FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT
25 Sep 2007 (T12:19), COUNTRY VIEW

OVERVIEW:  The president, Bashar al-Assad, is expected to remain in power in 2008-09. However, he will continue to rely on the strength and ruthlessness of the loyal security services, which will keep opposition forces weak and  ineffective. Mr Assad has devoted considerable effort to ending Syria's political isolation, but with only limited  returns. Numerous issues of contention remain in Syria's relations with the EU, the US and the leading Arab  states.  Economic  policy  in  2008-09 will focus on the need to diversify the economy and on encouraging investment,  but  structural  fiscal  reform  will  be  constrained  by  the fear of alienating public opinion. Declining oil output will curb economic growth and inflation will stay relatively high, at an annual average of 6.7%  in 2008-09. The current account will record deficits over the outlook period, as strong growth in non-oil exports  and  workers'  remittances  fails  to  offset  the  expected  decline in the volume of oil exports and relatively strong import growth.

Domestic  politics: Power remains firmly in the hands of the president, who is supported by key elements in the security services  and  by the Baath party. In May a referendum was held to give the public the opportunity to endorse  parliament's  selection of Mr Assad as the sole candidate in this year's presidential election. In the event,  the  choice  of  Mr  Assad  was  supported by 97.62% of those who voted (or 11.2m people), with turnout reported  at  95.86%  of the 11.7m eligible voters (up from a turnout of just 8.7m in the 2000 referendum). The higher  turnout  this time lends support to the argument put forward by government officials that conditions in Syria have improved during Mr Assad's first term.

International  relations:  Mr Assad may have secured his domestic position, but he faces a number of challenges in  the  international  arena  (which will have a profound bearing on his popularity at home). In recent months both  Israeli and Syrian officials have sent out mixed signals about their desire for a resumption of bilateral peace  talks,  but  at  the  same time there have been mutterings about their readiness for war. A reported air strike  by  Israel  on Syria in early September has added to the confusion about the two countries' intentions, but  on  balance  appears  to  have  strengthened the Israeli hand. Syria's lack of a military response perhaps highlights  its  military  weakness  relative  to  Israel,  but, perhaps more noteworthy was the absence of any significant  objections  from  other Arab governments, most notably Saudi Arabia. This underscores the relative isolation  of  the Syrian government within the Arab world and would undermine its credibility in negotiations. Shortly  after  the raid, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, declared his willingness to open peace talks with  Syria, but the Israeli strike will make it more difficult for Mr Assad to engage openly in talks for fear of  appearing  weak  in  the  eyes  of  his  domestic  audience.  The air strike may also have been designed to strengthen Israel's deterrence in the region more generally, perhaps using Syria as a (weaker) proxy for a show of force against Iran.

Policy  trends:  The  soaring  cost  of  the fuel subsidy bill, which is placing an unsustainable burden on the fiscal  accounts,  has  led  to  heated  economic  debate between the government's more reformist, technocratic elements, led by the deputy prime minister for economic affairs, Abdullah al-Dardari, and the more conservative Baath  party  members. Mr Dardari has been pushing for structural reform of the fiscal accounts, including cuts in  fuel  subsidies and the introduction of a value-added tax (VAT). In recent years there has been some reform on  the  tax  front  with  the  introduction of lower tax rates for business and individuals (in a bid to raise compliance), a simplification of the tax collection system and cuts in import tariffs, but the next step in the reform process is less politically palatable. At a time when Syria appears to be largely ostracised by its Arab neighbours,  with  the  ever-present threat of conflict with Israel and/or more severe international sanctions, the  establishment  appears  increasingly  reluctant  to foist painful economic reform upon the population. The proposed  introduction  of  VAT  has  now  been  delayed  until  2009 at the earliest, and there is currently a suggestion  that  some  form  of fuel rationing might be more acceptable with the public than an outright price increase.  The  Economist  intelligence  Unit's  economic  forecasts  assume  that there will be no cut in fuel subsidies  during the outlook period and that even if VAT is introduced in 2009, it will be at a low rate, on a limited number of goods and will not have a noticeable positive impact on the fiscal accounts.

International  assumptions: We forecast that world GDP growth will average 4.8% in 2007-08 (at purchasing power parity  exchange  rates),  down  from  5.1%  in  2006,  but  still  relatively  strong by historical standards. International oil prices (based on the benchmark dated Brent Blend) are expected to remain high at US$69/barrel in  2008,  before easing slightly to US$63.3/b in 2009 as increased oil supply, particularly from Saudi Arabia, brings the market closer to balance.

Economic  growth:  Real  GDP  growth  is expected to remain relatively weak in 2008-09, at an annual average of 3.3%,  largely  owing  to falling oil production, which will lead to a sustained contraction of exports in real terms  and  limit  the  government's  ability to increase spending. Furthermore, the hostile regional political environment  is  also likely to affect investor confidence, undermining efforts to draw urgently needed foreign finance  into  the  oil  and  gas sector, although Russia, Iran and some of the Gulf Arab countries will remain sources  of  capital. Our growth forecast is underpinned, however, by the expected recovery in the agricultural sector  (after  growth was depressed in 2007 by drought conditions in parts of the country). The service sector is  expected to record relatively strong growth in the outlook period as a result of increased demand for goods and services from the large Iraqi refugee population.  Inflation:  According  to  the Central Bank of Syria, the official inflation rate stood at 9.2% year on year in September  2006,  having  risen  steadily  over  the  year, and we estimate that the full-year average was 10%.

Inflation is expected to fall modestly over the outlook period to an annual average of just under 7%, partly as a  result of the abandonment of the pound's peg to the dollar, which will help to contain imported inflationary pressure. Non-oil commodity prices are also expected to ease in 2008-09. Furthermore, there were clear signs in 2006 of an ongoing slowdown in the growth of credit–according to the IMF's Article IV report, published in May 2007, domestic credit to the private sector expanded by 4.6% in 2006, down from 8.9% in 2005. (This can perhaps be  attributed  in  part  to  Central Bank measures to tighten the limits on credit extension.) However, if the government  were  to  enact  phased  cuts  in fuel price subsidies in 2008-09, this would lead to a significant upward  revision  to our inflation forecast. It is worth noting, however, that anecdotal evidence suggests that inflation is running at higher levels than indicated by the official data; there has been much grumbling about the  influx  of Iraqi nationals, who are blamed for generating demand-pull inflation, especially in the housing market.

Exchange  rates:  It  is  unclear at present whether the proposed changes to the exchange-rate regime have been fully  implemented,  but  the  Central Bank's intention is to move to a managed float of the pound, replacing a multi-exchange-rate  regime.  Furthermore,  the  peg  to  the dollar is to be abandoned in favour of a peg to a basket  of  currencies  based  on  the  IMF's  special  drawing rights (SDR). In 2005-06 the composition of the country's  foreign-exchange  reserves was gradually altered, so that by the beginning of 2007 half of the stock of  reserves  was  denominated  in the euro. From 2007 all transactions in the public and mixed sectors will be euro-denominated. (The latter step is partly to avoid the negative impact of the US embargo.) In May the Credit and Monetary Council awarded its first operating licences to moneychangers–the companies are permitted to have multiple  branches  and to transfer sums abroad. Despite these initiatives, the currency will not be allowed to float  freely, with the government continuing to prioritise stability. The regime is well placed to protect the value  of the pound, because of the dominant position of the state-owned banks and the control that the Central Bank  retains  over  foreign-currency  transactions, even as some laws are relaxed. Consequently, we forecast a  relatively  stable  pound in 2008 (partly as a result of dollar weakness), before a modest depreciation in 2009 owing  to  concerns  about the competitiveness of Syria's non-oil exports (and some strengthening of the dollar against the euro).

