Photo Credit: AFP

According to U.S. officials, “the Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting orders from President Bashar Assad.” As of the report there was no evidence that nerve agents had been fully weaponized or loaded onto planes, but that they had been “locked and loaded inside…bombs.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration is just as “concerned about Syria’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of Syrian rebels” as they are about Assad using them against his own people, given the rebel forces are known to consist of Islamist units and several brigades said to be linked to al-Qaeda. A YouTube video posted on by“Damascus Command” reinforced such fears by claiming to show a mujaheddin brigade raising their flag over a captured Syrian army air defense base. Another rebel group, “al-Nusra Front” is soon to be designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the U.S. Department of State in hopes of isolating extremist groups from the opposition and the new political body.

It has also been announced that “top U.S. and Russian diplomats will hold a surprise meeting [December 6] with the United Nations’ peace envoy for Syria” to negotiate a path forward in Syria. Meanwhile, Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused NATO of using the “chemical weapons ‘chorus’” as an excuse to intervene in Syria. Mekdad insisted the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey was “provocative” and further indication NATO wants to invade Syria. There has been speculation that Assad is currently seeking asylum in a number of different Latin American countries, however, Syrian officials have denied such claims.

It is hard to tell what reports of chemical weapons might signal for intervention in Syria, argued Tony Karon in Time. “The real issue here isn’t moral or legal. It’s psychological – and therefore political,” said Michael Crowley. “The fact is that Assad’s use of chemical weapons would generate a degree of revulsion and outrage that would give the West the political cover required for direct intervention, he added.” “There are other concerns in Syria. Rape is tearing Syrians apart. The concept of purity is destroying their lives on top of it all,” reminded Lauren Wolfe.

Photo Credit: Reuters

President Barack Obama issued a warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people. “If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons,” Obama said, “there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.” Speaking in Prague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated Obama’s statement. “We have made our views very clear,” Clinton said. ”This is a red line for the United States.” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insisted that “if anybody resorts to these terrible weapons I would expect an immediate reaction from the international community.” Following Rasmussen’s warning, NATO approved the use of the Patriot anti-missile system along Turkey’s border with Syria.

Meanwhile, the United Nations announced the suspension of aid operations in Syria, citing the need for additional armored vehicles for humanitarian aid convoys. All non-essential staff have been ordered to leave Syria, and the U.N. plans to reduce field work as well. Hours after the U.N. announcement, the European Union said it would be reducing activities in Damascus ”to a minimum” due to artillery and airstrikes by Syrian security forces in the area.

“Syria’s arsenal is a particular threat to American allies,” said Kimberly Dozier and Pauline Jelinek in The Christian Science Monitor. Although “Syria has repeatedly said it would not use chemical weapons against its own people, the line grows blurry as increasing numbers of rebels battling the Syrian government come from outside the country,” according to Mark Thompson in Time Magazine. ” “Blowing your people up with high explosives is allowable, as is shooting them, or torturing them,” mused Dominic Tierney in The Atlantic, “but woe betide the Syrian regime if it even thinks about using chemical weapons!”

Photo Credit: Reuters/Saad al-Jabri

President Barack Obama has signaled the possibility of recognizing the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Reports indicate that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may announce the recognition at a “Friends of Syria” meeting in Morocco on December 12. “We’ve been looking for them to establish a leadership structure that’s clear to everybody, but also discrete committees that can deal with the various issues that they are assuming responsibility for,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. However, the Obama Administration remains wary of arming the rebels. U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said, “Arms are a tactic, not a strategy. We think that a military solution is not the best way for Syria. Efforts to win this by conquering one side or another will simply prolong the violence and aggravate an already terrible humanitarian situation.”

Recent activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites put NATO allies on high alert. A senior U.S. administration official said, “The president has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a red line for the United States. We consistently monitor developments related to Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, and are in regular contact with international partners who share our concern.” The Pentagon estimates upwards of 75,000 troops would be required to neutralize the chemical weapons should an intervention take place.

Heavy fighting took place between rebel militias and government troops on the outskirts of Damascus. In recent weeks, rebels have overrun a number of military bases and taken control of several border crossings into neighboring Turkey, as well as large swaths of territory in northwestern and eastern Syria. In other news, internet in Damascus came back online following a two-day blackout. Activists say the regime cut the connection ahead of a planned offensive against the rebels, while the Assad government blamed “terrorist” action.

