1 sept 2013
In Syria, Iran and Lebanon, the president’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike is recognized as proof of weakness and hesitancy. In Jerusalem, too.
Bashar Assad can relax. Barack Obama blinked, and entrusted the decision on whether to attack Syria to Congress.
It may be that this was a necessary step from Obama’s point of view. It may be that it was a wise decision politically, in an America traumatized by Iraq and Afghanistan. But the smiles on the faces of decision-makers in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, on hearing Obama’s Saturday speech, tell their own story.
Until Saturday, Obama’s Middle East policies were generally regarded by the Arab world as confused and incoherent. As of Saturday, he will be perceived as one of the weakest presidents in American history.
That scent of weakness has emphatically reached Iran. Amir Mousavi, the head of Tehran’s Center for Strategic Defense Studies, told Al-Jazeera in the immediate wake of the speech that Obama is uncertain and hesitant. At around the same time, Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammad Ali Jafari boasted that “the United States is mistaken if it thinks that the reaction to a strike on Syria will be limited to Syrian territory.”
This was likely part of an effort to deter members of Congress from supporting military intervention against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. In an act of solidarity, meanwhile, an Iranian parliamentary delegation, led by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Security and Foreign Policy Committee and is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is currently on a visit to Damascus.
Drawing the connection between Syria and Iran is unavoidable. If after Assad’s use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran’s military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.
And they’re not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues, who will doubtless have been watching the Rose Garden speech, will have internalized what they had long suspected: that Washington will not be the place from which good news will emanate about thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive.
Meantime, Syria now returns to the routine of civil war. The Syrian army is fighting bitter battles against rebel forces across the country, and Assad is utilizing his air force to bomb residential neighborhoods — not, heaven forbid, with chemical weapons, merely with conventional weaponry.
It is clear to the Assad regime that an American response will ultimately come. But it will be limited and weak — of a scale that will enable Bashar Assad not merely to survive, but to hail victory.
Bashar Assad can relax. Barack Obama blinked, and entrusted the decision on whether to attack Syria to Congress.
It may be that this was a necessary step from Obama’s point of view. It may be that it was a wise decision politically, in an America traumatized by Iraq and Afghanistan. But the smiles on the faces of decision-makers in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, on hearing Obama’s Saturday speech, tell their own story.
Until Saturday, Obama’s Middle East policies were generally regarded by the Arab world as confused and incoherent. As of Saturday, he will be perceived as one of the weakest presidents in American history.
That scent of weakness has emphatically reached Iran. Amir Mousavi, the head of Tehran’s Center for Strategic Defense Studies, told Al-Jazeera in the immediate wake of the speech that Obama is uncertain and hesitant. At around the same time, Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammad Ali Jafari boasted that “the United States is mistaken if it thinks that the reaction to a strike on Syria will be limited to Syrian territory.”
This was likely part of an effort to deter members of Congress from supporting military intervention against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons. In an act of solidarity, meanwhile, an Iranian parliamentary delegation, led by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Security and Foreign Policy Committee and is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is currently on a visit to Damascus.
Drawing the connection between Syria and Iran is unavoidable. If after Assad’s use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran’s military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.
And they’re not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet colleagues, who will doubtless have been watching the Rose Garden speech, will have internalized what they had long suspected: that Washington will not be the place from which good news will emanate about thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive.
Meantime, Syria now returns to the routine of civil war. The Syrian army is fighting bitter battles against rebel forces across the country, and Assad is utilizing his air force to bomb residential neighborhoods — not, heaven forbid, with chemical weapons, merely with conventional weaponry.
It is clear to the Assad regime that an American response will ultimately come. But it will be limited and weak — of a scale that will enable Bashar Assad not merely to survive, but to hail victory.
Israel wants to believe the US will yet intervene to stop Assad’s use of chemical weapons, undoing some of the damage caused by the president’s zigzag. For the leadership here, the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.
