Thursday, January 30, 2014

U.S. Slams Syria for Failing to Meet Chemical Weapons Commitments

The Obama administration today slammed Syria for failing to fulfill its pledges to surrender its chemical weapons for destruction and voiced concern that the entire project could now be in jeopardy. U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Robert P. Mikulak accused Syria of “open-ended delaying” of the disarmament process in an attempt to renegotiate the deal it agreed to last fall. (LATimes, 30 January)

“Syria’s open-ended delaying of the removal operation could ultimately jeopardize the carefully timed and coordinated multistate removal and destruction effort,” Ambassador Mikulak added.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in Warsaw today for a visit, said the Syrians “need to fix this.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to surrender his chemical arsenal to deflect President Obama’s threat to launch punitive missile strikes last summer in response to use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria.

Under a disarmament plan proposed by the Syrians, Damascus was to deliver 700 tons of its most dangerous chemicals by next Wednesday to the port of Latakia, where the material would be loaded onto ships and destroyed at sea. But officials say it has delivered only about 32 tons, in two shipments on 7 and 27 January.

Mikulak also accused Syria of violating its pledge to destroy chemical weapons production facilities. Instead of following through on promises to destroy seven hardened aircraft hangars and five underground facilities, Syria is proposing to make the facilities “inactivated” by welding doors shut and erecting interior obstacles.

Photo credit: A member of the Norwegian armed forces aboard the frigate Helge Ingstad as the first load of chemical agents was transported out of Syria this month. (Lars Magne Hovtun/Norwegian Armed Forces/European Pressphoto Agency/LA Times)


Anonymous said...

Just get rid of Assad and let the Syrian people decide their new government.

Basrawi (former IQAF Mirage F1 pilot) said...

Assad or the SAA have not even used Chemical weapons. It has been proven that SAA could not have been the perpetrator, and that it was probably the work of the opposition. USA strong-armed Assad into this "pledge" with threat of military force. US governments have had long records of applying those kind of tactics.

Anonymous said...

And here we go again... the rogue regime "failing on its promises" to the great loving and caring US of A... yet another cheap and deja-vu, unconvincing even at home attempt at resurrecting some unilaterally established casus belli for go it alone strikes that failed to garner any kind of meaningful consensus in the first place last time it was put on the table. Oddly enough, it wasn't a week ago that nothing less than an independent study from the MIT itself produced results greatly challenging the White House's initial claims about the actual events that occurred that day, arguing that it is near impossible that the perpetrators of this tragic attack were the ones instantly accused at the time, I'm guessing some official counter-statement or maneuver such as this one had to materialize sooner or later...

Foreign Policy has become so predictable on top of being totally erratic, opportunistic and destructively shortsighted on a Syrian issue long gone out of control, and the many backfiring phenomenons that pretty much unexpectedly resulted after they played with fire once more by trying to tame Islamist fundamentalists via their stalwart Sunni Gulf monarchy allies and Saudi Arabia in particular currently even rejecting Rouhani's repeated appeasement efforts in bi-lateral relations and received the interim nuclear deal with a high degree of contempt at its inception. When are they going to learn and refrain from ruining both regional people's interests on top of their own by trying to systematically take advantage of any ongoing turmoil, is a question one can rightfully ask here.

Assad and his Iranian allies all share huge responsibility in the bloodshed here, I for one won't ever think about denying it, quite the contrary, the former's infamy in quelling initially peaceful protests with deadly force and the latter's subsequent on-site support for a murderous regime will be remembered as one of the countless stains he put the history of his country, but witnessing such self-righteous posturing from the main sponsors of terrorist-supporting neighboring GCC countries deliberately and blatantly fanning the flames of sectarian war and blowing people to pieces every day in and around Syria, Iraq and even Lebannon where they have officially established an center of operations a few days ago, with Al-Qaeda kingpin Prince Bandar going as bold as to openly threaten Putin himself by offering to trade the Russian president's support for Assad and security during Sochi Olympics, is in no way better. And no amount of senseless "peace conferences" lacking principal actors in the conflict despite global interest interest in seeing them sit at the table along with other players, and an openly biased position towards demands from one sub-group of the opposition they favor on top of every other parties involved (moderates and secular included), will change the fake, doom and gloom surrounding the whole thing in any way.


