An act of aggression is illegal in the International Criminal Court and is defined as the use of armed force by one State against another State without the justification of self-defense or authorization by the Security Council. The definition of the act of aggression, as well as the actions qualifying as acts of aggression include for example invasion by armed forces, bombardment and blockade.

Putin presses US Congress over Syria, says Kerry lied
4 September, 2013 – Reuters

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an “act of aggression”.

He said “anything that is outside the U.N. Security Council is aggression, except self-defense. Now what Congress and the U.S. Senate are doing in essence is legitimizing aggression. This is inadmissible in principle.”

In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian conflict.

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”

Putin did not give any more details.

In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect”.

In another sign of tension, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that since August 31, the U.S. State Department had repeatedly asked for a telephone call between Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov but Kerry had been unavailable and declined to set a time for the call. …source

Root-cause environmental and energy factors sparking violence will continue to destabilise Arab world without urgent reforms

Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict
by Nafeez Ahmed – 13 May, 2013 – The Guardian

The civil war in Syria has been devastating, generating a death toll fast approaching 100,000, while uprooting millions of civilians from their homes.

But as the US and Russia signed an unprecedented accord on Wednesday in search of a political solution to an increasingly intractable conflict, its underlying causes in a fatal convergence of energy, climate and economic factors remain little understood.

The UN high commissioner for human rights has offered a conservative under-estimate of the death toll at about 70,000 people – accompanied by over 1 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and more than 2 million people internally displaced. According to another independent study, about 79% of confirmed victims of violence in Syria have been civilians.

Although opposition fighters have been implicated in tremendous atrocities, international observers universally confirm the vast bulk of the increasingly sectarian violence to be the responsibility of Bashir al-Assad’s regime.

Yet the conflict is fast taking on international dimensions, with unconfirmed allegations that rebel forces might have used chemical weapons following hot on the heels of US-backed Israeli air strikes on Syrian military targets last weekend.

But the US, Israel and other external powers are hardly honest brokers. Behind the facade of humanitarian concern, familiar interests are at stake. Three months ago, Iraq gave the greenlight for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran’s South Pars field – which it shares with Qatar – across Iraq, to Syria.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the pipelines was signed in July last year – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – but the negotiations go back further to 2010. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and Europe, would potentially solidify Iran’s position as a formidable global player.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.

The difference is that the pipeline would bypass Russia.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have received covert support from Washington in the funneling of arms to the most virulent Islamist elements of the rebel movement, while Russia and Iran have supplied arms to Assad.

Israel also has a direct interest in countering the Iran-brokered pipeline. In 2003, just a month after the commencement of the Iraq War, US and Israeli government sources told The Guardian of plans to “build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel” bypassing Syria.

The basis for the plan, known as the Haifa project, goes back to a 1975 MoU signed by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “whereby the US would guarantee Israel’s oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis.” As late as 2007, US and Israeli government officials were in discussion on costs and contingencies for the Iraq-Israel pipeline project.

Syria’s dash for gas has been spurred by its rapidly declining oil revenues, driven by the peak of its conventional oil production in 1996. Even before the war, the country’s rate of oil production had plummeted by nearly half, from a peak of just under 610,000 barrels per day (bpd) to approximately 385,000 bpd in 2010.

Since the war, production has dropped further still, once again by about half, as the rebels have taken control of key oil producing areas.

Faced with dwindling profits from oil exports and a fiscal deficit, the government was forced to slash fuel subsidies in May 2008 – which at the time consumed 15% of GDP. The price of petrol tripled overnight, fueling pressure on food prices.

The crunch came in the context of an intensifying and increasingly regular drought cycle linked to climate change. Between 2002 and 2008, the country’s total water resources dropped by half through both overuse and waste.

Once self-sufficient in wheat, Syria has become increasingly dependent on increasingly costly grain imports, which rose by 1m tonnes in 2011-12, then rose again by nearly 30% to about 4m in 2012-13. The drought ravaged Syria’s farmlands, led to several crop failures, and drove hundreds of thousands of people from predominantly Sunni rural areas into coastal cities traditionally dominated by the Alawite minority.

The exodus inflamed sectarian tensions rooted in Assad’s longstanding favouritism of his Alawite sect – many members of which are relatives and tribal allies – over the Sunni majority.

Since 2001 in particular, Syrian politics was increasingly repressive even by regional standards, while Assad’s focus on IMF-backed market reform escalated unemployment and inequality. The new economic policies undermined the rural Sunni poor while expanding the regime-linked private sector through a web of corrupt, government-backed joint ventures that empowered the Alawite military elite and a parasitic business aristocracy.