External  sector: We estimate that the value of merchandise exports will have risen in 2007 as strong growth in non-oil  exports  more  than  offsets the decline in the value of oil exports. The estimated fall in oil export revenue  is  the  result  of  lower Syrian oil production, as international prices are expected to remain high. Non-oil  exports  are  continuing to benefit from the relaxation of foreign-exchange controls, which has led to more  exports  being  officially  recorded. Regional demand has also been strong, and Syria has been benefiting from  its  membership  of  the  Greater  Arab  Free  Trade Area. Although non-oil export revenue is expected to continue  to rise robustly next year, we forecast that export earnings will increase by under 3% because of the projected fall in crude oil production (and thus export volumes). Import spending growth will remain strong in 2008-09,  partly  as a result of the ongoing process of tariff liberalisation. As a result of these trends, the trade deficit is expected to widen from an estimated US$2.2bn in 2007 to US$3.1bn in 2009.  -0- Sep/27/2007 22:17 GMT

27 Sep 2007 (T16:45) COUNTRY BRIEFING
FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT

The  Syrian  government is considering taking to a leaf from Iran's book on economic policy through scrapping a plan  to  cut  fuel  price  subsidies  and replacing it with a system of rationing administered by smart cards. According  to  Champress,  a  news  website,  the  government is studying a rationing proposal, drawn up by the telecoms minister, Amr Salem, as a possible alternative to proceeding with a programme of fuel price increases,
mitigated  by  cash handouts, which has been put together by Abdullah al-Dardari, the deputy prime minister for economic affairs and endorsed by the IMF.

The  apparent  backtracking on fuel subsidies, which, according to the IMF, amounted to more than 10% of GDP in 2006,  follows  a  delay  in the schedule for introducing value-added tax (VAT), another central element of the government's  fiscal  reforms.  Mr  Dardari  had earlier indicated that VAT would be introduced at the start of 2008.  However,  that  schedule has now been put back by at least one year. These reverses raise questions over
political  future  of  Mr  Dardari,  a non-Baathist in a government dominated by the ruling party, which has it roots in a combination of socialism and Arab nationalism.

Assad's silence

The  debate  over  fuel subsidies has intensified in the past few weeks, amid speculation over what changes the president,  Bashar  al-Assad, plans to make to his government following the start of his second seven-year term in  July. It now appears that the retention of Mr Dardari and like-minded ministers—including the oil minister, Sufyan  Allaw,  who  was recently obliged to issue a statement denying rumours that he had been dismissed ”would send  a  signal of Mr Assad's support for the squeeze on subsidies. To do so would require Mr Assad to stand up to  vested  interests  in the status quo, in particular those making large profits through smuggling subsidised fuel to neighbouring markets, where prices are up to ten times higher. The delay in appointing a new government and  the  lack of any mention of fuel subsidies by Mr Assad himself suggest that the question is the subject of fierce  debate at the core of the regime, which is dominated by intelligence agency chiefs and the inner circle of the Assad family.

Mr  Dardari  has  sought  to  draw  attention  to  the  alarming  consequences of failing to act, given Syria's increasing dependence on imports to meet its rapidly growing demand for petroleum products. Syria imports about 4m  tonnes/year  of  gas  oil,  the  most heavily subsidised product, which accounts for over 50% of total fuel consumption.  Gas  oil  is sold in Syria at a price of Sy£7 (US$0.14) per litre, which is roughly one-quarter of the  import  price. The state distribution agency, Mahrukat, also pays international prices for the 3.5m t/y of gas  oil  that it buys from domestic refineries. The subsidy on gas oil alone amounts to more than US$3bn/year. With  Syria's oil export revenues dwindling ”the country is set to become a net oil import this year, if royalty payments  to  foreign  operating  companies  are  factored in, according to the IMF ”maintaining petroleum price subsidies  at current levels would pump up Syria's fiscal and current-account deficits to unsustainable levels, Mr Dardari maintains.

According  to plans announced earlier this year, the government proposes to phase out petroleum price subsidies over  the  next  five  years,  starting  in 2008. In the initial phase, the gas oil price would be increased to £12/litre, gasoline would go up by one-third to Sy£40/litre, and liquefied petroleum gas would be sold at Sy£250 per canister, compared with Sy£145 at present. The price of industrial fuel oil was increased in 2004, and would rise  by  a  further  25%  to Sy£7,500 per tonne. The government has proposed to compensate each of Syria's 3.5m families through providing an annual cash benefit of Sy£12,000.

As the deadline for introducing the new price structure has approached, there has been a crescendo of criticism of the plan in sections of the media, which includes state and Baath party newspapers, as well as internet news services  such  as  Champress and Syria-News, which are controlled by business interests close to the centre of power.  It  was  notable that the comments submitted by readers of the Champress article included several harsh denunciations  of Mr Dardari, accusing him of trying to force discredited IMF and World Bank prescriptions down Syrians' throats.

Three more items of interest:

Report: Bush predicted success in Iraq: Sept. 28, 2007

LONDON, Sept. 28 (UPI) — U.S. President George W. Bush in 2003 predicted the war in Iraq would be won without destruction, Britain's Financial Times reported Friday.

Bush made the prediction one month before the March 2003 invasion, according to leaked transcripts of talks between Bush and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

“I think there is a good basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively robust civil society,” Bush told Aznar at a meeting at Bush's ranch in Texas, the Financial Times reported.

Bush also threatened to deny U.S. aid to Angola and block a trade deal with Chile if the two countries failed to support a U.N. resolution to invade Iraq, the Times reported. The White House eventually abandoned its bid for the resolution.

Bush also told Aznar he had rejected an offer by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to go into exile in return for $1 billion, the Financial Times reported.

The White House Thursday declined to comment on the transcript but didn't challenge the report.

Jeffery Lewis, the "arms control wonk", analyses what Syria's uranium extraction plant is all about.

Extracting Uranium from Phosphates

So, the early reports on this Israeli airstrike in Syria emphasized the prospect that Syria was extracting uranium from phosphates:

The expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid compromising his sources, said the target of the attack appears to have been a northern Syrian facility that was labeled an agricultural research center on the Euphrates River, close to the Turkish border. Israel has kept a close eye on the facility, believing that Syria was using it to extract uranium from phosphates.

I mentioned earlier this week that, as a justification for an airstrike, this is ludicrous…..

Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
By Jonathan Cook, 09/27/07, "ICH"

Nazareth — Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last summer on neighboring Lebanon.

From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the raid occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was the purpose and significance of the attack?

It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neoconservative, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney's recently departed Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neocons, she said, wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus.

The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be countenanced, Hizbullah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two other hostile fronts before going in for the kill.

But faced with constant rocket fire from Hizbullah last summer, Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle. Instead Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council resolution rather than a decisive military victory.

The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of neocon influence. The group's program of "creative destruction" in the Middle East — the encouragement of regional civil war and the partition of large states that threaten Israel — was at risk of being shunted aside…..

Hizbullah: If Israel attacks Syria, we'll respond , Roee Nahmias, 9.27.07, 22:32 / Israel News,

Senior members of Lebanese, Palestinian organizations vow to stand by Damascus if Jewish state launches war. 'Doors will be open which have not been open before. Israel will pay a heavy price,' they warn.

