{"id":1583,"date":"2008-11-19T04:22:09","date_gmt":"2008-11-19T04:22:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/joshualandis.com\/blog\/?p=1583"},"modified":"2008-11-19T04:45:02","modified_gmt":"2008-11-19T04:45:02","slug":"britain-and-syria-resume-intelligence-sharing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/joshualandis.com\/blog\/britain-and-syria-resume-intelligence-sharing\/","title":{"rendered":"Britain and Syria Resume Intelligence Sharing"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Landis analysis]<\/strong> Two pieces of important news. Al-Baradei claims that\u00a0the traces of\u00a0uranium discovered at the Euphrates bomb site do not mean there was a reactor. He has demanded greater Syrian and Israeli cooperation. The Syrians are unlikely to allow further teams of investigators to explore\u00a0Syrian sites.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Miliband

Miliband in Damascus<\/p><\/div>\n

Second, Miliband, Great Britain’s foreign minister, did two important things. He visited Damascus, which raises the pressure on Obama to revise US policy toward Syria. He has asked Syria to push harder for advances on the peace process – but this should be read in two ways – one as a genuine message to the Syrians, but two is a message to Washington to\u00a0throw its weight behind the talks and to place the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations high on its\u00a0agenda.\u00a0 Gordon Brown has already state\u00a0that Mr Obama’s foreign policy priority should be the Arab-Israeli conflict.<\/p>\n

The announcement\u00a0that Miliband has re-established high level intelligence sharing with Syria is also significant. Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister\u00a0Mu`allim discussed restarting intelligence sharing in May 2007 at Sharm al-Sheikh, but Syria asked the US to return an ambassador to Damascus as a sign of Syria’s cooperation. The US refused this gesture, forcing\u00a0the US military “to take matters in their own hands.” Ultimately, the politicians in Washington forced the Defense department to settle the border issue militarily – hence the raid last month that killed eight Syrians. (We still have no proof that the Americans killed or captured the “facilitator” Abu Ghadiyya, whom they claim they snagged\u00a0n the raid. I find it a bit odd that they have not shown us a photo of the man as they did with Saddam or his sons. Why all the secrecy about a raid they claimed as a stunning success and a person they\u00a0have told us so much about?)<\/p>\n

At any rate, the Syrians clearly offered the British the same offer they made to the Americans well over a year ago. The difference is that the British\u00a0have been smart enough to take the offer, sending their\u00a0foreign minister to Damascus as a gesture of good will and cooperation.\u00a0So the British will now supply the US with Syrian intelligence.\u00a0This will be\u00a0awkward for the Americans; they will be dependent on the British for intelligence. Of course, if the Americans like the bits of intelligence they get from the Syrians, they will\u00a0have to ask for more and will have to ask the Syrians to act on the intelligence or to\u00a0deliver\u00a0certain\u00a0fighters. In this way, one can only presume that the Americans will start to negotiate with the Syrians indirectly. Just\u00a0as the Syrians talk to the Israelis through the Turks, the US will talk to the Syrians through the British. The silliness of this will strengthen the Defense\u00a0Department’s hand in insisting that Washington politicians do the right thing and grow up. It is just plain\u00a0silly. Syria wants to help the US kill al-Qaida types, but the US refuses to say yes. How goofey is that? If Obama doesn’t send someone of stature to Damascus to fix this, I will eat my hat.<\/p>\n

\"\"(By the way, Colonel Patrick Lang <\/a>just visited the University of Oklahoma to give a lecture. It was very nice to meet him after years of reading his fine blog. He gave an excellent and sweeping lecture on the state of the Middle East. He was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East stuff for some years, the head of human intelligence, was military attache in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen, a Green\u00a0Baret and\u00a0many other things to boot.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Syria nuclear clues ‘not damning’ <\/a>
\nBBC News, 17 November 2008<\/p>\n

… “There was uranium but it doesn’t mean there was a reactor… It’s not highly enriched uranium,” Mr ElBaradei added.<\/p>\n

The US has said the target of Israel’s raid in September 2007 was a secret nuclear reactor built with North Korean help that was nearing completion. ….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The director of the UN atomic watchdog, has said a report he is due to present later this week on Syrian nuclear activity will “not be conclusive”. “We still have work to do,” …..”We need more co-operation from Syria… We need also co-operation from Israel,”…..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Britain re-establishes high-level intelligence links with Syria
\n<\/a>The Times, <\/span>November 19, 2008
\nRichard Beeston, Catherine Philp and Oliver August <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Syria is known to have excellent intelligence on tracking the movements of Islamic extremists into Iraq Britain re-established high-level intelligence links with the Syrian authorities as David Miliband made his landmark visit to Damascus yesterday, according to senior Syrian officials. …<\/div>\n
\n

In their first phone call since the US election, Gordon Brown emphasised that Mr Obama’s foreign policy priority should be the Arab-Israeli conflict, which he sees as the key to other concerns in the region, including the threat of a nuclear Iran.<\/p>\n