Then from 2010 to 2011, the price of wheat doubled – fueled by a combination of extreme weather events linked to climate change, oil price spikes and intensified speculation on food commodities – impacting on Syrian wheat imports. Assad’s inability to maintain subsidies due to rapidly declining oil revenues worsened the situation. …more

Nobel Peace Laureate Obama Pushes War in Powder-Keg Middle East
Finian CUNNINGHAM – 4 September, 2013

Any notion that US President Barack Obama was «giving peace a chance» in his surprise announcement last weekend of not going ahead with military strikes on Syria was firmly scotched this week. The White House has gone into overdrive lobbying Congress members to back war action.

Last Saturday, Obama took the world aback when he suddenly declared that he was putting his war plans on Syria to a Congressional vote. Days before, the American president said that he could assume executive power to order prompt military strikes on the Arab country without relying on sanction from the House of Representatives or Senate.

That military intervention was given urgency following a deadly chemical gas attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, on 21 August, which the US government and its Western allies have accused the Syrian armed forces of perpetrating. Amateur video appeared to show hundreds of dead civilians from the attack, although the exact circumstances are still not known. As usual the Western mainstream media have amplified Western government claims and have shown a derisory lack of rigor in interrogating official assertions.

However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies any responsibility and has countered that it was the Western-backed anti-government militant groups who carried out the atrocity. The Assad government’s view is supported by allies, Russia and Iran, and many other independent observers, who suspect that the incident was staged as a provocative act. Such an act, it is contended, is aimed at enabling Washington and its allies to respond militarily on the back of earlier ultimatums that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a «red line» triggering intervention. That view, as we shall see, is consonant with the reckless US drumbeat for war in face of the available evidence pointing to the so-called rebels as having committed the crime.

In his initial vow of military action, President Obama also said that he could give the go-ahead for American forces to strike Syria without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council – a bellicose move that caused much consternation in Moscow, Beijing and other world capitals, including the Vatican.

Then in a seeming about-turn last weekend Obama said that while he still retained the executive authority as Commander-in-Chief, he had decided to seek a vote in Congress on the weighty matter.

Obama said: «Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress».

Speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, bathed in sun and with flowers in bloom, it may have appeared that Nobel Peace Laureate Obama had «seen the light». Perhaps the US president was abruptly coming to this senses, stepping back from the warpath and taking a more reasoned political route over the Syria crisis – one that would «give peace a chance» through debate and dialogue among US lawmakers. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time that the Democrat president has hesitated and flip-flopped in a predicament.

However, the international sigh of relief at Obama’s apparent balking at war was proven short-lived. Far from showing signs of flip-flopping and retreating from the warpath, Obama has over the past days led a cavalry charge on Congress to marshal a Yes vote for his plans to strike Syria. The ominous signs are that the American president is prepared to risk a military adventure in an explosive region of the world where nuclear war is a very real danger. The joint test firing of a US-Israeli ballistic missile in the Eastern Mediterranean on Tuesday underscores that a serious contingency is being contemplated.

The White House, State Department and Pentagon have triple-locked with a «lobbying blitz» on Representatives and Senators to ensure they cast their votes for war when Congress reconvenes next week on 9 September after summer recess. Many lawmakers are wary of the US entering another military quagmire and are apprehensive about the powder-keg danger of the Middle East. The risk of all-out regional war from an American attack on Syria was highlighted again this week by President Assad, who said that «the spark is getting nearer to the powder-keg».

Undeterred, Obama, together with his Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, have been personally briefing congressional leaders and various committees to back the military assault on Syria. Members of Congress have been ensconced in closed-door meetings where they have reportedly received «declassified» military intelligence to bolster «the case for punitive action» against the Assad government. Media reports suggest that the US lawmakers were merely allowed to view more amateur video footage of alleged chemical victims, as some members emerged from closed teleconference meetings and simply spoke of «shocking images», but no other form of information. Will they vote for war based on dodgy YouTube videos? …more

“Saudi press agency breaks the news of chemical weapons usage in Syria. Israeli intelligence reports they have intercepted a phone call from a Syrian government official talking about chemical weapons. Now, all we need, is official reporting from the new Al Jazeera American (AJAM) here in the USA to confirm and verify the high confidence “facts”… And if only the new[Saudi funded] $100 million UN counterterrorism center to be built within the US were ready to confirm everything…” – Dr. Colin Cavell

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
3 September, 2013 – By Gareth Porter – Truthout

In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)In a White House handout photo, President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 31, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House via The New York Times)

Secretary of State John Kerry assured the public that the Obama administration’s summary of the intelligence on which it is basing the case for military action to punish the Assad regime for an alleged use of chemical weapons was put together with an acute awareness of the fiasco of the 2002 Iraq WMD intelligence estimate.

