IranWar Weekly
April 8, 2012
Hello All – The purpose of the “Iran War Weekly” is to provide antiwar activists with information and analysis about the diplomatic and military crisis that has followed from US and Israeli opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. The many dimensions of this crisis – which now includes the domestic and international conflicts arising from Syria’s internal uprising and civil war – are a challenge to the antiwar movement. The mainstream media has responded to the complexity of this crisis by framing events in black and white terms, and presenting them from the perspective of the US government. My goal is to help with the development of an alternative analysis by drawing on dissenting and antiwar sources of information. This is a learning process for me also, and I very much welcome suggestions and (friendly) criticism, as well as recommendations for content and better presentation.
Frank Brodhead
Concerned Families of Westchester (NY)
This morning’s New York Times included a front-page article by White House insider David Sanger, “U.S. Defines Its Demands for New Round of Talks With Iran.” The talks, set to begin soon between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, are the first since January 2011, and have been described by the Obama administration as Iran’s “last chance” to resolve outstanding differences peacefully. What is striking is that the “demands” now include the closure and eventual dismantlement of Iran’s new uranium enrichment plant at Fordo, seen as a threat to Israel because it is built into a mountain and would be hard to destroy militarily. Another new issue raised by the “demands” is that Iran ship out of the country its supply of uranium enriched for use in medical treatment and research, and that it cease production of such enriched uranium. The significance of these “demands,” in my view, is that they indicate that the negotiations with Iran are intended to fail, and in their failure to justify further sanctions and/or make it appear that military action against Iran is the only practical, remaining option for the United States and Israel.
While the uprising/civil war in Syria has its roots in longstanding civilian grievances and the inspiration of the Arab Spring, the “internationalization” of the conflict forces opponents of war with Iran to understand the role of Syrian events in the chances of peace or war with Iran. Pasted in below are several articles that illustrate the internal dimensions of the Syrian conflict, as well as excellent overviews by Gil Achcar, Alain Gresh, and Vijay Prashad. Next week we will learn whether the “cease fire” perhaps brokered by the UN’s Kofi Annan and the Arab League will make a difference, and/or whether the military steps initiated by the recent “Friends of Syria” meeting in Turkey will escalate the conflict.
FEATURED ESSAYS
Thinking the Unthinkable on Iran
By Jonathan Schell, The Nation [April 3, 2012]
---- Bush accompanied his policy on Iraq with a great deal of neo-imperialist rhetoric that is absent from Obama’s statements, but the fundamentals have been the same—a militarization of disarmament leading to a policy of what could be called disarmament wars. Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet to conclude that Obama merely inherited this policy from Bush would be too simple, for Bush, in spite of all his preoccupation with 9/11, was not its originator, either. That distinction goes to Bill Clinton, who in a widely forgotten episode went to the brink of war in 1993 to prevent North Korea from reprocessing plutonium for nuclear weapons. In other words, disarmament wars are not the invention of Obama or even Bush; they have been “on the table” of US policy for almost two decades. The fact is that after the cold war ended the United States, by an almost unnoticed cumulative process, turned for the first time in the nuclear age to a policy of using force to stop proliferation. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/167196/thinking-unthinkable-iran
The Real Nuclear Outlaws: How the US and Israel are Shredding the NPT
By Carl Boggs, Counterpunch [April 4, 2012]
---- While United States and Israeli leaders, duly assisted by a warmongering media, ramp up war talk against Iran, two troublesome pieces of information are ritually ignored. First, even American intelligence reports conclude that Iran is not close to building a nuclear-weapons program. Second, it is the U.S. and Israel – not Iran – that stand in flagrant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/04/the-real-nuclear-outlaws/
Our Men in Iran?