Anonymous said...

Who are you to decide that?

B.M.A said...

A- you are a master in juggling between stances and weighing your words.your long free flowing comment is full of errors and facts intertwined, killing any attempt at rebuttal by hitting ALL sides mercilessly- so once more you slip away safely without ruffling a feather..

Anonymous said...

Is that so BMA, so i'm some sort of expert liar, while all you do is to speak the holy truth to everyone here ? your comment in turn is yet another example of your utter inability to remain balanced towards facts yourself. No matter the actors involved, they ALL have interests to safeguard, agendas to fulfill, and shifting alliances as the context evolves, and none of them holds the condition of the Syrian people dear to their heart, cold geopolitical calculus rules for everyone, even if that makes me sorry myself.

Iran cannot self-proclaim some kind of moral high ground, no more than the US can do, they were all complicit to crimes, would it be though proxies or done by themselves in this affair and others. Now of course, in this particular "game", the IRI and Russia hold the advantage of fighting for a de-facto better alternative than their GCC/Western competitors, but it doesn't emanate from any real will to fight in that direction. See, the best that Assad stands for, secularism and tolerance, would never be applied by the IRI at their own home, and their political Islam, doubled with a Supreme Guide, goes absolutely counter to the kind of society the Assad family once governed in a stable fashion. That is not the Syrian attributes they defend in this conflict, they rather simply see an Allawite leader sympathetic to their core objective and common goal regionally against the GCC, Israel and their sponsors getting threatened by its arch-enemies it shares in common. I do not hit them all "mercilessly" nor do I have the impression my facts are compiled with so many errors, I invite you to point them out one by one, I have no fear of being challenged since that comment of mine was not intended to be an exhaustive representative of my views on the conflict in general, hence some inevitable shortcuts that may not suit you and his one-sided love for the IRI too well, of course.... you are not so different than a Zionist yourself if you stick at defending whatever the regime does at home and abroad, grant it with hight praises despite every downside or true motivation to its actions, while painting its foes as the perpetual lying , propagandist criminals even when they speak truth about a particular , despicable aspect of the IRI.

To give you an example, Ahmadinejad was absolutely right when he rightfully underlined the harsh and devastating, inhumane and criminal treatment that the Israeli occupying authority subjects the Palestinians to. On the other hand, even that devil Netanhyahu or cunning imperialist Kerry are wrong when they condemn ongoing state-sponsored, organized , institutionalized suppression of political dissent in Iran, by way of murder, execution, intimidation, mass imprisonment and various other forms of brutality. To everyone its demons. You see angels on one side and evil on the other, lose grasp of any shade of grey in your rational and rather opt for black and white reasoning, you become an Iranian Bush and his Axis of Evil vs the Land of the great democrats. And we've seen the results.

You want to lecture the world about whatever is wrong with them ? learn to wipe your own doorstep as well.


Anonymous said...

If there will be "no Assad", or separate statehood for non Sunnis, then there will have to die additional tens of thousands of innocent people to sustain western claim that there is a (their insane) democracy, like it is in Iraq and at other places in the world.

B.M.A said...

WELL, -A = Im kinda less interested to have a showdown ,or engage in a nasty exchange with you,FOR i am someone who respects diverse opinion.But YOU being someone knowledgeable, i will take you ,for struggling in your facts and sometimes horribly practicing open intellectual dishonesty!.
-THIS is in summary what you are saying at - 6:05am on 31-jan-

[1]-The US established a caucus belli to go for unilateral strikes but the plan failed to get the needed support.Oddly an independent study by the MIT challenges the white house initial claims that Assad had used gas and clearly goes to show that it is in fact the opposition that used that heinous weapon to steal victory or tout the US .

- one-

-Here you are hitting the nail at the head but you are too soft and dithering with hammer,-THE truth is that the US has never been anybody's beacon of democracy!!..Driven like a swoon around the world by its powerful lobbies waging crazy wars ,knocking down poorly armed Nations,leaving behind horrific scenes of suffering on people ,it then justifies this crime with three words 'safeguarding our interests'.