It is worried, furthermore, at the ever-deeper perception of Obama’s America in the Middle East as weak, hesitant and confused — most especially in the view of the region’s most radical forces, notably including Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.
And it is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.
Israel’s Channel 2 reported Sunday night that, once Obama had zigzagged to his decision not to strike for now, the White House contacted Israel’s leadership to convey the news. The goal, successfully achieved, was to ensure that there would be no avalanche of publicly aired criticism of the president by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers. Only the hawkish minister of housing, Uri Ariel, defied the prime minister’s restraining order, complaining bitterly in an Army Radio interview Sunday morning that Assad was a cowardly murderer “who needs to be taken care of, already.” Ariel thus earned himself a dressing-down by Netanyahu, who told him at the Cabinet table that personally attacking the president of the United States did not serve Israel’s “security interests.”
But privately, Israel’s silently appalled political and security leaderships have no doubt that Obama’s last-minute change of heart harms Israel’s security interests far more critically than any marginal minister’s inconvenient outburst possibly could.
Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel are reported to have briefed Israel’s leaders to the effect that Obama’s firm intention remains to strike back at Assad for what Kerry said Friday was the carefully planned August 21 use of chemical weapons to kill over 1,400 of his own Syrian people.
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.
It is worried, furthermore, at the ever-deeper perception of Obama’s America in the Middle East as weak, hesitant and confused — most especially in the view of the region’s most radical forces, notably including Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.
And it is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent, in seeking an authorization from Congress that he had no legal requirement to seek — and that Congress was not loudly demanding — that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart a challenge that dwarfs Assad’s chemical weapons capability: Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons.
Israel’s Channel 2 reported Sunday night that, once Obama had zigzagged to his decision not to strike for now, the White House contacted Israel’s leadership to convey the news. The goal, successfully achieved, was to ensure that there would be no avalanche of publicly aired criticism of the president by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers. Only the hawkish minister of housing, Uri Ariel, defied the prime minister’s restraining order, complaining bitterly in an Army Radio interview Sunday morning that Assad was a cowardly murderer “who needs to be taken care of, already.” Ariel thus earned himself a dressing-down by Netanyahu, who told him at the Cabinet table that personally attacking the president of the United States did not serve Israel’s “security interests.”
But privately, Israel’s silently appalled political and security leaderships have no doubt that Obama’s last-minute change of heart harms Israel’s security interests far more critically than any marginal minister’s inconvenient outburst possibly could.
Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel are reported to have briefed Israel’s leaders to the effect that Obama’s firm intention remains to strike back at Assad for what Kerry said Friday was the carefully planned August 21 use of chemical weapons to kill over 1,400 of his own Syrian people.
The Israeli leadership wants to believe that this is the case. The notion that the US would turn its back on the toxic crimes of a murderous dictator, whom Kerry bracketed Sunday with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, is too dire to consider in an Israel facing more than one hostile regime relentlessly seeking to exploit any military and moral weakness in order to expedite the Jewish state’s demise.
Though dutifully silent in public, Jerusalem has quickly internalized the damage already done — by the sight of an uncertain president, all too plainly wary of grappling with a regime that has gradually escalated its use of poison gas to mass murder its own people; a regime, moreover, that can do relatively little damage to the United States, and whose threats Israel’s leadership and most of its people were taking in their stride.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.
If a formidable strike does ultimately come, some of that damage can yet be undone, the Israeli leadership believes. American military intervention can yet be significant — in deterring Assad from ongoing use of chemical weapons, and bolstering American influence and credibility in the region.
But if Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who will be hosting the G20 later this week, inserts himself into the equation, and Obama is distracted by endless machinations ostensibly designed to see Assad stripped of his chemical weapons, machinations that ultimately are sure to lead nowhere, the damage will only deepen. If there is no strike, the United States — hitherto Israel’s only dependable military ally — will be definitively perceived in these parts as a paper tiger, with dire implications for its regional interests. And for Israel.
