While much of the world is lining up against Syria, the country is not entirely friendless, and it's hoping its allies can provide at least some cover in the confrontation over its apparent use of chemical weapons.
Russia and China are almost certain to block any U.N. resolution that could be used to authorize force against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The two countries, along with Iran, are helping Syria "politically, militarily — and also economically," in the words of Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Kadri Jamil.
What are the motivations of Syria's friends and what are they likely to do in the face of seemingly imminent Western-led strikes on Syria

Moscow has long-standing strategic and financial interests in Syria.
Syria hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean, and contracts for Russian weapons sales to Syria — those signed and those under discussion — total $5 billion.
Moscow believes Western military intervention would not only infringe on Syria's sovereignty, but it would also create instability across the region.
"Russia's position is very easy to understand," says Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow.
"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," he tells NPR's Robert Siegel. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes.

rickyp wrote:BTW Ray.
The idea that the US could have maintained Russian and Chinese cooperation on sanctions runs into this reality...

While much of the world is lining up against Syria, the country is not entirely friendless, and it's hoping its allies can provide at least some cover in the confrontation over its apparent use of chemical weapons.
Russia and China are almost certain to block any U.N. resolution that could be used to authorize force against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The two countries, along with Iran, are helping Syria "politically, militarily — and also economically," in the words of Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Kadri Jamil.
What are the motivations of Syria's friends and what are they likely to do in the face of seemingly imminent Western-led strikes on Syria

Moscow has long-standing strategic and financial interests in Syria.
Syria hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean, and contracts for Russian weapons sales to Syria — those signed and those under discussion — total $5 billion.
Moscow believes Western military intervention would not only infringe on Syria's sovereignty, but it would also create instability across the region.
"Russia's position is very easy to understand," says Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow.
"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," he tells NPR's Robert Siegel. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes.

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks. Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear.

Why are we giving up the embargoes? Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

Obama claimed in his Wednesday news conference that it really doesn’t matter because we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah. But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the use of force, yet now he blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement — the arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to interdiction.

Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports. The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half century.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... bama-risky

freeman3 wrote:Interesting discussion between a proponent of the nuclear deal and a opponent back when the framework was established. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/marsh ... clear-deal

What's interesting is the concerns that Frum (the Republican strategist opposing the deal) expressed:

(1) Nothing about medium-grade uranium (the actual deal does not allow Iran to have any medium-grade uranium);
(2) None of Iran's nuclear plants are shut down (Arak, the only plant capable of making weapons- grade plutonium has to be rebuilt according to a non- military design;)
(3) military bases may be completely off- limits (nope. Subject to 24 days process)
(4) Snap-back provisions would not be any good because you would need approval of the Chinese and Russians who could veto (nope. Chinese and Russian approval not needed)
(5) Russia will be sending missiles to Iran soon (not for 8 years unless atomic energy agency certifies their program as being non-military;)
(6) No any-time, anywhere inspections (yes, Iran can delay an inspection for up to 24 days but pretty hard to hide something major during that time);
(7) Will Arak cease making plutonium? (Yes.)
(8) Will sanctions be lifted immediately or in stages as Iran proves compliance? (Not lifted immediately--atomic energy commission has to certify that Iran has implemented the deal before sanctions are released);
(9) Can inspectors go anywhere in Iraq) (Yes.);

Almost all of the concerns expressed by Frum have been met.

rickyp wrote:Ray

He believes, as Ricky does, that this will lead to moderation of the regime.

I hope it does... And there is reason to believe that it is possible.

Khamenei said in a televised speech that U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Tehran’s strategy and that Iran will continue to support its allies in the Middle East including the Lebanese, Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance groups and the Syrian government.

"Our policy towards the arrogant U.S. government won't change at all," he said. He was addressing a large crowd in Tehran, broadcast live on state TV, to mark the end of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan.

Iran calls its Lebanese ally Hezbollah a "resistance movement" while the U.S. describes it a terrorist group. And Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel; Khamenei in his Saturday speech described Israel as a "terrorist, baby-killer government."