Indeed it had been RUSSIA and IRAN'S argument that Assad could not have committed that crime and that bit was the work of the opposition,many month later the truth is unfolding in support of the Iran's position and one again revealing to the world that the us IS NOT ONLY home to the world's best and tastiest burgers but also the only Nation that can sell falsehood to the world and justify a war using that vice!.As the world comes to learn the truth of what happened of that crime many HISTORY will wright Iran on the truthful side of that dirty scheme.

[2]-you say -Assad and his Iranian allies all share responsibility in the blood here! .Assad's crime was to quell peaceful demonstration with deadly force .And Iran's CRIME was to support him with that cruelty!.


Why do people trust the RATS in Syria to bring about democracy in the country.Democracy can never live in a house of an Arab AND HISTORY IS THE BEST WITNESS ON THIS.You either put in place an absolute monarch in the Name of a king or absolute rule under Sharia.WHY then do the US WISH to to spoil Syria?.Many observers believe that if you remove Assad ,then bring on another Assad lest the country goes and turns into another Somalia.
Iran is fighting a strategic war in supporting Assad.unlike the confused US supporting,arming AL QAIDA in Syria ,at the same time shedding crocodile tears in Iraq!.

so then -A am not tearing your comment down but rather admiring how you walked on the rope balancing yourself between issues.!.

Anonymous said...


Probably, you may remember and recall a comment from the past, when one author had posted information, that israel has dispatched units of commentators to the Internet, in order to to influence and shape outcomes of information and comments on the Internet.........

Anonymous said...

I have nothing to add on section one and repeatedly said pretty much the same throughout my history on this blog whenever I judged it appropriate as a reminder.

On [2] : Indeed, Iran supported Assad in his initial crime in quelling what initially was peaceful protests, emanating in turn from what was nothing less than a few kids getting tortured in a police station because they tagged "undesirable" graffiti on a wall in the eyes of Assad's political agents. The fact that external, opportunistic players did everything (and sadly, succeeded) in giving the whole affair a military tone is another story, and there I said that Iran is on the "right" side of history as a matter of circumstance and nothing more, since they technically support secularism in the face of fundamentalist, head-chopping Salafi Islam, but at the same time, continue to enforce their status as a theocracy where by definition religion is law. The defend strategic interests, and that doesn't go an inch further, they aren't working at preserving secularism, but rather their only Arab ally in the region.

On section three : one cannot base its judgment of a given population's capacity at harboring democracy solely based on their ethnicity and disregarding any counter examples to your unsympathetic vision of the Arabs in general that lead you to make statements flirting with racism on top of being truncated quotes of history. What is Lebanon for you if not an example of troubled, though functional multi-confessional, democratically governed nation ? of course notwithstanding the mosaic of highly harmful foreign meddling that regularly puts its fragile institutional fabric and associated faint sectarian equilibrium at the risk of being torn apart and go backwards to the dark ages of civil war all over again. Israel and Saudi Arabia indeed being quite bent on making the country implode like it once did for close to 20 years, on that I will not disagree, and never wavered on my opinion.

What about Tunisia, the only country that got out of the Arab Spring with a national coalition that ultimately, not a month ago, was able to safeguard the secular nature of its secular constitution and not fall under the hammer of Qatar's billions and billions of flowing petrodollars fueling violence, political assassinations and artificial growth in fundamentalist religious parties ?

You are fast and right to point out the many concrete and undeniable cases of murderous interventionism from the US and its dire human consequences for the world, specially since they "won" the Cold War, would it be through direct military action or more cynical, insidious political destabilization in all classical fashion of CIA covert campaigns, but in contrast you fail to link any of those intrusive and destructive geopolitical behaviors with the apparent ineptitude of the majority of Arab countries in becoming something other than secular dictatorship (like the Shah of Iran ?) or sharia-governed theocracies (Supreme Guide rings a bell ?)

Ironically, we can factually apply your observation on Arabs to the Iranian case as well, with a country that hasn't been led by a single democratically elected government in the last 100 years except for a very brief period of its 20th century history by Mossadegh before he got overthrown by uncle Sam, quite unexpectedly so.