"If Israel dares to make an adventurous move against Syria, it will pay a heavy price," a member of Hizbulla's political council warned Thursday.

In an interview with the Nazareth-based Kul al-Arab newspaper scheduled to be published on Friday, Dr Ahmad Malli warned Israel against considering an attack on Syria, saying that the Lebanese organization would respond to such an offensive with full force.

"I believe that things have changed," Malli explained. "The times when everyone was afraid of the Israeli threats are over. The Zionist entity knows more than anyone that the price of such adventurousness would be heavy, and the Israelis know the price more than anyone.

"Since 2006 we have begun a new stage in the Arab-Israeli conflict and have demonstrated this during the Israeli aggression in July (the Second Lebanon War). If anyone wants to make an adventurous move, it will baer responsibility for this aggression."

Asked whether he was referring to aggression both against Lebanon and against Syria, Malli replied, "We are all in one Middle East."

Ahmad Jibril, secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, also warned Thursday that if Israel attacked Syria or Hizbullah his organization would also respond.

In an interview with the al-Hadat newspaper, which is published in Arabic in the Galilee city of Tamra, Jibril warned that Israel planned to invade Syria in coordination with Arab countries. The interview is scheduled to be published Friday.

According to Jibril, if such an attack takes place, Iran and Hizbullah will stand by Damascus and respond in full force.

"I believe that the Israelis and the Americans will carry out attacks against Syria as soon as possible, in other words in the near future. I do not reject the possibility that the Israeli aircraft will attack us – the Palestinians in Syria.

"I also do not reject the possibility that they will attack the Palestinian headquarters in Damascus. We, the Palestinians in Syria, will not stand idly by. We will be at the front posts. I also believe that Hizbullah will take part in this war," he said.

Jibril added that Israel's plan was to isolate Syria from Iran and the rest of its allies, after identifying it as the weakest link.

"I stress that the plan to isolate Syria will not go by easily," he declared. "I am certain that this war will last for months and will open doors which have not been opened in the past."

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with her Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem in New York on Wednesday, Arab-Israeli newspaper al-Sinara reported on Thursday. Livni's entourage in New York denied the report.

According to the report, which was based on a senior Arab sources the meeting came after Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani surprised Livni with a proposal that she convene with the Syrian FM at the UN headquarters in New York.

After consluting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Livni agreed to the meeting, which ended up lasting for over an hour.

During thier meeting the two reportedly discussed tensions that have built up between the two countries, and the need to calm things down.

Syria said ready to cede disputed area to UN

Hariri, Fox News: “It was not enough to get rid of Saddam, Bashar should have been removed too”

Nabih Berri sitting and smiling with Hariri who just called for Bashar to be removed.

Saudi brothers dump on Syria as well, underscoring Syria's isolation from Arab governments. If you read the comment section of the article, you will notice that few Saudis support al-Rashid's diatribe against Syria even though Syria is an ally of Iran.

Alex writes about Rashid's article:

Abdel Rahman Al-rashed (director of Saudi satellite TV Al-Arabia, and former editor of Asharq al-Awsat) wrote again today accusing the Syrians of being evil (more or less).. blaming them for everything, including Barak’s “cold feet” 1999 reversal of the Golan deal.

Read the readers’ comments … even the typical anti-Syria readers of Asharq found Al-Rashed’s article to be outrageous.

Alrashed is suggesting that the Syrians be invited to the peace conference but they should be kept is a separate room … otherwise they can spoil the conference.

As if without Farouk Shara in that good-guys’ room everything will go smoothly and Israel will give the Saudis everything the Palestinians always wanted and more.

Al-Rashed’s great idea reminds me of his friend Mamoun Fandi’s other invention: in 2005 he wrote an opinion piece in Asharq al-Awsat suggested the following:

“Syria is now in real trouble. What can be done to save Syrian people from paying the price of their governments wrong decisions? The solution is a meeting between all Arab countries including Syria, on the condition that Syria listens without being allowed a single one of its long disdainful speeches. The aim of such a meeting would be to give Syria a political cover to use in coming out of its current bottleneck. It would also present Syria with a frame to preserve its dignity as it withdraws from the pack of policies that reflect a state of obstinacy. Without such rapid Syrian withdrawal and without a similarly rapid Arab political involvement we will watch Syria move confidently towards hell with the speed of light. A group of foolish Arabs will remain applauding Syria as it heads to the bottom of the rank of Arab nationalism. I also hope that Syria will not imagine that this scenario will take many years to be executed, or that the Bush regime may have departed before the effects fully impact Syria.”

That warning was in 2005. We’ll see what Al-Sharq’s writers will be writing when the Bush administration has indeed departed.

The prelude to a break down of the state, Lebanon’s Farmers harvest a massive marijuana crop this year, the largest since the civil war ended.  

Saudi Religious Police Attacked by Girls
Monday 24 September 2007
By Sultan al-Kholaif
Dammam, Asharq Al-Awsat-

Israeli air strike did not hit nuclear facility, intelligence officials say, 09/24/2007
Filed by Larisa Alexandrovna, Raw Story

Attack said spawned from chemical weapons disaster

Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say.

American intelligence sources familiar with key events leading up to the Israeli air raid tell RAW STORY that what the Syrians actually had were North Korean No-Dong missiles, possibly located at a site in either the city of Musalmiya in the northern part of Syria or further south around the city of Hama.

While reports have alleged the US provided intelligence to Israel or that Israel shared their intelligence with the US, sources interviewed for this article believe that neither is accurate.

By most accounts of intelligence officials, both former and current, Israel and the US both were well aware of the activities of North Korea and Syria and their attempts to chemically weaponize the No-Dong missile (above right). It therefore remains unclear why an intricate story involving evidence of a Syrian nuclear weapons program and/or enriched uranium was put out to press organizations.

The North Korean missiles — described as "legacy" by one source and "older generation" by another — were not nuclear arms.

Vincent Cannistraro, Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George H. W. Bush, said Sunday that what the Israelis hit was "absolutely not a nuclear weapons facility."

"Syria has a small nuclear research facility and has had it for several years," Cannistraro said. "It is not capable of enriching uranium to weapons capability levels. Some Israelis speculated that the Syrians had succeeded in doing just that, but according to the US intelligence experts that is simply not true."

But "Syria has a chemical weapons capability and has been trying to chemically weaponize war heads on their existing stocks of North Korean originated missiles," Cannistraro added.

Israeli government and embassy officials are not commenting on the incident.

According to intelligence sources familiar with the events leading up to the raid, an explosion on July 20 at a Syrian facility near the city of Halab, in the Northern part of Syria, caused Israel's retaliatory strike on Sept. 6.

They could not say what caused the delayed reaction.

Chemical warhead exploded at site

North Korean scientists working with Syrian military and intelligence officials attempted to load a chemical warhead onto one of the North Korean missiles, likely the No-dong 1 model, according to intelligence current and former intelligence officers interviewed for this article. The result was an explosion that killed a few of those present and, according to some official reports of the blast, as many as 50 civilians.

The SANA news agency described the blast at the time as "not the result of sabotage," but an explosion resulting from "the combustion of sensitive, highly explosive material caused by extremely high temperatures."

The No-Dong 1 missile is a redesigned SCUD-C, which the Syrians are alleged to have acquired in the mid-1990s according to some estimations, while others say perhaps as late as 2000. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the No-Dong has a potential range/payload capacity of 1,000-1,300 km/700-1,000 kg.