Jerusalem is worried, too, of a direct line between requesting Congressional approval for military action against Syria — a relatively straightforward target — and feeling compelled to honor the precedent, should the imperative arise, by requesting Congressional approval for military action against Iran — a far more potent enemy, where legislators’ worries about the US being dragged deep into regional conflict would be far more resonant.
Israel remains hopeful that, to put it bluntly, Obama’s America will yet remember that it is, well, America. The alternative, it rather seems, is something the leadership in Jerusalem finds too awful to so much as contemplate just yet.
Though dutifully silent in public, Jerusalem has quickly internalized the damage already done — by the sight of an uncertain president, all too plainly wary of grappling with a regime that has gradually escalated its use of poison gas to mass murder its own people; a regime, moreover, that can do relatively little damage to the United States, and whose threats Israel’s leadership and most of its people were taking in their stride.
At the very least, Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory in facing down the United States. At the very least, too, Obama has led the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.
If a formidable strike does ultimately come, some of that damage can yet be undone, the Israeli leadership believes. American military intervention can yet be significant — in deterring Assad from ongoing use of chemical weapons, and bolstering American influence and credibility in the region.
But if Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who will be hosting the G20 later this week, inserts himself into the equation, and Obama is distracted by endless machinations ostensibly designed to see Assad stripped of his chemical weapons, machinations that ultimately are sure to lead nowhere, the damage will only deepen. If there is no strike, the United States — hitherto Israel’s only dependable military ally — will be definitively perceived in these parts as a paper tiger, with dire implications for its regional interests. And for Israel.
Jerusalem is worried, too, of a direct line between requesting Congressional approval for military action against Syria — a relatively straightforward target — and feeling compelled to honor the precedent, should the imperative arise, by requesting Congressional approval for military action against Iran — a far more potent enemy, where legislators’ worries about the US being dragged deep into regional conflict would be far more resonant.
Israel remains hopeful that, to put it bluntly, Obama’s America will yet remember that it is, well, America. The alternative, it rather seems, is something the leadership in Jerusalem finds too awful to so much as contemplate just yet.
News links Syria
Over 50% of Agency Schools in Syria Closed Due to Conflict Back to School
Saudi FM urges Arabs to back Syria opposition on strikes
UN: Ban presses for faster chemical weapons result
‘US spurs Syria militants to use CWs’
Over 50% of Agency Schools in Syria Closed Due to Conflict Back to School
Saudi FM urges Arabs to back Syria opposition on strikes
UN: Ban presses for faster chemical weapons result
‘US spurs Syria militants to use CWs’
And this time, it’s hard to see who will be able to stop him.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
The United States has proof sarin gas was used in a Damascus attack, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday, as he urged Congress to vote for military action against the Syrian regime.
Hair and blood samples given to the United States from emergency workers on the scene of last month's attack in the Syrian capital have showed signs of the powerful sarin nerve gas, Kerry told NBC and CNN television.
In what he called "a very important recent development... in the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from first responders in East Damascus, (that) hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press.
"Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger. We know that the regime ordered this attack. We know they prepared for it. We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed," he added on CNN.
"We know the damage that was done afterwards. We've seen the horrific scene all over the social media, and we have evidence of it in other ways, and we know that the regime tried to cover up afterwards."
Kerry blitzed the Sunday morning television talk shows to relaunch his bid to build the case for US military strikes in Syria after President Barack Obama called for Congress to vote to authorize action.
He urged his former colleagues in Congress to give Obama a green-light for strikes against the regime of President Bashar Assad.
In a huge political gamble, Obama has committed the fate of US action to lawmakers, lifting the threat of immediate strikes.
Obama said he had decided an August 21 chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people was so heinous that he would respond with a limited US military strike.
But, in a move which could reshape the balance of power between Capitol Hill and the presidency, he said he believed it was important to secure support from Congress to wage war.
