he said. "If we face aggression, we will defend ourselves. We will not hesitate to use any means available. But I will not specify what those would be." Assad's forces made little or no response to three attacks by Israeli aircraft earlier this year which Israeli officials said disrupted arms flowing from Iran to Lebanon's Hezbollah. China, which has joined Moscow in vetoing measures against Assad in the U.N. Security Council, is also skeptical of Western readiness to use force to interfere with what it sees as the internal affairs of other countries. Beijing's official news agency ran a commentary on Tuesday recalling the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 on the grounds that it possessed banned weapons - which were never found. "The recent flurry of consultations between Washington and its allies indicates that they have put the arrow on the bowstring and would shoot even without a U.N. mandate," the Xinhua agency said. "That would be irresponsible and dangerous." DAMASCENES ANXIOUS The continued presence of United Nations experts in Damascus may be a factor holding back international military action. A U.N. statement said the investigators had put off a second visit to the affected areas until Wednesday to prepare better. Some residents of the capital are getting anxious. "I've always been a supporter of foreign intervention but now that it seems like a reality, I've been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed because they live near a military installation," said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. "I'm afraid of a military strike now." But another woman who supports the president but did not want her name published said she refused to let herself worry: "Bombing, kidnapping, killing - we face it every day already," she told Reuters. "If it brings an end to this faster, frankly I'd welcome it. But honestly I don't really believe the Americans will do it." The Washington Post cited senior U.S. officials as saying Obama is weighing a military strike that would be of limited scope and duration, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in the civil war. Such an attack would probably last no more than two days and see cruise missiles launched from ships — or, possibly, long-range aircraft — striking military targets not directly related to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, the newspaper said. Such a move was, it said, dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing the Syrian government's culpability in the chemical attack, consultation with allies and the U.S. Congress, and determination of a justification under international law. U.S. warships armed with cruise missiles are already positioned in the Mediterranean. Opposition activists have said at least 500 people and possibly twice that many were killed when rockets laden with poison, possibly the nerve gas sarin or something similar, landed in areas around Damascus where rebels are holding out in the face of heavy bombardments by government forces. If confirmed, it would be the worst chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in 1988. In Israel, citizens have been queuing up for gas masks in case Assad responds to a Western attack by firing on Israel, as Iraq's Saddam did in 1991. (Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman, Andrew Osborn in London, John Irish in Paris, Timothy Heritage in Moscow, Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Seda Sezer and Daren Butler in Istanbul, Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai and Lesley Wroughton, Steve Holland and Paul Eckert in Washington; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Will Waterman) ============= Iran's Khamenei says U.S. intervention in Syria would be disaster Wed, Aug 28 05:11 AM EDT DUBAI (Reuters) - Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday U.S. intervention in Syria would be "a disaster for the region", the ISNA state news agency reported, as Western powers made plans to hit Damascus over a chemical weapons attack. After supporting Arab uprisings across the Middle East and north Africa in 2011 as examples of what Khamenei called an Islamic awakening, Tehran has steadfastly supported the secular President Bashar al-Assad, its main strategic ally in the Middle East, against a two-and-a-half-year-long rebellion. "The intervention of America will be a disaster for the region. The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted," the agency quoted Khamenei as saying. Iran is concerned that if Assad were overthrown, he would be replaced by either allies of the West or by radical Sunni Muslims tied to Saudi Arabia, both seen as hostile by the Shi'ite Muslim Iranians. Syria is also a conduit for Iranian supplies to Shi'ite Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Iranian officials have condemned the use of chemical weapons - deployed against its troops during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war - but have blamed Syrian rebels for the August 21 poison gas attack that killed hundreds in the embattled suburbs of Damascus. "As a victim of chemical weapons the Islamic Republic of Iran does not tolerate the use of such weapons. In addition, it also does not tolerate a group of countries giving themselves the permission to wage a campaign in the region," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told state television. "This fire of sectarianism, tribal conflicts, and conflicts that ... are exacerbated for short-term interests cannot be restricted to one region. "If (Obama) gets stuck in this trap, he will certainly leave behind bad memories of his presidency." (Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Mark Heinrich) ======================= August 27, 2013 Pentagon Sees Syrian Military, Not Chemical Sites, as Target By MICHAEL R. GORDON WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering a range of limited military actions against Syria that are designed to “deter and degrade” the ability of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to launch chemical weapons, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. Although no final decisions have been made, it is likely that the attacks would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, even though the Obama administration says the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military is the trigger for the planned attack. They said any effort to target chemical sites risks an environmental and humanitarian disaster and could open up the sites to raids by militants. Instead, the American assault would be aimed at military units thought to have carried out chemical attacks, the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks and the headquarters overseeing the effort, the officials said. One key question facing Mr. Obama and his advisers is whether such a limited attack would compel a change in tactics of the Assad regime — which has killed tens of thousands of civilians with conventional weapons — or weaken Mr. Assad to the point that he would seek a negotiated settlement to Syria’s civil war. An American official familiar with the military planning said that the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control locations as well as a variety of conventional military targets, official said. Like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity. Planners said that although suspected chemical weapons depots are seductive targets, they are too risky. “That is a hairy business,” the official said. “Our interest is in keeping the chemical weapons secured. You hit a bunker that holds chemical weapons and all of a