Cannistraro believes that these missiles were No-Dong, but did not specify which class. Others, however, named the No-Dong 1 model or described the missile in such a way as to indicate what could only be the No-Dong 1 model.

The chemical explosion is believed to have included a Sarin nerve agent and made the area around the blast dangerous even after the fire from the explosion had been extinguished. This would make reconnaissance of the area difficult for foreign intelligence officers attempting to collect samples and data after the blast.

The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1993 outlawed the stockpiling of Sarin, but neither Syria nor North Korea are signatories to the treaty.

Some believe that the Office of the Vice President is continuing to battle any attempts at diplomacy made by the US State Department in an effort to ensure no alternative but a military solution to destabilize and strike Iran, using Syria's alleged nuclear weapons program and close relations with Iran as a possible pretext.

A Sept. 16 piece in the London Sunday Times alleged the attack proved Israel could penetrate Iran's air defenses.

"By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake," reporter Uzi Mahnaimi wrote. "The Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence [sic] system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites."

Comment by JL: John Bolton responds to the news now emerging that Israel's raid turned up no proof of radiation from the Syrian site that was bombed. Bolton argued that the bombing raid was necessary to destroy nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea. The most important line in his defense is,

"Israel's specific target is less important than the fact that with its objection to the raid, North Korea may have tipped its hand. Pyongyang's interest in the raid may be evidence of secret nuclear cooperation between the regime and Syria."

He now argues that because North Korea said it was innocent, it is guilty. Evidence from Syria is immaterial. Proof of Syria's "evilness" can be established by North Korea's objection to the raid. One must respect the audacity.

Syria Joins the Axis of Evil,
By JOHN R. BOLTON
Wall Street Journal – Sep 24, 2007

The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program are set to resume on Sept. 27 in Beijing. Since the last session, a raft of "working group" meetings and Democratic People's Republic of Korea propaganda events have purportedly shown "progress" in implementing the Feb. 13 agreement to eliminate the North's nuclear capabilities. On Oct. 2, South Korean President Roh Muh-hyun will travel to Pyongyang to embrace Kim Jong Il. Mr. Roh hopes to boost political allies in a close presidential race against opponents of his appeasement policies.

But this entire diplomatic minuet has been reduced almost to insignificance by news from an unexpected place: the Middle East. A dramatic and apparently successful night-time Israeli air attack on Syria, whose details remain extraordinarily closely held, has increased the stakes. North Korea immediately condemned the raid, an action that raises this question: What is it about a raid in Syria that got Kim Jong Il's attention?

Israel's specific target is less important than the fact that with its objection to the raid, North Korea may have tipped its hand. Pyongyang's interest in the raid may be evidence of secret nuclear cooperation between the regime and Syria. There is much still unknown about a potential North Korea project in Syria, such as whether it was a direct sale of technology or equipment to the Syrians, a stand-alone facility or some sort of joint venture. In any case, the threat to Israel of such a project would be acute, perhaps existential — which is why it would risk all-out regional war to strike pre-emptively.

Outsourcing strategic programs is nothing new for North Korea. For years, Pyongyang has been an aggressive proliferator of ballistic-missile technology, especially to the Middle East. In 1998, North Korea conducted a successful Taepo Dong missile launch and shortly thereafter gained an enormous propaganda boost by announcing a moratorium on launch-testing from its territory. But it didn't halt missile development and benefited greatly from Iran's ballistic missile program. Sharing data made eminent sense since both countries used the same basic Scud technology. Having successfully worked this shell game in ballistic missiles, it should come as no surprise that North Korea would try it again in the nuclear field.

Iran's increasing hegemony over Syria makes Syrian-North Korean cooperation in nuclear matters unlikely without its consent. Although Iran's involvement here is murky, its incentive to conceal its own nuclear program raises the possibility of a three-way deal. Most chillingly, the United States and Israel must now ask whether the Iranian and North Korean nuclear challenges can be resolved in isolation from one another.

Until more details become public, debate over the full extent of Syrian-North Korean cooperation will continue. What the Israeli attack highlights, however — even if it does not prove conclusively for now — is that North Korea is a global threat.

If the North is engaging in nuclear cooperation with Syria, the Feb. 13 agreement should be terminated. How much more evidence of mendacity do we need before we wake up? In fact, the Feb. 13 agreement is now merely a slogan. Its deadlines and its "actions for actions" mantra have disappeared, lost in a "process" of endless meetings and working groups. This "process" is inherently favorable to Kim Jong Il because it enables the North's legendary ability to trade the same obligation multiple times for tangible rewards, whether or not it performs.

Even if we "only" have evidence of continued North Korean ballistic missile cooperation with Syria, that alone should keep the North on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria — and its senior partner, Iran — are both long-time denizens of that same list of state sponsors of terrorism. Can we really delist North Korea when it partners with other terrorist states in the most destructive technologies?

Moreover, where are Syria's ballistic missiles — and its weapons of mass destruction — aimed? With American forces at risk in Iraq, no increase in the threats they face is acceptable, especially given Syria's record on Iraq to date. Syria remains at war with Israel and with Lebanon's Cedar Revolution. No one concerned about Israel's security or Lebanon's democracy should countenance giving North Korea a pass on the terrorism issue.

If the evidence is uncertain or mixed, the State Department will, unfortunately, desperately cling to "the process." If so, to protect the U.S. from the national security risk and international humiliation of another Pyongyang diplomatic triumph, we must insist on real dismantling of the North's nuclear program and a broad, deep and lasting verification mechanism. Moreover, what was once a subsidiary verification issue — North Korean outsourcing off the Peninsula — now assumes critical importance.

When will real verification experts from across our government finally receive a significant role? As one verifier said recently, "we'll know what's really going on when U.S. physicists start talking to [North Korean] physicists." State's diplomats should welcome this assistance, although traditionally they view the arrival of verifiers into arms control negotiations the same way Al Capone saw Elliot Ness and "The Untouchables." Of course, beyond negotiations, we need the concrete verification itself, which is barely a mirage in the six-party talks.

Developments in Syria should have brought the administration up short. Instead, the State Department has accelerated its efforts to declare "success," a deeply troubling and dangerous sign. This reflects a cultural problem at State, where "zeal for the deal" too often trumps the substance of the deal itself.

President Bush stands at a dispositive point regarding his personal legacy on North Korea. Until now, one could say with a straight face, if not entirely accurately, that implementing the Feb. 13 agreement was the State Department's responsibility. No longer. The Israeli strike and the possible Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation associated with it have presidential consequences. Further concessions to the North can now be laid only at the White House door, just as only the president can bring a tougher, more realistic attitude to the issue. That would be a real legacy.

Mr. Bolton is senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defeating America at the U.N. and Abroad," forthcoming from Simon & Schuster.

Addendum: Later in the day, this interview with Bolton appeared on Fox News:

What the Israelis struck I cannot say; whether a nuclear or missile facility is not clear," Bolton said from his office at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

He offered the possibility that it was a joint research venture or simply a North Korea facility located in Syria. "Any of these options is enough to show proliferation by the North Koreans and that is very dangerous," Bolton said.

He ruled out other theories, meanwhile, including that the target was Iranian missiles to be shipped to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon for attacks on Israel or that Israel was testing Syria's air defenses."I don't think the Israelis would have taken the risk unless it was a very high-value target," Bolton said.

Neither American nor Israeli officials are saying whether the target was a nuclear or missile facility and many don't know, Bolton said.