Obama will be relatively confident of winning a vote in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats and includes a number of Republicans, like Senator John McCain, who have argued for military action against Syria.
But it would be hazardous to predict how the vote will go in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which will debate Syria as soon as it comes back into session on September 9.
Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
"I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment... I believe Congress will pass it," he said.
"I don't believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," Kerry said.
"The Congress adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Congress has passed the Syria Accountability Act. Congress has a responsibility here too."
Hair and blood samples given to the United States from emergency workers on the scene of last month's attack in the Syrian capital have showed signs of the powerful sarin nerve gas, Kerry told NBC and CNN television.
In what he called "a very important recent development... in the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from first responders in East Damascus, (that) hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press.
"Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger. We know that the regime ordered this attack. We know they prepared for it. We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed," he added on CNN.
"We know the damage that was done afterwards. We've seen the horrific scene all over the social media, and we have evidence of it in other ways, and we know that the regime tried to cover up afterwards."
Kerry blitzed the Sunday morning television talk shows to relaunch his bid to build the case for US military strikes in Syria after President Barack Obama called for Congress to vote to authorize action.
He urged his former colleagues in Congress to give Obama a green-light for strikes against the regime of President Bashar Assad.
In a huge political gamble, Obama has committed the fate of US action to lawmakers, lifting the threat of immediate strikes.
Obama said he had decided an August 21 chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people was so heinous that he would respond with a limited US military strike.
But, in a move which could reshape the balance of power between Capitol Hill and the presidency, he said he believed it was important to secure support from Congress to wage war.
Obama will be relatively confident of winning a vote in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats and includes a number of Republicans, like Senator John McCain, who have argued for military action against Syria.
But it would be hazardous to predict how the vote will go in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which will debate Syria as soon as it comes back into session on September 9.
Kerry told NBC he believed the call for action would be approved by Congress.
"I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment... I believe Congress will pass it," he said.
"I don't believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," Kerry said.
"The Congress adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Congress has passed the Syria Accountability Act. Congress has a responsibility here too."
|
|
Both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have said the chemical weapon attack in Syria looks like a false flag event designed as a pretext for America to attack.
Russia president Vladamir Putin also said the chemical attack looks like the rebels carried it out themselves to use as a justification for the U.S. to get involved. |
Haifa Street, Al- Yarmouk camp after being bombed
Syrian regime army resumed on Saturday the shelling of Al-Yarmouk refugee camp, shells hit different places of the camp , no injuries, Action Group for Palestinians of Syria reported. The group explained in a statement that Palestinians in AL-Yarmouk, Soubeinah, Al-'aedeen, and Khan Al-Shiekh refugee camps suffer deteriorated living conditions.
Al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp remains under an almost complete regime blockade, which has led to the deterioration in humanitarian and living conditions. The camp also suffers from a shortage in medical supplies as well as medical staff.
More than half of the 530,000 Palestinian refugees registered in Syria have been displaced and 15 percent have fled abroad, including 60,000 to neighboring Lebanon and over 7,000 to Jordan.
In March, the Action Group for Palestinians of Syria said that over 1,377 Palestinians had been killed in the ongoing Syria conflict, with that number thought to have increased significantly since then.
Syrian regime army resumed on Saturday the shelling of Al-Yarmouk refugee camp, shells hit different places of the camp , no injuries, Action Group for Palestinians of Syria reported. The group explained in a statement that Palestinians in AL-Yarmouk, Soubeinah, Al-'aedeen, and Khan Al-Shiekh refugee camps suffer deteriorated living conditions.
Al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp remains under an almost complete regime blockade, which has led to the deterioration in humanitarian and living conditions. The camp also suffers from a shortage in medical supplies as well as medical staff.
More than half of the 530,000 Palestinian refugees registered in Syria have been displaced and 15 percent have fled abroad, including 60,000 to neighboring Lebanon and over 7,000 to Jordan.