By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker [April 6, 2012]
---- The M.E.K.’s ties with Western intelligence deepened after the fall of the Iraqi regime in 2003, and JSOC began operating inside Iran in an effort to substantiate the Bush Administration’s fears that Iran was building the bomb at one or more secret underground locations. Funds were covertly passed to a number of dissident organizations, for intelligence collection and, ultimately, for anti-regime terrorist activities. Directly, or indirectly, the M.E.K. ended up with resources like arms and intelligence. Some American-supported covert operations continue in Iran today, according to past and present intelligence officials and military consultants. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html
Also useful: Juan Cole, “USPentagon Trained Iranian terrorists in Nevada,” Informed Comment [April 7, 2012] http://www.juancole.com/2012/04/us-pentagon-trained-iranian-terrorists-in-nevada-hersh.html; and Sheila Musaji, ”The MEK and terrorism double standards,” The American Muslim [April 7, 2012] http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/some-terrorist-groups/0019034
(Video)Iranian diplomat says IAEA undermined recent talks to satisfy Israel and West
An interview with Gareth Porter, from the Real News Network [April 3, 2012] – 17 minutes
http://warincontext.org/2012/04/03/video-iranian-diplomat-says-iaea-undermined-recent-talks-to-satisfy-israel-and-west/
(Video)Iran, China’s Rise, and American Strategy
From Aljazeera [April 6, 2012] – 25 minutes
---- The Obama Administration has committed itself to a policy under which it will be under enormous pressure to sanction important Chinese companies and financial institutions of the People’s Republic does not cut off—or at least radically reduce—its trade relations with the Islamic Republic. Does the administration really believe that, by threatening such sanctions, it can compel Beijing to do serious damage to Chinese interests—and surrender its strategic independence, to boot—by cooperating with unilaterally asserted U.S. and European sanctions, which are already driving up the price of oil? The Iranian nuclear issue is likely to turn out to be, on many levels, a major turning point for America’s relative standing as a great power, in the Middle East and globally. http://www.raceforiran.com/iran-chinas-rise-and-american-strategy
IRANUPDATES
OVERVIEWS
Self-Defeating
By Trita Parsi, The Daily Beast [April 3, 2012]
---- The Obama administration and the US military strongly oppose an Israeli preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Their opposition, of course, is not rooted in any sympathy with the repressive regime in Tehran. Nor is it necessarily rooted in America’s already compromised military position in the region. It is because a strike would not destroy Iran’s nuclear program. It would instead increase the likelihood of a nuclear armed Iran down the road. It would unravel the international consensus against Iran. It would undermine the Iranian pro-democracy movement and fortify the regime’s grip on power. And, perhaps most importantly, it would eliminate the current insight we have into the Iranian nuclear program and provide the Iranians with a dash-out capability. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/self-defeating.html
The Increasingly Transparent U.S.-Israeli Conflict of Interest
By Paul Pillar, The National Interest [March 29, 2012]
---- Given—as several Israelis who have been senior figures in the country's security establishment have noted—that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose an existential threat to Israel, one has to look to other reasons for the Israeli agitation about the Iranian nuclear program. Besides Netanyahu's personal obsession, there are the broader Israeli fears and emotions, the desire to maintain a regional nuclear-weapons monopoly and the distraction that the Iran issue provides from outside attention to the Palestinians' lack of popular sovereignty. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-increasingly-transparent-us-israeli-conflict-interest-6712
Don’t Fear a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East
BY Steven A. Cook, Foreign Policy [April 2, 2012]
---- Despite its flimsiness, it is hard to ignore the utility of the Middle East's nuclear dominoes theory. For those who advocate a preventive military strike on Iran, it provides a sweeping geopolitical rationale for a dangerous operation. But the evidence doesn't bear this argument out: If Washington decides it has no other option than an attack, it should do so because Iran is a threat in its own right, and not because it believes it will thwart inevitable proliferation in places like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. It won't, for the simple reason that there is no reason to believe these countries represent a proliferation risk in the first place. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/02/don_t_fear_a_nuclear_arms_race?page=full
USPOLICY
U.S.Defines Its Demands for New Round of Talks With Iran
By David E. Sanger and Steven Erlanger, New York Times [April 8, 2012]