Joshua Landis, an American expert on Syria, said the visit was \u201ca message from the British to Obama. Like the French, they want the US to push Syrian-Israeli peace. Negotiations between Syria and Israel began last May, but the Bush Administration was unhappy about the dialogue and refused to support them.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Iran aims for 2009 launch of nuclear plant <\/a>\u00a0Iran (Thanks FLC)<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
“…Atomstroyexport, the Russian firm building the plant, said in September the plant was nearing completion and that it would start “technological work” in December 2008 to February 2009 that would put the plant on an “irreversible final” course…”<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0Dennis Ross denies report president-elect will back Arab peace plan <\/a>
\nBy Haaretz Service<\/div>\n
\n
Dennis Ross, Obama’s adviser on Middle East policy, issued a statement Sunday, saying “I was in the meeting in Ramallah. Then-senator Obama did not say this, the story is false.” The British Sunday Times said Obama expressed this sentiment during his visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories last July.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\u00a0Barack Obama brings hope of Iran talks, says Shimon Peres <\/a>
\nBy Richard Beeston
\nTimes Online, 17 November 2008<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The move, first raised earlier this year at a meeting in New York between the Foreign Secretary and his Syrian counterpart, Walid Moualem, was a key objective of the Syrian visit. The newly revived intelligence relationship could be hugely beneficial to Britain. Syria is known to have one of the best intelligence-gathering systems in the Middle East, in particular in tracking the movements of Islamic extremists into Iraq and around the region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Israel believes that there is a chance for dialogue with Iran if Barack Obama succeeds in uniting the international community behind a common policy.<\/p>\n

Shimon Peres, the Israeli President who arrives in London tonight, said that his country\u2019s most implacable foe could be brought to the negotiating table depending on a new political climate and economic factors, in particular a falling oil price.<\/p>\n

The veteran politician, who turned 85 this summer, also told The Times that he expected Israel to achieve peace with its Arab neighbours within his life time, and even predicted that he would one day visit Damascus and Riyadh.<\/p>\n

His upbeat message will no doubt be dismissed by many in the Middle East as the musings of a lifelong optimist. Certainly no recent Israeli leader has expressed any positive view of Iran, whose nuclear policy and support for militant groups is regarded as the major existential threat to the Jewish state…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

POSTGLOBAL: A Debate Blog on Foreign Policy and International Affairs
\nIran losing clout in Iraq?<\/a>
\nForeign Policy, 16 November 2008<\/p>\n

A sampling of the blog’s debate topics and authors:<\/p>\n

SAMI MOUBAYED, Syria
\nRegion\u2019s Dynamic Will Change, Regardless of the Outcome
\nPeace isn’t likely, but a regional shake-up is…<\/p>\n

YOSSI MELMAN, Israel
\nMissing from Talks: Sincerity
\nNeither Syria nor Israel is prepared or willing to make the necessary concessions…<\/p>\n

MAZIAR BAHARI, Iran
\nTalks Poised to Bring Iranian Rebirth
\nIran will gain ground in the tug-of-war with the United States…<\/p>\n

“….The changes were mostly minor, according to people close to the negotiations, but may have allowed Iraqi politicians to portray themselves as driving a tough bargain. Lawmakers are wary of appearing too pro-American, and some faced pressure from Iran, which strongly opposes the accord, Iraqi officials and analysts said…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The choice for Obama lies on the road to Jerusalem<\/a>
\nBy Philip Stephens
\nFinancial Times, November 13 2008<\/p>\n

..Yet here Mr Obama has promised least. True, he has made the right noises about throwing his authority behind a two-state solution. There is talk of the appointment of a special US envoy to take a permanent seat at the negotiating table. As yet, however, Mr Obama has given little sign that he is ready to invest the energy and political capital to broker a deal.<\/p>\n

You can see why. The Annapolis process, the belated effort by the Bush administration to secure an accord, has gone nowhere slowly. This week the outgoing administration all but abandoned hopes of progress before Mr Bush leaves the White House.<\/p>\n

Tony Blair, the United Nations’ special envoy to the region, displayed all his trademark optimism by insisting that a “platform” was in place for a final settlement. We have heard that one before.<\/p>\n

The polls suggest that the Israeli elections are unlikely to deliver a coalition with the authority to strike a land-for-peace bargain with the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish Likud leader, may emerge as prime minister. During his last spell in office Mr Netanyahu sought to derail the Oslo accords. I have heard it said that the one meeting that went badly during Mr Obama’s tour of the Middle East and Europe this year was his encounter with Mr Netanyahu.<\/p>\n

For their part, the Palestinians remain divided in spite of the best efforts of Egyptian mediation. Hamashas so far refused to offer the recognition of Israel demanded by the international community. In the absence of a committed interlocutor on the Israeli side, it is hard to see what would prompt Fatah and Hamas to settle their differences.<\/p>\n

So why should Mr Obama risk his reputation in such a cause? The answer comes in several parts…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Lebanon, puritanical Sunnis and a reputed playboy team up in politics<\/a>
\nBy Borzou Daragahi
\nLos Angeles Times, 17 November 2008<\/p>\n

When it comes to strange Middle East bedfellows, Lebanon’s latest politicalpartnership may be the most unlikely: The leader of one party has a reputation as a playboy with ties to neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The other group is widely viewed as a community of extremists whose puritanical strain of Sunni Islam inspired Osama bin Laden.<\/p>\n

Lebanon’s Salafists, often equated with terrorists in much of the Arab world, have teamed with Saad Hariri and his mainstream Future Movement to become part of the country’s political order.<\/p>\n

“They used to be very marginal,” Benedetta Berti, a terrorism specialist at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts, said of the Salafists. “Now, they have to be taken into account by any political movement. They have become a significant political force. Not by number, but in terms of the political impact they could have.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The curious experiment, in one of the Arab world’s most democratic political systems, could have implications for the rest of the region. In Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Algeria, Salafists are often tossed into dungeons.<\/p>\n

“One of the main reasons Salafists join the jihadist . . . and terrorist groups is because of alienation and marginalization,” said Mustafa Allouch, a Future Movement lawmaker from Tripoli. “They don’t find any hope for expressing their ideas. It’s better to accept all types of ideas and put them under the light so they don’t grow in the darkness…”<\/p>\n

In Now Lebanon: Additional confessions link Fatah al-Islam with Syria, according to TV news report<\/a><\/p>\n