In March, the Action Group for Palestinians of Syria said that over 1,377 Palestinians had been killed in the ongoing Syria conflict, with that number thought to have increased significantly since then.
FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these
ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these
ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
A man holds the body of a dead child
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.
They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.
It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.
On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.
Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.
Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.
But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.
He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.
Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.
“And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.
General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.
He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.
They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.
It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.
On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.
Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.
Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.
But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.
He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.
Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.
“And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.
General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.
He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.
Syrians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta say Saudi Arabia provided chemical weapons for an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group which they blame for the August 21 chemical attack in the region, a Mint Press News report says.
The article co-authored by a veteran AP reporter, said interviews with doctors, residents, anti-government forces and their families in Ghouta suggest the terrorists in question received chemical weapons via Saudi spymaster Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud.
The report quoted the father of a militant as saying that his son and 12 others were killed inside a tunnel used to store weapons supplied by a Saudi militant leader, known as Abu Ayesha.
The man described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Anti-government forces, interviewed in the article, complained they were not informed of the nature of the weapons they had been given, nor did they receive instructions how to use them.
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” said one militant.
Another militant accused the Takfiri militants of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front of refusing to cooperate with other insurgents or sharing secret information. “They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” he added.
The authors noted that the doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers against asking questions regarding who exactly was responsible for the deadly assault.
Also more than a dozen militants interviewed said their salaries came from the Saudi government. They reportedly said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” (the lover) by al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria.
According to Independent, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first accused the Syrian government in February of using sarin gas in a bid to rally support for Riyadh’s efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
And The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Saudi spy chief is considered by the CIA as "a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world [who] could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and...wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout."
The article co-authored by a veteran AP reporter, said interviews with doctors, residents, anti-government forces and their families in Ghouta suggest the terrorists in question received chemical weapons via Saudi spymaster Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud.
The report quoted the father of a militant as saying that his son and 12 others were killed inside a tunnel used to store weapons supplied by a Saudi militant leader, known as Abu Ayesha.
The man described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Anti-government forces, interviewed in the article, complained they were not informed of the nature of the weapons they had been given, nor did they receive instructions how to use them.
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” said one militant.
Another militant accused the Takfiri militants of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front of refusing to cooperate with other insurgents or sharing secret information. “They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” he added.
The authors noted that the doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers against asking questions regarding who exactly was responsible for the deadly assault.
Also more than a dozen militants interviewed said their salaries came from the Saudi government. They reportedly said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” (the lover) by al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria.
According to Independent, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first accused the Syrian government in February of using sarin gas in a bid to rally support for Riyadh’s efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
And The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Saudi spy chief is considered by the CIA as "a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world [who] could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and...wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout."
|
|
President Barack Obama has postponed threatened missile strikes against Syria in a risky gamble that he can win more support for his plan to punish Bashar Assad's regime.
To general surprise, the US leader broke with decades of precedent to announce that he would seek approval from Congress for action against Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. This effectively pushed military action back until at least September 9, when US lawmakers return from their summer recess. Obama insisted that he reserves the right to strike regardless of Congress's decision, and a |
White House official said the pause would also allow him time to build international support.
The Arab League meets in Cairo on Sunday and is expected to condemn Assad, and Obama travels to Russia next week for a G20 Summit that will now be overshadowed by the crisis.
But the toughest battle, and perhaps the most dangerous for Obama's credibility, may yet be with his own former colleagues in Congress, where support for strikes is far from assured.
Indeed, observers warned that he faces the same fate as Prime Minister David Cameron, who on Thursday lost his own vote on authorizing military action in the British parliament.
"The chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama warned during an address in the White House Rose Garden.
"Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now."
At least five US warships armed with scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles have converged on the eastern Mediterranean ready to launch precision strikes on Syrian regime targets.
The FBI has meanwhile increased its surveillance of Syrians living in the United States ahead of a possible US attack and US authorities are also warning of possible retaliatory cyber-attacks, The New York Times reported.