The former State Department official and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said he did not object to the Beijing talks, which are designed to disable North Korea's nuclear program. At a session last February, North Korea agreed to shut down its main nuclear facility and eventually disable its programs in exchange for aid equivalent to 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil.

Bolton said it would be wrong, however, to remove North Korea from the U.S. list of countries that support terror and therefore are ineligible for various benefits.

"If they are cooperating with either Syria or Iran, such as on ballistic missile stuff, they should stay on (the list) with Syria and Iran," he said.

"If you are supporting terrorist regimes, you are a state supporter of terror," he said.

Newsweek: Whispers of War: A secret raid, nuclear ambitions and the next crisis: how far will Israel go to keep Iran from getting the bomb? By Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball. 

In Washington, on the other hand, the consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The Pentagon worries that another war will break America's already overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough. The latter assessment is expected to appear in a secret National Intelligence Estimate currently nearing completion, according to three intelligence officials who asked for anonymity when discussing nonpublic material. The report is expected to say Iran will not be able to build a nuclear bomb until at least 2010 and possibly 2015. One explanation for the lag: Iran is having trouble with its centrifuge-enrichment technology, according to U.S. and European officials.

Twice in the past year, the United States has won U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. More measures might come up at Security Council discussions later this year, and recently French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that European nations might impose their own sanctions. One U.S. official who preferred not to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters said he took part in a meeting several months ago where intelligence officials discussed a "public diplomacy" strategy to accompany sanctions. The idea was to periodically float the possibility of war in public comments in order to keep Iran off balance. In truth, the official said, no war preparations are underway.

There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney's office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family." A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz – and perhaps other sites – in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran. (Wurmser's remarks were first reported last week by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons and corroborated by NEWSWEEK.) When NEWSWEEK attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office said the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

The question may not be whether America is ready to attack, but whether Israel is. ….

Stratfor; Geopolitical Diary: Iran Fright Month

Syria to weigh joining Mideast conference: Damascus calls for comprehensive peace, wants proposed conference to have ‘clear agenda’.
By Roueida Mabardi – DAMASCUS

Syrian participation in a US-sponsored peace conference could ease its troubled ties with the international community but Damascus is unlikely to back down on its terms, diplomats and officials say.

"Syria will decide on whether to participate after it receives an invitation," Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said on Monday, while stressing that Damascus wanted a.

He said the conference must be focused on "the imperatives for a just and comprehensive peace" such as the creation of an independent Palestinian state, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and the Golan's return to Syria.

"The United States and Israel are very mistaken if they are trying with this meeting to bring about a normalisation" between Syria and Israel, the minister warned.

A senior US State Department official said on Sunday that Washington planned to invite Syria — as part of an Arab League committee tasked with following up on a Saudi peace plan — to the Israeli-Palestinian conference later this year.

The United States "recognises that its presence is necessary", said a European diplomat posted in Damascus.

"If the conference turns out to be public relations exercise, it is not in Syria's interest to take part," an official said. It wants a "clear agenda" and not only on the Israeli-Palestinian track of the peace process.

The official said Damascus wanted an "impartial and balanced" conference.

Syria demands the return of the entire Golan Heights which Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East and annexed in 1981. Direct negotiations between the two countries broke down in January 2000.

It has come under international pressure over Lebanon, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But the Syrian official stressed that Damascus would "not give up on its support for the national resistance (against Israel) nor its strategic alliance with Iran".

The diplomat, on condition of anonymity, said that Syria which hosts hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and whose Golan Heights remain occupied by Israel would have to form part of any comprehensive solution.

Ian Black Middle East editor, 25 September 2007, The Guardian

Syria is expected to rebuff an invitation from the US to attend a grand Middle East peace conference later this year because it does not believe that either the Bush administration or Israel wants to reach a comprehensive regional settlement.

President Bashar al-Assad has made no comment on Sunday's call by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state. But diplomats said yesterday that the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Mouallem, will decline the offer when he holds talks at the UN this week – unless he receives ironclad assurances that the event will be more substantial than currently appears likely….

Khaled Yacoub Oweis of Reuters, writes Syria plays down peace chance after Israel raid:

An Israeli raid on Syria has all but finished off chances for resuming peace talks between the two foes, Syrian officials said on Monday.

In the first clear reaction to the Sept 6. Israeli air strike, officials told Reuters Syria was wary of retaliating against Israel given the military superiority of the Jewish state and because of lack of Arab support.

Another reason was Damascus's changing relationship with Russia, an ally during the Communist era.

The officials were dismissive about any new peace talks, which collapsed in 2000 over the scope of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, a 1,750 square km (676 square mile) plateau which the Jewish state captured from Syria in 1967.

"After this raid, you can forget about peace. It is no secret that our forces have been on alert for some time, but Syria will not be the first to start a war," said one of the Syrian officials, who asked not to be named.

"Arab states have not exactly rallied in our support. As for peace, the international picture could start changing late next year with a new administration in Washington," another official said.

Even Moscow, a strong backer of Syria in the days of the Soviet Union, did not directly condemn the Israeli action, in which Syria says planes bombed an empty area after air defence systems confronted them. Israel has not disclosed the target.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Sultanov advised Syrian officials not to go after Israel at the United Nations beyond a protest letter, according to a diplomat familiar with Sultanov's recent meetings in Damascus.

JUDGING ISRAEL'S ALLEGED STRIKE IN SYRIA By Gershom Gorenberg, The American Prospect, September 20, 2007

…. When it comes to U.S. intelligence experts talking about weapons of mass destruction and Syria, I become more seriously agnostic. It's certainly conceivable that Assad wants nuclear weapons, and would get help from North Korea. The news from Lebanon does not make one want to trust him. Unfortunately, it's also conceivable that someone in Washington could bend evidence, or interpret it to fit the Bush administration's expectations of Syria — or that a hawkish faction in the administration could be interested in sabotaging the negotiations with North Korea. Historically, U.S. and Israeli intelligence have shared evaluations, including badly mistaken ones. Under Bush, it's Washington that has taken the hard line on Syria, demanding that Israel follow suit. Just because Bush's people got everything wrong about Iraq does not mean that they must always be wrong. But that argument does not inspire confidence.

And as the Iraq story teaches, reporters can easily treat leaks as scoops. Creating the myth of Saddam's WMDs, the administration got much assistance from well-meaning journalists. In the realm of national security, the fourth estate is at its weakest. Governments have an almost unavoidable monopoly on most information.

Alon Liel, the former Israeli diplomat involved in the secret negotiations with Syria provides an interesting explanation for the "mysterious" Israeli strike into Syria here.: This quote thanks to Leon Hadar at Global Paradigms:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is coming to Israel on Tuesday to "say thank you" for the alleged Israeli air force operation in Syrian territory, Dr Alon Liel, a former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, told Ynetnews.

Addressing the numerous media reports which claim Israeli jets penetrated Syrian territory, Liel said: "I think what we did, if we did it, is work for Americans. Maybe even as an intelligence operation for the Americans, and therefore I think she (Rice) came to say thank you, more so than to discuss Palestinian affairs," the former top diplomat said. Northeast Syria, where the jets were said to have flown, according to Damascus, "is not an area that bothered Israel in the past, this is an area that bothers the Americans very much," Liel added. "We did work for them, as you know they pay a lot so that we work for them. Seemingly they are satisfied. This has helped them to complicate the Syrians and push them deeper into the axis of evil," he added.

In recent months, Liel has been heavily involved in diplomatic activity to advance an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, based on an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Last July, he told Ynetnews that he heard a top aide to Syrian President Basher Assad say that Israel and Syria agreed on "85 percent" of the issues which needed to be resolved before a treaty could be signed between the two countries.