I am pretty certain that if the US had reneged and tried to ratchet up the demands after Iran had come back with a good faith offer to comply ...that the regime and the hardliners would be strengthened. and not just in Iran.

The art of making a deal involves creating a win win scenario.

freeman3 wrote:I think the reason it is snap-back is that the agreement is structured so that while it goes to the UN Security Council in order for sanctions NOT to be reimposed you need a majority vote and no veto. So you don't have to really get new Security Council agreement (past a veto) for sanctions to restart.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/ira ... in-english

freeman3 wrote:As I understand it that won't really matter because the default position is that sanctions get turned back on so that the Security Council must pass a resolution that the sanctions will remain off and there is no veto for sanctions not to be reinstated. And we have a veto. Ultimately once the US decides Iran is cheating then the old resolutions regarding sanctions get reinstated.

So, your point is it makes a lot of sense to give Iran more resources so they can help Assad kill his own people?

rickyp wrote:Fate

So, your point is it makes a lot of sense to give Iran more resources so they can help Assad kill his own people?

No.
my Point is that China and Russia have no interest in regime change in Iran. Nor any interest in punishing Iran for the kinds of activities that Ray is saying should have been on the table in the sanctions/nuclear weapons negotiation.

There fore (sic) the notion that tougher negotiating and holding on to sanctions until more was delivered is imaginary. China and Russia, and even the Europeans ...weren't interested.

“I don’t know how to interpret [what Iran’s supreme leader said this past weekend] at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said.

So, you're point is that the West ought to enable Iran to fund terrorism and kill more Westerners? Seems like a brilliant idea

rickyp wrote:Fate

So, you're point is that the West ought to enable Iran to fund terrorism and kill more Westerners? Seems like a brilliant idea

Of course not dumb ass.
What you and Ray have argued is that more could have been gained from tougher negotiations.
What I've shown is that negotiating for more than a deal on nuclear weapons development was not on the table. That Russia, china and probably France and Germany and the EU wouldn't support a broadening of the talks to include issues beyond nuclear development.

So the criticism of the deal that it doesn't do more than deal with Iran's nuclear development is just stupid.

Show me how sanctions by the US, and perhaps the UK would have been enough to force Iran to go beyond the terms of the nuclear deal.

That somehow you could negotiate a change in Iran's attitude or activities in the region with no support from Russia, China Europe of key trade partners of Iran like India and Japan...
Or just shut up.

Kerry is being pragmatic and recognizing that the leopard has not changed its spots. But at least it doesn;t have a nuke. And that's both a good thing, and the only reasonable out come

Watch for "snap-back" provisions. Iran will skirt the agreement and no sanctions will ever get "snapped" back.

So, you're thinking, fine, there's a process -- Iran won't cheat. The costs are too great.

But wait. Are we really to imagine that the West will go to all the trouble of reimposing the UN sanctions because of one site that is enriching uranium illegally but nowhere near weapons-grade? Plainly the politics of the moment will matter. Theory and common sense, however, can help us make predictions. In my earlier column, I pointed out that a degree of cheating can be tolerated as long as the West's overall gain from the deal outweighs the cost of Iran's cheating. If the choice is between allowing this single illegal laboratory to go uninspected for a time and reimposing the entire sanctions regime, I would expect the West to blink. Indeed, it would be rational for the West to blink rather than wreck a deal that is in other respects working.

The trouble is that the West, in its focus on creating a mechanism for the snap-back of sanctions, has left itself without any other, lesser weapons. As several analysts have pointed out, there is the option to reimpose full UN sanctions ... and nothing else. Remember that the parties, including the U.S., have undertaken not to enact any additional nuclear sanctions except through the process set forth in the agreement -- that is, going through the Joint Commission and the Security Council. There is no way to impose small, measured sanctions for small, measured violations. This is what I mean when I say that room for cheating is built into the structure of the agreement.