Arabs, just like Iranians or any other ethnic group, and both able and willing to live in a free and fair society, history cannot possibly prove them wrong just because intense and systematic external sources of multi-dimensional influence and pressure prevent them from moving forward in time as fast as they normally should, walking a straight line to their countries' destinies. Ongoing turmoil in Bahrein and Egypt despite violent repression, and democratic stabilization process in Tunisia are 3 examples that should make one think twice before making hasty and quite definitive assertions on people.


B.M.A said...


@-I knew ,your ship's first port of call would be Lebanon!..And then you would sail straight to Tunisia and then remember Egypt!.But the Arab league is not only these three countries. And why are the citizens of those many Arab Nations just feel at home with their Kings and Rulers?,-it is because the average Arab lives happily and secure under an absolute ruler!.

@-And you say Iran is a country that hasn't been led by a single democratically elected Government in the last 100 years except for a very brief period of its 20th century history by Mossadegh before he got overthrown by the US...........

-In essence you are saying that the Establishment is a dictatorship!.-what a poor and wrong judgement on your part emanating from an open dislike of reality.In another translation you are saying the Nation of 80 million people is held hostage by the guardian council and the Leader!.BUT truth is the opposite and that the Nation has had its election on its calender ,the citizens given their freedom to make their choices.
BUT I KNOW where the land mine is!-by saying "Arabs ,just like Iranians or any other ethnic group ,are both able and willing to live in a free and fair society.."-you mean the separation of religion from Government and that the masses are left alone to shape their destiny!.and here is the reality-
-ISLAM is a religion that demands its adherents to follow a specific guide.It is the only religion that is not complete without its form of Government.You must look Muslims in this contest if you want to understand the problem.You would wish a Muslim Nation like Iran, or Afghanistan or any to embrace the western democracy in its entirety , but you are dead wrong, if you force an alien ideology to your Muslim parent,son, daughter,twin brother,He will definitely resist and fight you with all his might.

it is very much safe and prudent to judge a people by the parameters of their ideology like when the whole world is horrified by the self styled beacon of democracy when it okays Saudi tanks to roll into Bahrain to defend an ally, but when Iran helps Syria with only experts, the whole world is programmed to believe that 'Assad and his Iranian allies all share huge responsibilities in the bloodshed here.... !!.

Anonymous said...

"Arab Nations just feel at home with their Kings and Rulers? ==> that is exactly why so many of them revolted one after the other against the established, often but not always US-supported rule of secular dictatorship in the past couple of years. Funny you yet again fail to extend your legitimate observation of western and particularly American foreign meddling in the middle east when it comes to Arab despotism.

So by your rationale that America makes Arabs happy with their undemocratic establishment it did everything to keep in power so long as it could ? I see double standards emanating from an unconditional IRI supporter self-proclaiming as a moral defender against all forms of alien involvement in countries' internal affairs, preaching freedom of choice for Syrians on the one hand and pretending that every Tunisian was happy with the dictatorship it has to endure and Egyptian continue to enjoy it, yeah right we are witness to that every passing day. Your intertwined arguments completely contradict one another when it comes to denounce the many documented abuses of the IRI as well as Arab dictatorships, but history speaks for itself regardless : Tunisians have been able to vote for the first time of their history not two years ago, not only this but they have also been able to chase the corrupt, Qatar-supported obscurantist elements from a great majority of its redaction and political spectrum despite the latter's political assassination and massive financial backing from abroad, de-facto creating a brand new, stable and globally supported form of legitimate government letting the adoption of religious dogma to the discretion of every of its citizen, and not as an imposed, established rule of law applied forcefully to everyone , and that is one victory the world will remember in the coming generations.

That is the beacon of concrete hope that many citizens try to follow by resisting the coup government in Egypt of the US-supported Sunni monarchy of Bahrain (where I view Saudi involvement as illegitimate and unacceptable foreign involvement) or the initial protesters in Syria even though as we all know the situation got much more complex and dire soon after thanks to a coalition of opportunistic GCC and Western countries trying to opportunistically gear the crisis it towards their respective agendas.