---- The Obama administration and its European allies plan to open new negotiations with Iran by demanding the immediate closing and ultimate dismantling of a recently completed nuclear facility deep under a mountain. They are also calling for a halt in the production of uranium fuel that is considered just a few steps from bomb grade, and the shipment of existing stockpiles of that fuel out of the country. That negotiating position will be the opening move in what President Obama has called Iran’s “last chance” to resolve its nuclear confrontation with the United Nations and the West diplomatically. The hard-line approach would require the country’s military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/middleeast/us-defines-its-demands-for-new-round-of-talks-with-iran.html?ref=world
Also useful: David Ignatius, “Obama’s signal to Iran,” Washington Post [April 5, 2012] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-signal-to-iran/2012/04/05/gIQApVLDyS_story.html; and Jason Ditz, “Clinton Issues New Demands For ‘Commitments’ From Iran,” Antiwar.com [April 3, 2012] http://news.antiwar.com/2012/04/03/clinton-issues-new-demands-for-commitments-from-iran/
U.S.intelligence gains in Iran seen as boost to confidence
By Joby Warrick and Greg Miller, WashingtonPost [April 7, 2012]
---- The surveillance has been part of what current and former U.S. officials describe as an intelligence surge that is aimed at Iran’s nuclear program and that has been gaining momentum since the final years of George W. Bush’s administration. At a time of renewed debate over whether stopping Iran might require military strikes, the expanded intelligence collection has reinforced the view within the White House that it will have early warning of any move by Iran to assemble a nuclear bomb, officials said. The expanded espionage effort has confirmed the consensus view expressed by the U.S. intelligence community in a controversial estimate released publicly in 2007. That estimate concluded that while Iran remains resolutely committed to assembling key building blocks for a nuclear weapons program, particularly enriched uranium, the nation’s leaders have opted for now against taking the crucial final step: designing a nuclear warhead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sees-intelligence-surge-as-boost-to-confidence/2012/04/07/gIQAlCha2S_print.html
A 'closing window' on Iran blocks out realistic diplomacy
By Tony Karon, The National [United Arab Emirates] [April 4, 2012]
---- 'I believe there is a window of time to solve this diplomatically but that window is closing," President Barack Obama said last week about the nuclear standoff with Iran. … There may be three related elements at work. First, there is Israel threatening unilateral military action based on its own red lines and on its own timetable unless Iran yields. Then there's the fact that Mr Obama's Iran strategy was designed by Dennis Ross, who has since returned to his old job at a think tank created by the pro-Israel lobby Aipac. And then there's Mr Obama's concern with securing his re-election in November, which requires tough-guy posturing on Iran to counter charges from his Republican opponents, egged on by Israel's alarmism, about being "weak" in the face of an Iranian "danger". http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/a-closing-window-on-iran-blocks-out-realistic-diplomacy#full
Media Tutorial
State-dominated media and Iran
By Glen Greenwald, Salon.com [April 5, 2012]
---- The New York Times this morning is prominently featuring a long article documenting the Terroristic aggression of Iran, as evidenced by that country’s attempts to exert influence and foment unrest in Afghanistan: because, as all decent people know, only tyrannical fanatics would attempt to interfere in Afghanistan. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/05/state_dominated_media_and_iran/singleton/
ISRAELI POLICY
Israeli Experts Mum on Iran Attack to Support Bibi’s Bluff
By Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service [April 03, 2012]
----- A striking feature of the Israeli political landscape in recent months has been the absence of a serious debate among national security figures on the issue of the threat of war with Iran. It is well-known that many prominent former military and intelligence officials believe an attack on Iran would be disastrous for Israel. After an initial blast at the idea of striking Iran by two former high-ranking officials last year, however, very little has been heard from such national security figures. The reason for this silence on the part of the national security sector, just as the Israeli threat of war was escalating sharply, appears to be a widespread view among Israeli national security analysts that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to attack is a highly successful bluff. http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/04/02/israeli-experts-mum-on-iran-attack-to-support-bibis-bluff/
Also useful: Gareth Porter, (Video) “Is Netanyahu Bluffing?” Gareth Porter interviewed on the Real News Network [April 6, 2012] – 13 minutes - http://warincontext.org/2012/04/06/video-is-netanyahu-bluffing/; and
Inside Bibi’s mind is a war waiting to start
By Larry Derfner, 972 Magazine [March 24, 2012]
---- Netanyahu (and not just he) seems to have talked himself into believing a war with Iran will be relatively painless The question of whether Israel will attack Iran or not has come down to a guessing game of what’s inside Bibi Netanyahu’s head. He’s certainly given every indication that he wants to do the deed. The idea that he’s bluffing is, I think, pretty stupid; he’s been talking about bombing Iran for 10 years, and he’s hardly alone among Israeli leaders. http://972mag.com/bibis-mind-is-made-up-for-war/39128/