Photo Credit: The New York Times

The United Nations General Assembly approved the upgrade of Palestine to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations on Thursday, with 138 votes in favor, nine opposed, and 41 abstentions. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the resolution “unfortunate and counterproductive,” while Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said the vote was nothing but “negative political theatre” that is “going to hurt peace.” The status of nonmember observer state provides Palestine with additional tools to challenge Israel in international legal forums.

Meanwhile, ahead of the U.N. vote, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislation SA 3023 as an amendment to S. 3245, the National Defense Authorization Act currently under consideration in the Senate, that would cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority if they file charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court. Additionally, amendments SA 3139 and SA 3171 were introduced to the same bill. SA 3171 bars the U.S. from funding the United Nations if the General Assembly votes to upgrade Palestine’s status in any manner, while SA 3139  cuts funding for any country that votes to upgrade Palestinian status. “We are committed, Democrats and Republicans, to using every means at our disposal to ensure that this U.N. General Assembly vote does not serve as a precedent for elevating the status of the PLO,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“Thursday’s overwhelming U.N. vote to elevate the status of Palestine at the world body inflicts yet another fracture in the facade of Western solidarity, exposing a divide among European Union and NATO member states over U.S. policy in the Middle East,” warned Carol J. Williams, in The L.A. Times. “Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister (of Israel), has argued that the Palestinians’ new status is compatible with a two-station solution – and therefore not necessarily bad news,” reminded Gideon Rachman in The Financial Times. “As Palestinian celebrations die out, focus shifts once again to Washington, where Abbas and his prime minister Salam Fayyad now have to deal not only with an administration reluctant to dive into any new peace initiative but also with Congress,” cautioned Nathan Guttman in The Jewish Daily Forward. 

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Syrian opposition leaders will be meeting in Qatar next week to revamp the structure of the Syrian National Council (SNC). The meeting will focus on the election of new leaders and ensuring the body is more representative of minority opposition factions, such as the Alawites and Kurds. Officials hope that the SNC will ultimately serve as a “proto-parliament” in exile, and that the Turkish government will embrace the new body. The U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, Robert Ford, will be present during the process. The prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, showed support for the opposition while accusing the Syrian government of waging “a war of extermination” and “genocide” against its people. According to the Center for Documentation of Violations in Syria, approximately 434 civilians died as a result of violence by the regime between October 26, the beginning of the proposed ceasefire, and October 31.

Due to the fractious nature of the current opposition movement, as well as recent clashes between “Syrian-Arab insurgents” and Syrian Kurds near the border, the PKK threatened to intervene militarily. Turkey has declared it will not tolerate such action. Robert Wright of The Atlantic suggested that a Mitt Romney presidential administration would be more likely to draw the U.S. and NATO into a “full-fledged war,” or limited intervention in Syria, should there  an open conflict between Turkey and Syria. Whereas Wright suggested that a Romney presidency could potentially unite neoconservatives and “liberal interventionists,” Daniel Larson of the The American Conservative argued that there are more obstacles to such a scenario than Wright suggests. Larson stated that current U.S. public opinion, as well as Turkey and NATO’s overt aversion to war, significantly reduce the possibility of an intervention. However, he agreed that Democrats and Republicans are more likely to coalesce on the issue under a potential Romney administration.

Photo Credit: AP

U.S. Acting Under Secretary for arms control and international security Rose Gottemoeller is in Ankara for talks on the Syrian crisis. “We continue to consult with our partners in the region, including Turkey, on a variety of issues related to Syria,” U.S. embassy spokesman T.J. Grubisha said. Pentagon Press Secretary George Little assured the international community that the U.S. “will continue to funnel nonlethal aid to the Syrian opposition,” amid reports that weapons intended for more secular Syrian rebels are ending up in the hands of hard-line Islamic jihadists. Although the U.S. does not directly supply arms, it provides support and intelligence for shipments  of ammunition. In Washington, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed support for Turkey’s ban on Syrian flights. “We are encouraging all of Syria’s neighbors to be vigilant with regard to how their airspace is used,” Nuland said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met privately at the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) summit in Azerbaijan. “We have agreed to bolster communication at the level of the foreign ministries to bridge differences over the unfolding Syrian conflict,” Erdogan told a press conference, after agreeing to suggest three-way talks with Egypt to Ahmadinejad. Erdogan also suggested the option of talks between “Turkey-Russia-Iran [or] Turkey-Egypt-Saudi Arabia,” state-run Anatolian news agency reported. Nuland responded, saying  ”we continue to believe that the Iranians are a malign force in this, that they are actively aiding and abetting the Syrian regime and its war machine.”