You say the Arab league is not only 3 countries, but these countries constitute critical counter-examples to your assertion that an Arab likes being governed by a despot. I'm none to advocate change for all the others, let alone through the hammer of murderous militarism we've seen operate in a genocidal fashion both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Such change is a long process, It took thousands of years for feudalism and monarchy to mutate into some imperfect form of Institutionalized democracy, and even there it is going through very hard times in the US becoming a Police State since 9/11, we are a VERY long way from an ideal Society would it be in Europe or the US, I never missed an occasion to slam their hypocritical attempts at using that model of society as an avatar for military invasion. But whatever their shortcomings they are still 100 times better than countries allowing themselves to kill and/or imprison hundreds of their own citizen every time they gather to merely shout their discontent and protest, like in 2009 in Iran and initially in Syria in 2011.

And on a final note, I have never, nor will ever advocate the forceful adoption of democratic structure for a remote country with different culture, perceptions and history, since the very institutional mechanisms greatly vary from one country to another, the US and France for instance are far apart to the very system of elections and the way they take the popular vote into account. There is no such thing as an absolute template of democracy.


B.M.A said...

HONESTY, on your part!

IT is refreshing to see intellectual honesty oozing from you by this submission:-

@-that there in no such thing as an absolute template of democracy.

@-that the US and France are far apart to the very system of elections and the way they take the popular vote into account .

@you do not advocate the forceful adoption of democratic structure for a remote country....since the very institutional mechanisms greatly vary from one country to another.

SO then why not look the IRI through this same prism and live to accept and appreciate that, THE very foundations of the revolution are build at letting the citizens enjoy their freedom and democracy in the context of their Ideology.

Anonymous said...


What a oxymoron ! How can "citizens enjoy their freedom and democracy" under a ideology?
There is no ideology in a democratic system. A democratic system by its nature is fluid and not like the regressive ideology of Islam. The very foundations of the "revolution" was based on a pack of lies for the purpose of theft in Iranian resources and retardation of society by a backward ideology.

Otherwise keep up the Sisyphean !

Anonymous said...


"So then why not look the IRI through this same prism[…]" ==> I agree that the Iranians exclusively should ultimately decide whether they want to continue living under the absolute rule of a Supreme Guide doubled with an army under its exclusive command, only accountable to him in person, and separate in all regards from the rest of the State (on the judicial and military level in particular), which in my opinion and in the opinion of millions of others who lost loved ones to executions or forced to witness their imprisonment in closed centers in every iteration of their mere vocal opposition to the established order or a particular trait of it, is a shame and crime. In other societies there is space for public debate and even outcry against a given gov't policy.
As stated above, democracy doesn't live under an ideological banner, and while as I said myself and maintain that it doesn't represent an absolute template or model, its basic pillars are universal and common to all mankind: having the right to choose your leaders and then still be able to openly question or even attack their ideas and positions on issues without fearing for your life should be the basis of its doctrine. What I meant by the absence of template and hence the illegitimacy and impossibility of imposing it through the force of arms emanates from the fact that you do not simply copy paste a model of Society from one country to the other no matter its nature, good or bad or neutral, and not that it is undesirable to expect change in a country such as Iran to an acceptable level of freedom, don't get me wrong.

In Iran today you cannot even bring up issues to the public deemed too controversial to the government's interest and ideology without risking instant closure and/or imprisonment of yourself and your staff, and it is fact that newspapers, cybercafes and blog owners (like Mr. Uskowi himself that would certainly not survive long as a free man, would his site be hosted from inside Iran) have been repeatedly submitted to such treatment for not speaking the version of the official truth that the Establishment expected for the day.

There is not real plurality whatsoever within the Iranian political spectrum. Rouhani today only succeeds in changing the global orientation and policies of the country towards strategic issues such as the nuclear issue because Khamenei himself wills it for now, an entire country shouldn't depend on the will of a non-elected individual imposing his personal views and decisions on 80 million people with direct and often dire consequences for them, having a final say on every critical issue impacting their lives sometimes overnight. There is no counter-power to his rule, and that also makes him an illegitimate leader sitting at the top of such large and powerful country.