Israelis to protest Iran attack amid growing web campaign
Haggai Matar, 972 Magazine [March 20, 2012]
---- Following a growing number of online grassroots peace initiatives, activists are calling for the first significant demonstration against the sounding war drums. First came the Iranian women, with a series of video clips made especially for International Women’s Day, speaking out against war from a feminist perspective. Then came the Israeli reply, with the Coalition of Women for Peace publishing a declaration stating they “oppose the inflammatory rhetoric of war mongers and the recently advertised plan of the Israeli government to attack Iran. Such an assault is not likely to stop the Iranian nuclear plan, but is likely to lead to regional war, loss of human life and a long term environmental damage.” To this the Iranian group responded with enthusiasm, and called for an end to militarization and sanctions. In an interview with Ha’aretz (Hebrew), one of the Iranian women said that while her group began the struggle, resistance to the war is spreading throughout many groups in Iran. http://972mag.com/israelis-set-to-protest-iran-war-amid-growing-web-campaign/38878/
IRANIAN POLICY
As Nuclear Talks Near, Iran Softens Criticism of Turkey
By Rick Gladstone, New York Times [April 6, 2012]
---- Without specifically referring to Mr. Erdogan or the nuclear talks, Mr. Mehmanparast said that the “remarks made by different people should not have any negative effects on bilateral relations.” He added that Mr. Erdogan’s meeting with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been “very positive and constructive.” The substance of Mr. Erdogan’s discussions with Ayatollah Khamenei have not been disclosed. But Mr. Erdogan visit came just after he met with President Obama at a summit meeting in South Korea. There has been speculation since that Mr. Erdogan carried a message from Mr. Obama to Iran’s leaders on the nuclear issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/world/middleeast/iran-softens-criticism-of-turkey-as-nuclear-talks-approach.html?ref=world
SANCTIONS
Impact of Iran Sanctions Widens
By Rick Gladstone, New York Times [April 4, 2012]
---- The Iran sanctions effort led by the United States appeared to be causing new fractures in the Iranian economy on Tuesday, with leading oil companies in South Africa and Greece suspending imports of Iran’s crude oil, further signs of emergency self-reliance emerging in Iran, and an influential former Iranian president publicly challenging his country’s anti-American stoicism.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/world/middleeast/impact-of-iran-sanctions-widens.html?ref=world
Also useful: Howard LaFranchi, “What do Iran sanctions cost you? About 25 cents a gallon, experts say,” The Christian Science Monitor [April 5, 2012] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0405/What-do-Iran-sanctions-cost-you-About-25-cents-a-gallon-experts-say; and Juan Cole, “Why Romney is Lying about the Causes of high Prices at the Pump,” Informed Comment [April 4, 2012] http://www.juancole.com/2012/04/why-romney-is-lying-about-the-causes-of-high-prices-at-the-pump.html
India and the Iran sanctions
By Ramesh Thakur, JapanTimes [April 2, 2012]
---- India must balance relations with Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. India's defense minister recently paid an official visit to Riyadh, the first such ever, and the two sides have agreed to draft a road map for defense cooperation. But India also does have good relations with Iran based on shared trade and security interests. Iran supplies about 12 percent of India's oil imports. Delhi has also had a long-standing interest in building a gas pipeline from Iran to India, but that would have to run through Pakistan and therefore leave India exposed to its enemy's good will in a future emergency. There has been an equally long-standing convergence of strategic interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan that will outlast the Western military involvement in Afghanistan. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120402rt.html
SYRIA UPDATES
Introduction
Two months ago, Syria expert Patrick Seale outlined the multi-dimensional crisis in and with Syria as follows:
"It’s at least a two- or possibly a three-stage crisis. Internally in Syria, the situation is getting worse by the day. At a higher level, there is a struggle between the United States, on the one hand, and its allies, and its opponents like Russia and China... Then there’s a third level, possibly, of Arab Gulf states like Qatar, for example, even Saudi Arabia behind it, who are obsessed and worried by Iran, and they think that Iran might stir up Shia communities in the region." http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/7/a_struggle_for_regional_supremacy_syria
If anything, the layers of complexity have deepened. The Arab League, as reflected in its recent meeting in Baghdad, is deeply divided. The Kofi Annan/UN peace plan, endorsed by the Arab League meeting, was immediately followed by steps to escalate the war taken at the “Friends of Syria” meeting in Turkey. Whether the Assad regime will act on its commitment to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from urban areas by April 10th, and whether there will be a ceasefire on April 12, remains to be seen.