Nevertheless, the unclassified summary of the intelligence assessment made public August 30, 2013, utilizes misleading language evocative of the infamous Iraq estimate’s deceptive phrasing. The summary cites signals, geospatial and human source intelligence that purportedly show that the Syrian government prepared, carried out and “confirmed” a chemical weapons attack on August 21. And it claims visual evidence “consistent with” a nerve gas attack.

But a careful examination of those claims reveals a series of convolutedly worded characterizations of the intelligence that don’t really mean what they appear to say at first glance.

The document displays multiple indications that the integrity of the assessment process was seriously compromised by using language that distorted the intelligence in ways that would justify an attack on Syria.

Spinning the Secret Intelligence

That pattern was particularly clear in the case of the intelligence gathered by covert means. The summary claims, “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”

That seems to indicate that U.S. intelligence intercepted such communiations. But former British Ambassador Craig Murray has pointed out on his blog August 31 that the Mount Troodos listening post in Cyprus is used by British and U.S. intelligence to monitor “all radio, satellite and microwave traffic across the Middle East … ” and that “almost all landline telephone communications in this region is routed through microwave links at some stage [and] picked up on Troodos.”

All intelligence picked by the Troodos listening post is shared between the U.S. and British intelligence, Murray wrote, but no commmunictions such as the ones described in the U.S. intelligence summary were shared with the British Joint Intelligence Organisation. Murray said a personal contact in U.S. intelligence had told him the reason was that the purported intercept came from the Israelis. The Israeli origin of the intelligence was reported in the U.S. press as well, because an Israeli source apparently leaked it to a German magazine.

The clumsy attempt to pass off intelligence claimed dubiously by the Israelis as a U.S. intercept raises a major question about the integrity of the entire document. The Israelis have an interest in promoting a U.S. attack on Syria, and the authenticity of the alleged intercept cannot be assumed. Murray believes that it is fraudulent. …more

The Case For And Against Intervening In Syria
30 August, 2013 – The Onion

While the Obama administration has been considering an armed intervention in Syria following the gassing deaths of hundreds of Syrian civilians, a vocal movement in Congress and among the general public has emerged in opposition of any U.S. military role. Here are the arguments for and against American involvement in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation:

FOR:

– It’s the right thing to do, maybe

– Let American people finally sleep at night after years of being tormented by thoughts of innocent Syrians dying

– Will put thousands of honest, diligent American Tomahawk cruise missiles back to work

– We’re the good guys

– Syrian people deserve to be free of a psychotic, oppressive dictator for a few weeks

– Moral obligation to our defense industry

– Footage of missiles being launched off decks of ships, green night-vision images, aerial shots of explosions—all that good stuff

– Have plenty of money, a fresh, rested military—why not?

– Be nice to throw Kathryn Bigelow a bone

– Chance for Obama to put an exclamation point on an already great year

– It’s been a while since we did one of these things

AGAINST:

– Someone might be hurt, or even die

– Could turn Russia and Iran against U.S.

– History

– Fear of setting a precedent of military action without U.N. approval

– Slight, almost infinitesimal chance intervention might be a completely ineffectual act that even further destabilizes the region, touching off massive anti-American sentiment while allowing jihadist radicals to take power

– Painful memories of intervening in Rwandan genocide

– It’s hard

– Bashar al-Assad just had a baby. A baby!

– Bush invaded a foreign country. If Obama invades a foreign country, he will be like Bush. It is not good to be like Bush.

– If we ever want to patch things up with Assad, this won’t exactly make that conversation a cake walk

– Situation might work itself out

…source

Family Concerned After John McCain Wanders Into Syria
28 May, 2031 – Onion

WASHINGTON—Members of Sen. John McCain’s family expressed deep concern Tuesday after receiving word that the aging legislator had wandered off into Syria. “Unfortunately, this has been happening a lot lately; he’ll walk out of the Capitol building, get disoriented, and then we get a call late at night saying that John is in Syria,” McCain’s wife Cindy said upon learning that her 76-year-old husband turned up in the war-torn country after ambling across the Turkey-Syria border and delivering a rambling, incoherent speech to a group of rebels. “Then one of us has to go to Syria, pick him up, and bring him back to Washington. We’re going to have to sit down soon and decide what to do about this before he seriously hurts himself.” McCain’s wife added that her husband’s recent trip to Syria was the most alarming episode for her family since the elderly Arizona senator got into his car, started driving, and ended up lost in the 2008 presidential election. …source