sudden you have chemical weapons loose.” Even within the limited mission envisioned for now by the Obama administration, there are some American officials who are urging expanding the target list to include at least military units commanded by Assad family members and loyalists and even presidential compounds. Officials anticipated that a first round of attacks would be followed by a pause to assess the damage and the regime’s response before a potential second wave of strikes would be ordered. With few human intelligence assets on the ground, the inspection of targets after the strike would be conducted by satellite or surveillance aircraft capable of flying above the range of Syria’s highly regarded integrated air-defense system. Officials also cautioned that arguments for a more limited strike included the fear that the refugee flow to American allies Turkey and Jordan — where the influx already is causing political concern — would increase. And there are worries that Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants might step up terrorism around the region in retaliation. Voices across the administration urging no action have all but silenced. But, at the other extreme of military options, a sustained air campaign designed to decapitate the leadership and allow rebels to topple the regime, also has been rejected. The Air Force maintains a vast fleet of fighter jets and long-range bombers in Europe and the Middle East that are capable of striking Syria, but a range of officials said that, for now, the strike plans were focusing solely on sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and that there was no intention of putting up strike aircraft, which require a large cast of supporting aircraft, including refueling tankers, combat search-and-rescue craft and early warning or electronic jamming planes. The Navy has traditionally kept two destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean but quietly increased that number to three over recent months. By accelerating the arrival of one replacement and delaying the return of another, the Navy now has four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers within striking range of Syria: the Mahan, Barry, Gravely and Ramage. Each carries about two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles, a low-flying, highly accurate weapon that can be launched from safe distances of up to about 1,000 miles and was used to open the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya Attack submarines also carrying Tomahawks are assumed to be on station in the Mediterranean as well. But Tomahawk missile strikes, while politically and psychologically significant, can have a starkly limited tactical effect. The weapons are largely fuel-and-guidance systems and carry relatively small high-explosive warheads. One conventional version contains about 260 pounds of explosives, the other carries about 370 pounds. This is less than the explosive power of a single 1,000 pound air-dropped bomb. The weapons also present certain technical risks. Naval officers and attack planners concede that the missiles are not entirely controllable for elevation near the target, and when they fly slightly high carry the risk of blast effect to structures and people behind or near the targets. Planners also have difficulty timing the strikes — which fly from different release points and fly different routes by GPS way points — so they arrive at their targets simultaneously, which means that the first strikes can alert troops at follow-up targets that attacks are imminent. Thus they are much more effectives against fixed targets, like buildings or infrastructure than against military units or commanders. ===================== Wednesday, August 28, 2013 SYRIAN GOVERNMENT TAKEN BY SURPRISE - INTERCEPTED PHONE CALLS Intercepted phone calls indicate that the Syrian government was taken by surprise when the gas attack took place in Damascus. Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack Paul Joseph Watson, at Infowars.com, writes: Phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense intercepted by Mossad and passed to the US reveal that Syrian government officials, 'exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people,' in the hours after last week’s attack. Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be making panicked phone calls 'demanding answers' about the attack if they had ordered it? The fact that the highest levels of the Syrian government apparently had no knowledge of the attack strongly suggests that they did not order it, with the worst case scenario being that the attack was 'the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds,' writes Foreign Policy’s Noah Shachtman. Houla “We don’t know exactly why it happened,” a US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.” So despite not knowing exactly what happened, why it happened, or who ordered it, while sabotaging the UN’s investigation of the incident, the US is about to launch cruise missile attacks and potentially enflame the entire region based on evidence that actually suggests the Syrian government had no idea who was behind the chemical weapons attack. Meanwhile, previous evidence that suggests the US-backed rebels prepared and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions has been completely forgotten in the rush to war. The last time the United Nations investigated evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded that it was likely the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were behind the attacks. In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer. There are also multiple other examples of video footage which shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons. The notion that Washington has any credibility when it comes to laying blame about weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous. The last time the world believed the United States’ claims about Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result. The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster. Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack ======================= Syrian Electronic Army takes down New York Times website Published time: August 27, 2013 21:31 Get short URL Share on tumblrThe New York Times’ website has been disabled for the second time in under a month, with the newspaper attributing the outage to a “malicious external attack” widely thought to have come from hackers affiliated with the Syrian Electronic Army. “Many users are having difficulty accessing the New York Times online,” the paper wrote on its Facebook page. “We are working to fix the problem. Our initial assessment is the outage is most likely the result of a malicious external attack. In the meantime we are continuing to publish key news reports.” The SEA, a shadowy group of hackers sympathetic to the Syria’s President Bashar Assad, has launched cyber-attacks on a number of media outlets in recent months including the associated Press’ Twitter feed, which falsely reported that US President Barack Obama was injured in an attack on the White House. The Times’ page was last unavailable on August 14, although the several-hour outage was later blamed on “a failure during regular maintenance.” Syria asks UN to immediately investigate three new ‘chemical attacks’... The Syrian government is demanding that the United Nations immediately investigate three alleged chemical attacks carried out by rebel groups on the outskirts of Damascus last week, Syria’s envoy to... #Iraq-is wake to deadly attacks as government goes on ‘high alert’ over possible #Syria strike