OVERVIEWS
'There’s a fear that the fall of Assad would lead to worse for Western interests and Israel.”
An interview with Gilbert Achcar, ZNet [April 5, 2012]
---- The Syrian National Council is a heterogeneous combination of people, from the Muslim Brotherhood to people on the left, especially the People’s Democratic Party, with a number of figures linked to Western governments, the US or France in particular. The SNC is held together by the pressure of various states intervening in the Syrian situation. These states are actually pushing for a broader coalition to include other groups, in addition to those who are already in the SNC. They are aiming at some form of unification of the opposition, which would make it even more heterogeneous than what the SNC already is. This said, the important point is that the SNC is not a homogeneous rightwing force as depicted in some circles. Within the council, there are some people who cannot be classified as rightwing, but are rather progressives. http://www.zcommunications.org/there-s-a-fear-that-the-fall-of-assad-would-lead-to-worse-for-western-interests-and-israel--by-gilbert-achcar
Civil War or Foreign Intervention? Deadlock over Syria
By Alain Gresh, Le Monde diplomatique [April 3, 2012]
---- The Ba’athist regime believed Syria’s position within the axis of resistance meant it was safe from the revolutionary movement that engulfed the region in 2011. But that was to reduce the conflict over Syria to its geopolitical dimension, as a confrontation between the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps, and to underestimate the changes brought about by the Arab revolutions and the aspirations of the Syrians. The regime miscalculated, because Syria has the same flaws as others in the region: an authoritarian and arbitrary government, a greedy elite, neoliberal policies that impoverish its people, and an inability to respond to the aspirations of the young, who are more numerous and better educated than their elders. Should we do nothing? There are other options than military intervention. http://mondediplo.com/2012/04/03syria
Straining NATO on Short Syrian Leash
By Vijay Prashad, AsiaTimes [April 05, 2012]
---- On February 18, I asked the Indian ambassador to the United Nations, Hardeep Singh Puri, why there was no appetite for a strong UN resolution on Syria. After all, the violence in Syria seemed to have already exceeded that in Libya. If the UN could pass Resolution 1973 (on Libya), why was it reticent to pass a similar resolution on Syria? Puri pointed his finger directly at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) states. They had exceeded the mandate of Resolution 1973, moving for regime change using immense violence. All attempts to find a peaceful solution were blocked. The African Union's high-level panel was prevented from entering Libya as the NATO barrage began. Any UN resolution that was sharply worded and that was not explicitly against a humanitarian intervention would open the door to a NATO-style attack. That seems to be the fear. http://www.zcommunications.org/straining-nato-on-short-syrian-leash-by-vijay-prashad
A Secret Plot in Syria
By Andy Warner, Slate [April 4, 2012]
---- An illustrated guide to the 1949 coup—possibly CIA-assisted—that plunged the country into decades of political turmoil. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/04/syrian_violence_was_the_cia_involved_in_the_1949_coup_that_plunged_the_country_into_decades_of_turmoil_.html
INSIDE SYRIA
Loyalty to Syrian President Could Isolate Hezbollah
By Anne Barnard, New York Times [April 5, 2012]
---- Syria’s conflict is testing Hezbollah’s longstanding contradictions. It relies on public support, yet sometimes behaves autocratically; it is a national group founded to fight Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, but owes its military might — and the funds that rebuilt the south after the 2006 war — to Iran’s desire to project power; and it styles itself pan-Islamic, but it depends on rock-solid support from Lebanese Shiites for whom it won long-denied power as it became the Middle East’s most formidable militant group and Lebanon’s strongest political force.Most of all, Hezbollah won respect by sticking to its principles, even among rival sects and the leftist cafe regulars in Beirut who are skeptical of its religious conservatism. Now it is paying a price for its politics of pragmatism in Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/middleeast/hezbollahs-syria-policy-puts-it-at-risk.html?ref=world