Same for the countless presidential hopefuls that every year do not even secure a right for self-representation because of a validation committee totally opaque and arbitrary in its decision-making and associated criteria for refusal, and non-elected itself to begin with, again a totally illegitimate nature of governance for which there is no room in a free and fair society

You cannot decently say with a straight face that citizens in Iran today enjoy freedom and democracy "in the context of their Ideology" since the rule of law itself is based on a particular view on the world that does not constitute the majority of the people, that hasn't ever been subjected to a vote or even symbolic referendum, and still manages to impose it all the way to the very clothing and style that people on the streets are supposed to bear, or the music they can broadcast, or the poems they can read in public, or the drawings they can expose for anyone interested. "Freedom and democracy" you speak about does not take place for an immense majority of Iranians not abiding by the exact rule of the Established order they have never been in favor of and never had a real opportunity at making it known.


B.M.A said...

THIS is your greatest UNDOING!


Brazenly attacking the person on the LEADER !-a preserve of one who suffers from a negative attitude , and has nothing or little time with contents of the constitution-too far for someone of your standing! .The humble Man of GOD being an office bearer, filling a position as stipulated in the supreme law!.


YOU state that 'democracy can not live in an ideological banner!.-Too strange and typical of a westerner ,painting the tern democracy in different colors and placing it on different backgrounds!.-here is an example- let us say per chance Turkey subjected her citizens on a referendum to choose b/tween sharia law and liberal democracy, and it happens that the masses vote overwhelmingly for sharia law!b -what term do you give to that Government?.


YOU speak of a ' large powerful country' yet you know you are wrong and that the right term should be -LARGE MUSLIM NATION!-It is from this focal point that you would do justice in your analysis on the political cause of the country.


YOU say the country the country in on the mercy of an individual,imposing his personal views and decisions on 80 million people-THIS is not only wrong but a classic case of intellectual dishonesty on your part.No where in the constitution does it give the leader those sweeping powers that place him at par with KIM JONG and king Abdulla.You fail to notice the Majlis,the guardian council. All thee institution that are envy to citizens living under a Monarchy and totalitarian rule.

Anonymous said...

"Brazenly attacking the person on the LEADER !-a preserve of one who suffers from a negative attitude , [...]filling a position as stipulated in the supreme law!. ==> nothing in the world is going to give ANY kind of legitimacy to his absolute and unquestioned , arbitrary rule, no matter how much passion you put in his defense. He has the last say on every critical matters : nothing is done, and everything can be undone, would he decide so, and history of it is plenty for all to see. That also answers your point four.

As for Turkey, well if the people chooses a given law as a banner to be governed with, measured by way of a referendum process in an internationally accepted fashion (like it was), then I have ZERO problem with it, let them be governed by the Society they want, choose, and publicly adhere to when asked about it !!! there is no inconsistency in this posture with my previous assertions, I invite you to prove otherwise based on existing material I produced on this very page.

Now quote me even ONE instance in the 34 years of the Islamic Republic where ANY kind of popular vote or mere poll was conducted in a sweeping way and gave the population to put under question the legitimacy of living under the Shiite version of Islamic law for every single of Iranian citizens or rather opting for a secular rule. Name one. With UN-affiliated watchdogs comprising a broad spectrum of world countries, including China, Russia, the Arab League, the NAM, and western powers, so that no one can have space for biased analysis and judgment. As I said before, dozens of contenders are arbitrarily banned from even running every election in the country since the IRI's inception, let alone those who are threatened with imprisonment or outright imprisoned for being deemed too "subversive" in other terms too far apart with the Establishment's position on Islamic ethics.

THREE ==> there is no such thing as "Muslim power", it only exist in your one-sided perception of the national fabric that many in the world do not share, including but not exclusive to Iranians. Proof are plenty to illustrate that a large portion of Iranians always refuted and rebuffed the version of "Islamic teaching" that were imposed by the Revolutionary government after it took over other forces in play after the Shah's overthrow. Iran and its 80 million people, and a powerful academic structure supported by historical Institutions precluding the IRI by more than a generation are what make Iran a powerful country, not the version of the Muslim faith the government has been trying to force onto the people through the barrel of a gun or at the end of a rope and mass executions dating as far back as the Imposed war.