What is Being Concocted for Syria? (Translated by mideastwire.com)

On September 24, the Palestinian-owned Al Quds Al Arabi daily carried the following opinion piece by Chief Editor Abdel-Beri Atwan: “Nowadays, the Syrian front is witnessing unusual activities. After the mysterious Israeli air raid over the Dayr Al-Zur area northeast of Syria, a state of alert was declared twice in less than 48 hours over the last three days when Israeli military aircraft flew over the Golan. These activities coincided with intentional Israeli press leaks aiming to spread more chaos and confusion. …

.

“There are two scenarios which can be deduced out of the escalating blurring and instigation campaigns against Syria. The first is that Israel, with prior agreement with the US and maybe even France, is about to launch three preemptive strikes, the first targeting Syria, the second Hezbollah in the Lebanese South and the third the Islamic resistance movements in the Gaza Strip and especially Hamas. The goal would be to destroy Syria’s and Hezbollah’s missiles arsenal, test the Syrian air defenses and the equipment which it recently imported from Moscow and provoke Iran to engage in war to defend its allies in Lebanon and Syria.

“This would facilitate the issuance of a decision to attack it for President Bush, his administration and the Israeli government. As for the second scenario, it would be to wage limited instigation attacks against Syria like the Dayr Al-Zur attack, to keep its leadership busy and embarrass it at the Arab level and domestically due to its inability to respond, in preparation for the wide attack on it and on Iran simultaneously. The first scenario seems to be more likely because attacking Syria alone is the easier and less costly choice in comparison with the second option…

Leon Hadar also has two excellent articles arguing why diplomacy with Syria is in US interests. The Shorter one is, Reporter-at-Large: Time to Talk to Syria? The longer is, A Diplomatic Road to Damascus: The Benefits of U.S. Engagement with Syria.

BUSH SHOULD ENGAGE WITH SYRIA, By Mitchell Reiss, The Financial Times (UK), September 23, 2007

Ahead of Tuesday's contentious presidential poll in the Lebanese Parliament, the idea of a consensus president to succeed Emile Lahoud seems to be gaining support, according to Michael Young. He writes:

According to unconfirmed reports, the Saudis recently asked Syria to endorse Nassib Lahoud as president. The Syrian refusal allegedly led to the last-minute Saudi cancellation of a visit to the kingdom by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem.

However, will the Saudis stand tough? Ultimately, they may conclude that a consensus candidate is better than a political vacuum, which would only escalate Sunni-Shiite tensions. The kingdom's ambassador in Beirut, Abdul Aziz Khoja, has been especially sympathetic to Berri's endeavors. The Saudis, sensing the wind turning, may conceivably favor compromise.

What of the US? The Bush administration is still taking a tough line on the presidency: The new tenant of Baabda should not be someone who turns the clock back to where it was before 2005, when Syria ruled in Beirut. For the Americans, a Syrian return would also bolster Iran and Hizbullah. What it really would do, however, and one doesn't need the Americans to deduce this, is undermine United Nations Security Council resolutions on Lebanon, which have created a de facto international trusteeship over the country. What future would there be for Resolution 1701 in a country where the majority is paralyzed and Syria regains the upper hand? Or for Resolution 1559, which aims to prevent this? …

Indeed, what would happen to the Hariri tribunal? The notion that the tribunal is a fait accompli must be seriously qualified. If March 14 falls into the opposition's headlock, the work of the tribunal can be impeded. …

The wild cards in this presidential ballet are the Europeans. Their fear of a void in Beirut is understandable, given the UNIFIL commitments. The Europeans seem to be heading toward backing a consensus candidate, regardless of whether Syria respects Lebanese sovereignty. Both the Saudis and the Americans, whatever their better instincts, might find themselves forced to follow the European lead if the alternative (one encouraged by the Syrian regime) is a dangerous split in Lebanon.

If a weak president is elected and the opposition gains veto power in the Cabinet, the Lebanese should start worrying. It would only be a matter of time before Lebanon finds itself where it was before Rafik Hariri's assassination. An axe would have been taken to the Cedar Revolution, much as it was yesterday to Antoine Ghanem.

"sick delusions"
Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal denied on Monday a report in Britain's Sunday Times that IDF special forces had collected material from a suspected Syrian nuclear site shortly before an alleged IAF strike there on September 6.

"These are sick delusions, intended to raise the morale of the IDF, which was defeated in Lebanon last year. They're intended only to cause fear among the Arabs," Bilal told Asharq alawsat.

In Association with the EU, Oxford Business Group, 24.09.2007

The EU is keen on seeing the completion of a long-stalled EU association agreement with Syria, with no new conditions to be attached to the accord initially signed in late 2004, European parliament officials announced in mid-September.

"Syria is witnessing important economic reforms and developments towards a social market economy," said Beatrice Patrie, chairperson of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Arab countries, at a September 12 press conference. "We support Syrian efforts in the field of economic reforms […] previous circumstances prevented us from doing so, and now we wish Syria to be an economic partner to Europe."

.

According to the EU, the elimination of tariffs on Syrian imports could result in a major boost for Damascus' export trade. Sales of Syrian animal fats and oils could rise by 40%, clothing and accessories by 17% and 25% for meat products, according to the EU.

.

"The association agreement is in the works," she said. "There is no additional condition. We are aware we must go forward and that Syria has a constructive role to play in the region."

Having said that, Patrie then slipped in a codicil, saying that for the agreement to be signed, "the political conditions must be favourable".

However, the political climate may have just suffered another drop in temperature. On September 19, Antoine Ghanem, a Christian anti-Syrian member of the Lebanese parliament, was killed by a bomb in Beirut.

Though Syria was among the first to condemn the latest in the series of assassinations of Lebanese political leaders opposed to Damascus, describing the attack as a criminal act aimed at undermining efforts to bring peace to the region, Ghanem's killing has again whipped up anti-Syrian sentiment.

President George Bush joined many Lebanese politicians in pointing the finger at Syrian involvement in the bombing, saying the attack was part of efforts by Damascus to destabilise Lebanon.

Syria is keen on embracing the EU and having its export trade enjoy the same advantages as Europe's other Mediterranean partners. However, while the government of President Bashar Al Assad has embarked on a programme of social and economic reforms, it may not meet the standards required by the EU in time for the 2010 free trade zone. Being accused, rightly or wrongly, of being associated with political assassinations in Lebanon, will not help Syria's EU association process either.

Exported Russia weapons get only to direct receiver – Lavrov

It seems that N. Korea has asked for the Six Party meeting to be postponed, apparently as a protest against the media reports that she’s cooperating with Syria on nuclear programs…

Few seem to be enthusiastic about Rice's Peace Powwow. Washington plans to invite Syria (Ar) and in English to the Middle East conference. Th six countries invited are KSA, JR, EG, SY, LEB, and Qatar, as well as the Palestinian Authority – or Palestinian National Authority, as it calls itself.

The Reuters story and most of the others write that "Syria has said it was ready to take part in the conference which U.S. President George W. Bush called for in July to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking." It is hard to believe that Syria will be interested in participating in this venture today.

Not only has Israel just bombed it, but Washington is in no mood to promote Israeli-Syrian dialogue or the return of the Golan. The invitation seems to be a pro-forma one. America is holding its nose, inviting Syria, and hoping the reach-out will give the Saudis enough cover with their public to accept Washington's invitation.