And France, which announced its "determination" alongside the US, said it is ready to deploy its own forces in the operation.
Syria, meanwhile, said it has its "finger on the trigger" as it braces for what it had formerly feared was an imminent Western strike.
"The Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out," Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said.
And the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards warned that Western action would trigger reactions beyond the borders of Tehran's key regional ally.
"The fact that the Americans believe that military intervention will be limited to within Syrian borders is an illusion," said commander Mohammad Ali Jafari.
Shortly before Obama's remarks, a team of UN inspectors left Syria after spending four days investigating last week's alleged chemical attacks on suburbs of Damascus.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that analysis of samples taken at the site would take up to three weeks.
A UN spokesman promised they would give a fair report after conducting these lab tests, but Washington and its allies insist they already know all they need to know.
The Obama administration says it has reliable intelligence that the regime launched a chemical onslaught that killed 1,429 people, including at least 426 children.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a close ally of Syria, branded the claims "utter nonsense" and demanded proof.
Syria has denied responsibility for the alleged incident and has pointed the finger of blame at "terrorists" -- its term for the rebels ranged against Assad's forces.
In Damascus, the mood had been heavy with fear, and security forces were making preparations for possible air strikes, pulling soldiers back from potential targets.
Residents were seen stocking up with fuel for generators in case utilities are knocked out by a strike.
The United States, faced with an impasse at the UN Security Council and the British parliament's shock vote, has been forced to look elsewhere for international partners.
Officials said Obama would lobby world powers on the sidelines of next week's St Petersburg G20 summit, while at home the White House was reaching out to lawmakers.
Obama's Democrats control the Senate but the House of Representatives is in the hands of his Republican foes and both sides are divided on the issue, making the outcome uncertain.
In a bid to ease fears of another open-ended war, the White House formally asked Congress for authorization to conduct military strikes in Syria in a draft resolution framing a narrow set of operations.
The document said support from Congress would "send a clear signal of American resolve."
"The objective of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction," it added.
Republican Senator Bob Corker, who supports a limited "surgical" strike against Syria, said that Obama should use "every ounce of political capital that he has to sell this."
"I think it is problematic and it could be problematic in both bodies," Corker warned.
In a further complication, hawkish senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, said they could not support Obama's plan for limited strikes that would not topple Assad.
More than 100,000 people have died since the Syrian conflict erupted in March 2011, and two million have become refugees, half of them children, according to the United Nations.
The Arab League meets in Cairo on Sunday and is expected to condemn Assad, and Obama travels to Russia next week for a G20 Summit that will now be overshadowed by the crisis.
But the toughest battle, and perhaps the most dangerous for Obama's credibility, may yet be with his own former colleagues in Congress, where support for strikes is far from assured.
Indeed, observers warned that he faces the same fate as Prime Minister David Cameron, who on Thursday lost his own vote on authorizing military action in the British parliament.
"The chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose," Obama warned during an address in the White House Rose Garden.
"Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now."
At least five US warships armed with scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles have converged on the eastern Mediterranean ready to launch precision strikes on Syrian regime targets.
The FBI has meanwhile increased its surveillance of Syrians living in the United States ahead of a possible US attack and US authorities are also warning of possible retaliatory cyber-attacks, The New York Times reported.
And France, which announced its "determination" alongside the US, said it is ready to deploy its own forces in the operation.
Syria, meanwhile, said it has its "finger on the trigger" as it braces for what it had formerly feared was an imminent Western strike.
"The Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out," Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said.
And the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards warned that Western action would trigger reactions beyond the borders of Tehran's key regional ally.
"The fact that the Americans believe that military intervention will be limited to within Syrian borders is an illusion," said commander Mohammad Ali Jafari.
Shortly before Obama's remarks, a team of UN inspectors left Syria after spending four days investigating last week's alleged chemical attacks on suburbs of Damascus.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that analysis of samples taken at the site would take up to three weeks.