Kurdish Bloc Withdraws From Syrian Rebel Council
By Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com [April 5, 2012]
---- Kurdish factions have been struggled to find a side in the Syrian Civil War, with the militant PKK openly backing the Assad government, and threatening to escalate attacks on Turkey if the nation invades. Indeed, Turkey’s decision to abandon their long-time allies in the regime and endorsing the SNC instead was seen by many analysts as chiefly a function of the SNC’s more nationalist ambitions, with the hopes that they would tamp down secessionist fervor in Syrian Kurdistan. The loss of the Kurdish bloc from the SNC could weaken the rebels significantly in the nation’s northwest, and could put the Kurds in a better bargaining position if the rebel faction eventually collapses. http://news.antiwar.com/2012/04/05/kurdish-bloc-withdraws-from-syrian-rebel-council/
Syria: The virtue of civil disobedience
By Donatella Della Ratta, Aljazeera [April 6, 2012]
---- Civil disobedience is the only way to mobilise people in big cities that are deemed to be regime strongholds in Syria. Syrians' non-violent struggle is indeed inspired by a Syrian scholar, Jawdat Said, who has been incarcerated many times for his writings on resisting oppression through non-violence. In 2001, he wrote: "We live in a world in which four fifths of its population live in frustration while the other fifth lives in fear." Jawadat Said, born in 1931, lives in the Syrian Golan Heights and works as a farmer. I wonder what he thinks of these youth, engaged in their civilised struggle against Goliath, far away from media spotlight, maybe closer to their people. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/20124283638298672.html
A PLETHORA OF MEETINGS
Syria’s Assad Endorses April 10 Peace Deadline
By Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com [April 2, 2012]
---- Faced with calls from the international community to see some sort of progress on a negotiated settlement, Syrian President Bashar Assad has agreed to an April 10 deadline to start implementing Kofi Annan’s UN-backed plan. The deadline would have Syrian government forces withdrawing from cities and granting humanitarian access, as well as moving toward a full ceasefire within 48 hours of the deadline. The first part should be easy enough. The second part would require the rebel factions to stop fighting — and there’s no indication so far they would consider doing so. http://news.antiwar.com/2012/04/02/syrias-assad-endorses-april-10-peace-deadline/print/
(Video) Arab League meeting in Iraq shows deep divisions over Syria
Vijay Prashad interviewed on the Real News Network [April 6, 2012]
http://warincontext.org/2012/04/06/video-arab-league-meeting-in-iraq-shows-deep-divisions-over-syria/
Russia Accuses Group of Undermining Peace Plan in Syria
By Anne Barnard and Rick Gladstone, New York Times [April 5, 2012]
---- On Wednesday, differences seemed to deepen between the United States and Russia over a solution to the crisis, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov renewing his denunciation of Western and Arab leaders grouped in the so-called “Friends of Syria” coalition. The grouping of dozens of countries met Sunday in Istanbul along with exiled opponents of President Assad, and moved closer to direct intervention in the fighting, with Arab nations pledging $100 million to pay opposition fighters and the Obama administration agreeing to send communications equipment to help rebels organize and evade Syria’s military. Russia did not participate in the meeting and Mr. Lavrov on Wednesday accused the body of undermining the peace proposal put forward by Kofi Annan, the special envoy representing the Arab League and the United Nations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-accuses-group-of-undermining-peace-plan-in-syria.html?ref=world
(Video) “Friends of Syria” push civil war
---- An interview with Vijay Prashad, from the Real News Network [April 4, 2012] – 9 minutes
http://warincontext.org/2012/04/04/video-friends-of-syria-push-civil-war/