Meanwhile, “Obama … had a chance to rid the region of a bad actor,” Richard Cohen fumed in the Mercury News. “Instead, [he] has let the situation drift and it has worsened.” CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward reported similar sentiments, saying “there’s a sense that the U.S. has lost an opportunity here by taking such a hands-off approach to the Syrian conflict.” Jorge Benitez urged ”NATO … to offer Turkey more than repeated promises to follow the crisis ‘closely and with great concern,’”  in an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor.

Photo Credit: Reuters

After the Syrian military shelled the Turkish border town of Ackakale, killing five Turkish citizens, Turkish Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan responded by proclaiming, “Under the rules of engagement and international law, Turkey will never let the Syrian regime’s provocations targeting our national security…go unanswered.” Syrian ambassador to the U.N., Bashar Ja’afari, addressed the attack by sending a letter to the U.N. Security Council expressing “Syria’s deepest condolences” and clarifying that Syria is not “seeking any escalation of violence with Turkey,” although he did not issue an official apology.

Tensions mounted when the Turkish parliament’s authorization of military action against Syria resulted in counterattacks on a Syrian military base. Turkey also sent armed warships and submarines into the Mediterranean. The U.N. Security council officially condemned the Syrian attack and demanded “such violations of international law stop immediately and are not repeated.” Russia rejected the original text of the condemnation, and despite Western council member objections, the text was revised to accommodate Russian concerns. N.A.T.O. also denounced the attacks and Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor defined the incident as an attack on N.A.T.O. itself, per existing N.A.T.O. treaties.

The U.S. Department of State responded by sending “its deepest condolences to the Turkish victims,” condemning the Syrian attack and pledging U.S. support for Turkey. The Turkish counterattack on Syria was deemed “appropriate” and “proportional” by U.S. officials. The Washington Institute’s Jeffrey White, Soner Cagaptay, and Andrew J. Tabler weighed in on the matter, arguing the incident provides a prime opportunity for the U.S. to lend their support in an effort to achieve regional stability and emboldened the Syrian opposition.

For full event notes, continue reading below, or click here for the PDF version.

Stuart Eizenstat began the conversation by arguing that the current round of sanctions against Iran “are the single most comprehensive sanctions imposed on any country in peacetime.” He discussed their impact, citing the depreciation of the rial and the reduction in foreign reserves. Eizenstat said that if Iran attained nuclear weapons, it would shred what remains of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, provide a nuclear umbrella for terrorist groups, and pose a direct national security threat to the U.S. and its allies.

Barbara Slavin discussed the heightened security atmosphere in Iran, saying that Iranians feel demoralized and no longer view the United States as helpful. Additionally, Slavin mentioned that Iranians are beginning to blame the U.S. and its allies for their problems.

Ali Vaez discussed how the situation in Iran is viewed from Tehran to Washington. The U.S. sees the current unrest as proof that sanctions are working and that the current atmosphere could set off a Persian Spring, which could lead to a more democratic, pro-Western government. However, Vaez continued, “there is no guarantee that even a compromise will bring about an end to the pressure.” Iranians feel that the U.S. is using the nuclear issue as a pretext to undermine the Islamic Republic and topple the regime. Additionally, both parties believe that time is on their side. Sanctions are having an impact, and Washington thinks Iran cannot continue on this path, Vaez said. However, Iran believes it is only a matter of time before the U.S. realizes that sanctions will not change Iran’s behavior, and the Iranian leadership is confident that they can weather the storm by doing business with its neighbors. Additionally, Vaez mentioned a new trend among Iranian economists who believe sanctions will help Iran grow, develop and become self-reliant. From a strategic prospective, Iran’s government equates survival with victory, and is confident about its grip on power, based on the suppression of the opposition in 2009. Vaez affirmed his view that, in the absence of a viable political alternative and given the revolutionary fatigue, the possibility of overthrowing the regime is not likely.

Discussing the possibility of a military strike, Vaez said that the U.S. views Israel’s threat as an option, although Obama is resistant to enter another Middle East war. However, the view in “Tehran is that war is not around the corner, the U.S. doesn’t have the will, and Israel lacks the means.” Vaez believes a unilateral strike would delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, while angering allies of the U.S. and putting continued sanctions in jeopardy. Vaez then discussed what he sees as mutual escalation: “the race of sanctions against centrifuges.” For negotiations to be successful, Vaez concluded, the format and substance of negotiations must change to be more frequent negotiations at lower levels, which present a real step-by-step process to disentangle demands and provide rewards for each positive step.

Suzanne Maloney reiterated the impact sanctions have had, but said that the export flow and storage of oil will be the true testament of sanctions. The E.U. sanctions targeting insurance for Iranian oil exports have been the most effective at disrupting trade. In addition to panic, fear, and desperation taking hold, sanctions are creating an economic bubble that the Iranian government may not be able to control, Maloney said. Every time the government effectively manages one crisis, a new crisis emerges, and it will be very difficult for any regime to maintain control under this degree of pressure, Maloney asserted. Additionally, Maloney mentioned the divisions within the Iranian leadership on the effects of sanctions. Some believe that they are an opportunity, which could lead to an economy that is not reliant on oil, as well as subsidy and market reforms. Additionally, there are those who believe sanctions are as much a risk for the West as for Iran. However, Maloney noted the backlash against the West has been small, with no discernible increase in the price of oil due to Saudi Arabia’s increasing supply.

The U.S. believes that sanctions are contributing to the collapse of the economy, although Iranians see the riots as evidence that the U.S. is using sanctions for regime change, not targeting the nuclear issue. Maloney brought up some serious issues for the U.S., “in particular, that we have no exit strategy for most of these sanctions.” Additionally, Maloney mentioned that sanctions have created a belief in Iran that they out to be compensated for concessions, giving rise to the mindset that “you punish us, we want something in return for good behavior.” Iran is not unable to export oil or do business with the rest of the world, and have actually benefitted companies affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. Maloney concluded that Iran is in a period of stalwart conservatism and is not running scared from the threat of violence. She was quite critical of’ previous American offers to Iran, saying that the U.S. must have a better offer if there is to be any conclusion to the situation.

During the Q&A, Vaez and Maloney fielded questions about the P5+1 group’s effectiveness, what Iran’s ultimate objective is, and how the Iranian public views the threat of violence. Vaez said the level of anti-Americanism has been fined-tuned to prevent any form of direct talks without a key mediator, while Maroney said the P5+1 has proven ineffective at diplomacy. Maroney mentioned the possibility of a parallel track, perhaps utilizing Turkey or Brazil as mediators, but said that adding to or disbanding the P5+1 would be a disaster. Both Vaez and Maloney agreed that Iranians would rally around their government if it is attacked. In response to the Obama Administration’s assertion that an Iran with nuclear weapons would destroy the integrity of the NPT, Vaez pointed to Israel, saying “a country that has nuclear weapons and isn’t a member of the NPT attacking Iran would be equally disastrous to the NPT.” Maloney said Iran’s ultimate objective is to live another day and obtain nuclear capability. Vaez and Maroney agreed that the situation will not be resolved soon. Vaez said the U.S. is focused on crisis management, while Iran has its sights set on obtaining nuclear capability. Maloney said that “there is a cyclical dimension to the diplomacy,” and the difficulty will be in achieving a more useful environment for agreement.

Photo Credit: Michel Moutot/AFP/Getty Images

U.N. Security Council members remain deeply divided on how to deal with the Syrian crisis, while both Syria and Iran have expressed discontent with perceived meddling in the conflict. ”We heard calls from this podium, and on other platforms, some calls from those who are ignorant of the facts or maybe ignoring them, or also from those who are shareholders in exacerbating them, that invites the president of the Syrian Arab Republic to step down. This is a blatant interference in the domestic affairs of Syria, and the unity of its people and its sovereignty,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said in his address to the U.N. General Assembly. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi echoed al-Moallem’s concern saying, ”When it comes to outside interference, and to the internal affairs of Syria, and when outside powers dictate upon the Syrian people that ‘Look, your president should step down, and this should happen’, this is not the right way to do things. What we are saying is that both sides have to recognize the other side.”