The Palestinians are insisting that real progress has to be made and real issues addressed before they can agree to participate, but they are captives and will show up and smile whatever is on offer. The Saudis want to see beef as well and are temporizing. The Israelis however, are insisting that it is much too early to discuss substantial issues and the conference should be a getting-to-know-you affair. Syrian VP Sharra made it quite clear back in August that Syria would participate only if Washington presented a clear proposal and plan for the conference. That doesn't seem to be the case. I doubt Damascus will participate.

According to Alistair Lyon of Reuters,

Rice all but dismissed the idea [of Washington encouraging Syro-Israeli peace] when asked about Olmert's olive branch to Syria, saying it was up to the Israelis and Syrians to strike a deal if they could, but cautioning that such an effort was "no substitute" for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

"I think we haven't seen anything in Syrian behavior to this point that suggests Syria is doing anything but acting in a destabilizing way in the Middle East," she added.

Syria argues that Washington itself is a destabilizing force, citing its war in Iraq and its support for Israel.

"The last attack blocked the way to peace talks for the foreseeable future," said Alon Liel, a former director of the Israeli foreign ministry who has been involved in private efforts to promote renewed Syrian-Israeli talks.

"Not just because the Syrians are angry at Israel, but because the Americans have a very clear decision to leave Syria in an Iran-Hezbollah axis," Liel told Reuters in Jerusalem. 

"As long as this is U.S. policy, Israel and Syria cannot sit down together. Israel cannot embarrass the Americans (by doing this) and Syria cannot get rid of Iran without an alternative."….

"We need Washington because it is the only power that can put pressure on Israel," said the [Syrian] official, who asked not to be named. "We also need witnesses, who could be European."

STRATEGIC BARGAIN

Only the United States can offer Syria the sweeping package deal it might need to make peace with Israel and loosen ties with Iran and militant Lebanese and Palestinian groups.

But the Bush administration, at odds with Syria over Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has sought to isolate Damascus diplomatically and punish it with sanctions.

It has paid little heed so far to arguments that drawing Syria and Israel into negotiations would influence regional dynamics and clinching a peace deal would transform them.

Damascus has long argued that it is futile to try to exclude it by focusing solely on the Israeli-Palestinian track.

"Peace in the region cannot come without Syria. Of course there should be a solution for the Palestinians, a Palestinian state, but everything should start with Syria, contrary to what has been done up to now," the Syrian official said.

Israel's Barak dismisses peace push "fantasies"

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying on Friday that talk of any peace deal with the Palestinians anytime soon was a "fantasy", in a challenge to U.S.-led efforts to revive negotiations.

In private conversations reported by Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Barak said he would not carry out plans by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to remove roadblocks in the West Bank as a gesture to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

US wants North Korea nuclear questions answered, Reuters

Read the Paul Woodward story on "Why the Nuclear Story is not So Nuclear."

Syrian newspapers have accused the United states of being behind the assassinations in Lebanon.

Another Israeli argues that Assad is better than the opposition. The lesser evil: A weak Assad regime is better for us than the prospective alternatives

Guy Bechor, 09.23.07

Is Basher Assad, who has been starring in the headlines lately, an asset or a liability? What policy should Israel adopt vis-à-vis the Alawite regime in Syria? Would it serve Israel's purpose if Assad were toppled, strengthened, or weakened? …

Last week a "rescue" conference attended by the Syrian opposition, united in its hatred to Assad and his regime, convened in Berlin. Everyone

partook in the conference: Former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam, who argued that Basher personally gave the oder to assassinate Rafik Hariri; the Syrian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which accused Basher and his father of the murder of thousands of civilians, repression and brutality; Kurdish movements, Sunnis, leftists, Christians, the representatives of other ethnic minorities and well-known exiles – the whole lot.

Just like the case of the Iraqi opposition a decade ago, hatred of the president is their only source of unification. In the Syrian case, however, there is another unifying factor: The hatred for Israel. If we thought that this opposition would be democratic, pro-western, and that it would perhaps reach some peace agreement with us, it seems we were mistaken. Hence, conference participants attacked Assad for not maintaining "Syrian honor" and for not embarking on a war against Israel. In other words, no salvation will be forthcoming from there.

There is a nice Arabic expression which says "calculate your losses before calculating your profits." The rules of the game in the region have shown us that we should opt for the lighter damage over the heavier damage. When comparing the two options, clearly the damage posed by the Assad family is less than the damage likely to be inflicted by the opposition.

Barak: Israel must operate as though war is around the corner

Israel must act as though the next war is right around the corner, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Sunday at the state's official commemoration of soldiers killed in the Yom Kippur War.

Barak said that the lesson from the 1973 war is that "on security matters, we cannot be deceived by apparent and imagined calm. We need self-control, vigilance, and an experienced and stable hand at the helm."

The defense minister also said that "on matters pertaining to our national security, the strength of Israel must be alert and fit at all times. We must always cultivate and enhance the decisive and quality advantage of this strength, along with the warrior spirit and the tools of war."

Iraqi refugees weighing down Syria
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2007
Categories: On Assignment
By Dawna Friesen, NBC News Correspondent

DAMASCUS, Syria – To hear about the millions of refugees from Iraq is one thing. To see them, and speak to some of them, is quite another. All have tales of chaos and death.

It is a refugee crisis unlike any other in modern times.

There are no dramatic pictures of massive camps with UNHCR tents lined up row after row. No starving children waiting for food hand-outs. 

That's because the estimated 1.5 million Iraqis who have flooded into Syria have melted into Damascus's already crowded streets. They live wherever they can, whole families crammed into tiny, seedy apartments with only the most basic of provisions.

VIDEO: Plight of Iraqi refugees

According to the UNHCR, they are mostly middle class. Nothing has prepared them for the life as a refugee. Many have already used up their life savings.

While Syria has generously welcomed them, and gives them access to education for the children and subsidized health care, they do not have residency rights nor are they allowed to work.

Children bear the burden
The result? Many children are becoming the family breadwinners because they can slip more easily under the radar.

We met Youssef, 15, in a hole-in-the-wall grocery store in a Damascus laneway. He says he works 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He's been doing that ever since his mother, brother and sister fled Baghdad in 2004. They left after Youssef's older brother was shot and killed. His father died seven years ago.

So Youssef is effectively head of the household. He's remarkably cheerful, with bright brown eyes and an eager smile. I asked him what his dream for the future is. He told me he wants to go to university and become a doctor. Still so much hope, even though odds are he's probably not going to finish high school, never mind make it to university.

A potentially destabilizing force
The longer these child refugees linger in limbo, stateless and poor, the more likely they'll grow up angry and undereducated. A generation of Iraqis who feel alienated and disillusioned is hardly what the Middle East or the world needs.

The Syrians can see the dangers looming. Dr. Bashar Shaar, Syria's minister for Red Crescent Affairs, told me not only are the refugees a massive strain on the country's infrastructure, their presence could destabilize not only Syria, but the whole Middle East in the future. It is, he said, a ticking time bomb.

Ensuring the children of Iraqi refugees are cared for and get back in school seems as vital to the stability of region as fighting insurgents in Iraq.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian, The wait for a leader, is a very useful overview of Lebanese Presidential politics with bios of the most important candidates.

Israel: Man wasn't spying in Lebanon By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press

Israel said on Sunday that an Israeli man who has been arrested in Lebanon is not a spy, and his father said he had converted to Islam several years ago and immersed himself in Arab culture.