A UN spokesman promised they would give a fair report after conducting these lab tests, but Washington and its allies insist they already know all they need to know.
The Obama administration says it has reliable intelligence that the regime launched a chemical onslaught that killed 1,429 people, including at least 426 children.
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a close ally of Syria, branded the claims "utter nonsense" and demanded proof.
Syria has denied responsibility for the alleged incident and has pointed the finger of blame at "terrorists" -- its term for the rebels ranged against Assad's forces.
In Damascus, the mood had been heavy with fear, and security forces were making preparations for possible air strikes, pulling soldiers back from potential targets.
Residents were seen stocking up with fuel for generators in case utilities are knocked out by a strike.
The United States, faced with an impasse at the UN Security Council and the British parliament's shock vote, has been forced to look elsewhere for international partners.
Officials said Obama would lobby world powers on the sidelines of next week's St Petersburg G20 summit, while at home the White House was reaching out to lawmakers.
Obama's Democrats control the Senate but the House of Representatives is in the hands of his Republican foes and both sides are divided on the issue, making the outcome uncertain.
In a bid to ease fears of another open-ended war, the White House formally asked Congress for authorization to conduct military strikes in Syria in a draft resolution framing a narrow set of operations.
The document said support from Congress would "send a clear signal of American resolve."
"The objective of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction," it added.
Republican Senator Bob Corker, who supports a limited "surgical" strike against Syria, said that Obama should use "every ounce of political capital that he has to sell this."
"I think it is problematic and it could be problematic in both bodies," Corker warned.
In a further complication, hawkish senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, said they could not support Obama's plan for limited strikes that would not topple Assad.
More than 100,000 people have died since the Syrian conflict erupted in March 2011, and two million have become refugees, half of them children, according to the United Nations.
Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil
Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil says the readiness of the Syrian armed forces has made the United States to postpone a military strike on Syria.
“The Syrian army’s readiness is what warded off US aggression against Syria,” Jamil said on Saturday.
US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on the same day to seek approval for the move from the Congress, which will debate the issue when federal lawmakers return from recess on September 9.
The United States has its navy ships in place at the Mediterranean and the vessels await orders to launch missiles against targets in Syria.
Jamil went on to say that the Syrian army is in a state of alert and ready to respond to any aggression against Syria.
Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi has also stated that the “Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out.”
On August 21, the Takfiri militants operating inside Syria and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that the government forces had used chemical weapons in an attack against militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar, killing hundreds of people.
The Syrian government has categorically rejected the claim.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against the militants is “utter nonsense.”
Putin also called on Washington to show proof that Damascus was behind the attack. The Russian president added that the US failure to do so means that “there is none (proof).”
On Saturday, a UN team of chemical weapons inspectors left Syria and arrived in the Netherlands to take evidence they had gathered during their four-day trip to the attack sites to the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.
Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil says the readiness of the Syrian armed forces has made the United States to postpone a military strike on Syria.
“The Syrian army’s readiness is what warded off US aggression against Syria,” Jamil said on Saturday.
US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on the same day to seek approval for the move from the Congress, which will debate the issue when federal lawmakers return from recess on September 9.
The United States has its navy ships in place at the Mediterranean and the vessels await orders to launch missiles against targets in Syria.
Jamil went on to say that the Syrian army is in a state of alert and ready to respond to any aggression against Syria.
Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi has also stated that the “Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out.”
On August 21, the Takfiri militants operating inside Syria and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that the government forces had used chemical weapons in an attack against militant strongholds in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar, killing hundreds of people.
The Syrian government has categorically rejected the claim.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against the militants is “utter nonsense.”
Putin also called on Washington to show proof that Damascus was behind the attack. The Russian president added that the US failure to do so means that “there is none (proof).”
On Saturday, a UN team of chemical weapons inspectors left Syria and arrived in the Netherlands to take evidence they had gathered during their four-day trip to the attack sites to the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.