Meanwhile, the fighting rages on in a conflict that has left over 35,000 Syrians dead, created an enormous refugee problem, and destroyed portions of its largest cities. A U.N. estimate suggests that 300,000 Syrians have fled the country and 1.5 million have been internally displaced. Many are stuck at the northern border as some Turkish camps have stopped accepting new arrivals. Additionally, a recent firefight in Aleppo resulted in the destruction of its covered bazaar, a centuries-old UNESCO World Heritage site.

Finally, anonymous airport officials in Cairo, Egypt indicated that a security delegation left for Damascus on October 1. However, Yasser Ali, spokesman for President Mohamed Morsi, denied the report. The intended mission of the delegation is not yet clear.

For full event notes, continue reading below or click here for the PDF version.

Dr. Javier Solana began by exploring what the U.S. and E.U. are doing to implement their values via their policies in the Middle East.  He said that the two have not done what they are capable of in assisting the transitions. He noted that the Marshall Plan after World War II far dwarfed any effort at providing resources for Arab countries in transition thus far, and that the people of the Middle East may not be able to shrug off the status quo without outside help. Solana said the Middle East transition will be difficult because there is no prescription for a way forward, yet the Arab people are insistent on achieving a better way of life. He felt outside assistance should be a mixture of resources applied differently in each country, emphasizing the importance of institution-building. He also suggested the channels of trade in the Middle East must be changed, so as to allow commerce to flow between countries of the region. Without economic growth, he said, the transitions risk stagnation.

Gen. Colin Powell reiterated President Barack Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly as evidence for U.S. commitment to the universal rights of man. Powell pointed out that the information revolution exacerbated the events of the Arab Spring, and eventually despotic leaders will not be able to conduct business as usual. He also said people in the Arab world need jobs, and it is something that is a “universal” need. Powell was adamant “they have to figure out democracy for themselves, but we can help them by giving an example of our history and letting them build their own model.” The difficult task ahead is finding non-corrupt governments to work with that will allow institution-building to take place. He took a moment to recognize Amb. Chris Stevens as a “living example” of the U.S. commitment in assisting Arab countries in transition. Powell suggested a “soft hand on the tiller” is necessary moving forward, but “Europeans and Americans should not shrink from their belief in the universal rights of man.” He made it clear economic growth is pivotal for governments in transition.

On the subject of Syria, Dr. Solana noted U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has 125 meetings scheduled this week to discuss Syria, but there is a lack of tangible action. He said the Chinese were following the lead of Russia in threatening to veto actions by the U.N. Security Council. This suggests there is a multi-level problem in deciding what to do about the Syrian crisis. Gen. Powell said Syria presents a much complicated problem than Libya and a civil war can be expected if and when Assad goes. He wondered, “Who is waiting in the wings to put troops on the ground if Russia and China change their minds?” Nations will not rush to provide that kind of commitment. He made it clear the Syrian situation is horrible, but it is a civil war which will not be concluded until one side reaches fatigue. Until that happens, he was not certain a military intervention would solve the crisis.

During the Q&A session, Gen. Powell said he was pleased to see countries in transition upholding their previous treaties, but does not see a short-term breakthrough in the Israel/Palestine peace process. Israel is comfortable with its position and is not willing to make a compromise. In reference to the Gulf monarchies, he said they have provided a stable institution the people look to. They are able to provide for their people because of the large source of income, and because of this the evolution will be much slower. He felt over time the global system would pressure the monarchies to change their ways. In response to a question from the audience, Powell clarified what he meant by institution-building, stating “it must begin from a basis in a body a law, which will be followed by legislature, courts, a free press, and so on.” A question was posed about how to help with constitution-writing and what to do about human rights issues which may be imbedded in these new documents. Gen. Powell said, “We should be very vocal that language which is detrimental to minorities and women is not in accordance with global trends, but in the end we don’t have control over what is put into their own constitutions.” Dr. Solana finished by saying “Conditionality shouldn’t be used in this aspect. The task requires dialogue so as not to give the impression that we are imposing upon their constitutional rights.”