ISRAELI commandos from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit – almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms – made their way stealthily towards a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria. They were looking for proof that Syria and North Korea were collaborating on a nuclear programme.

Israel had been surveying the site for months, according to Washington and Israeli sources. President George W Bush was told during the summer that Israeli intelligence suggested North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site.

Israel was determined not to take any chances with its neighbour. Following the example set by its raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak 1981, it drew up plans to bomb the Syrian compound.

But Washington was not satisfied. It demanded clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing. The task of the commandos was to provide it.

Today the site near Dayr az-Zawr lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15Is on September 6. Before the Israelis issued the order to strike, the commandos had secretly seized samples of nuclear material and taken them back into Israel for examination by scientists, the sources say. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. America approved an attack.

News of the secret ground raid is the latest piece of the jigsaw to emerge about the mysterious Israeli airstrike. Israel has imposed a news blackout, but has not disguised its satisfaction with the mission. The incident also reveals the extent of the cooperation between America and Israel over nuclear-related security issues in the Middle East. The attack on what Israeli defence sources now call the “North Korean project” appears to be part of a wider, secret war against the nonconventional weapons ambitions of Syria and North Korea which, along with Iran, appears to have been forging a new “axis of evil”.

The operation was personally directed by Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, who is said to have been largely preoccupied with it since taking up his post on June 18.

It was the ideal mission for Barak, Israel’s most decorated soldier and legendary former commander of the Sayeret Matkal, which shares the motto “Who Dares Wins” with Britain’s SAS and specialises in intelligence-gathering deep behind enemy lines.

President Bush refused to comment on the air attack last week, but warned North Korea that “the exportation of information and/or materials” could jeopard-ise plans to give North Korea food aid, fuel and diplomatic recognition in exchange for ending its nuclear programmes.

Diplomats in North Korea and China said they believed a number of North Koreans were killed in the raid, noting that ballistic missile technicians and military scientists had been working for some time with the Syrians.

A senior Syrian official, Sayeed Elias Daoud, director of the Syrian Arab Ba’ath party, flew to North Korea via Beijing last Thursday, reinforcing the belief among foreign diplomats that the two nations are coordinating their response to the Israeli strike.

The growing assumption that North Korea suffered direct casualties in the raid appears to be based largely on the regime’s unusually strident propaganda on an issue far from home. But there were also indications of conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials and intelligence reports reaching Asian governments that supported the same conclusion, diplomats said.

Jane’s Defence Weekly reported last week that dozens of Iranian engineers and Syrians were killed in July attempting to load a chemical warhead containing mustard gas onto a Scud missile. The Scuds and warheads are of North Korean design and possibly manufacture, and there are recent reports that North Koreans were helping the Syrians to attach airburst chemical weapons to warheads.

Yesterday, while Israelis were observing Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the military was on high alert after Syria promised to retaliate for the September 6 raid. An Israeli intelligence expert said: “Syria has retaliated in the past for much smaller humiliations, but they will choose the place, the time and the target.”

Critics of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, believe he has shown poor judgment since succeeding his father Hafez, Syria’s long-time dictator, in 2000. According to David Schenker, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he has provoked the enmity of almost all Syria’s neighbours and turned his country into a “client” of Iran.

Barak’s return to government after making a fortune in private business was critical to the Israeli operation. Military experts believe it could not have taken place under Amir Peretz, the defence minister who was forced from the post after last year’s ill-fated war in Lebanon. “Barak gave Olmert the confidence needed for such a dangerous operation,” said one insider.

The unusual silence about the airstrikes amazed Israelis, who are used to talkative politicians. But it did not surprise the defence community. “Most Israeli special operations remain unknown,” said a defence source.

When Menachem Begin, then Israeli prime minister, broke the news of the 1981 Osirak raid, he was accused of trying to help his Likud party’s prospects in forthcoming elections.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads Likud today, faced similar criticism last week when he ignored the news blackout, revealed that he had backed the decision to strike and said he had congratulated Olmert. “I was a partner from the start,” he claimed.

But details of the raid are still tantalisingly incomplete. Some analysts in America are perplexed by photographs of a fuel tank said to have been dropped from an Israeli jet on its return journey over Turkey. It appears to be relatively undamaged. Could it have been planted to sow confusion about the route taken by the Israeli F-15I pilots?

More importantly, questions remain about the precise nature of the material seized and about Syria’s intentions. Was Syria hiding North Korean nuclear equipment while Pyongyang prepared for six-party talks aimed at securing an end to its nuclear weapons programme in return for security guarantees and aid? Did Syria want to arm its own Scuds with a nuclear device?

Or could the material have been destined for Iran as John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, has suggested? And just how deep is Syrian and North Korean nuclear cooperation anyway?

China abruptly postponed a session of the nuclear disarmament talks last week because it feared America might confront the North Koreans over their weapons deals with Syria, according to sources close to the Chinese foreign ministry. Negotiations have been rescheduled for this Thursday in Beijing after assurances were given that all sides wished them to be “constructive”.

Christopher Hill, the US State Department negotiator, is said to have persuaded the White House that the talks offered a realistic chance to accomplish a peace treaty formally ending the 1950-1953 Korean war, in which more than 50,000 Americans died. A peace deal of that magnitude would be a coup for Bush – but only if the North Koreans genuinely abandon their nuclear programmes.

The outlines of a long-term arms relationship between the North Koreans and the Syrians are now being reexamined by intelligence experts in several capitals. Diplomats in Pyongyang have said they believe reports that about a dozen Syrian technicians were killed in a massive explosion and railway crash in North Korea on April 22, 2004.

Teams of military personnel wearing protective suits were seen removing debris from the section of the train in which the Syrians were travelling, according to a report quoting military sources that appeared in a Japanese newspaper. Their bodies were flown home by a Syrian military cargo plane that was spotted shortly after the explosion at Pyongyang airport.

In December last year, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah quoted European intelligence sources in Brussels as saying that Syria was engaged in an advanced nuclear programme in its northeastern province.

Most diplomats and experts dismiss the idea that Syria could master the technical and industrial knowhow to make its own nuclear devices. The vital question is whether North Korea could have transferred some of its estimated 55 kilos of weapons-grade plutonium to Syria. Six to eight kilos are enough for one rudimentary bomb.

“If it is proved that Kim Jong-il sold fissile material to Syria in breach of every red line the Americans have drawn for him, what does that mean?” asked one official. The results of tests on whatever the Israelis may have seized from the Syrian site could therefore be of enormous significance.

The Israeli army has so far declined to comment on the attack. However, several days afterwards, at a gathering marking the Jewish new year, the commander-in-chief of the Israeli military shook hands with and congratulated his generals. The scene was broadcast on Israeli television. After the fiasco in Lebanon last year, it was regarded as a sign that “we’re back in business, guys”.

Losing Traction against Syria
By David Schenker
September 21, 2007

The September 6 Israeli bombing of a presumed North Korean-supplied nuclear weapons facility in Syria highlights the ongoing policy challenge posed by Damascus. More than three years after President Bush signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SAA), Syria continues to support terrorism, destabilize Iraq, meddle in Lebanon, and develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile systems. This week's headlines tell the story: on September 19, yet another anti-Syrian parliamentarian was assassinated in Lebanon; the same day, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that a July 2007 chemical weapons accident in Syria — involving mustard gas and VX and sarin nerve agents — killed fifteen Syrian officers and dozens of Iranian engineers.

David Schenker is a senior fellow in Arab politics at The Washington Institute. From 2002 to 2006, he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as country director for Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories.