Syria: United Nations report does not blame the regime for chemical weapons use - really?

AP/Shaam Network

The United Nations has released its report on the August 21 chemical attacks in the southern and eastern suburbs of Damascus. You can read or download the full report on the United Nations website.

The report is carefully worded to detail the fact that chemical weapons were fired into the suburbs of Damascus, details the type of munition used and the chemical nerve agent dispersed. It does not specify who was responsible for the attacks.

Or does it?

The answer can be found on page 23 of the report. There are references to Impact Site Number 1, Impact Site Number 2 and Impact Site Number 4. Sites 1 and 2 are located in the southern Damascus suburb of Mu'adhamiyah; Site 4 is in the eastern suburb of 'Ayn Tarma (this eastern suburban area is also referred to as the East Ghutah).

Here are the telling portions:

Impact Site Number 1 - "...the original trajectory of the projectile, as it hit the ground, had an azimuth of 215 degrees. Impact Site Number 2 is located 65 meters away from number 1 and with an azimuth of 214 degrees. Both relative positions are fully congruent with the dispersion pattern commonly associated with rockets launched from a single, multi-barrel, launcher."

Impact Site Number 4 - "The projectile, in the last stage of its trajectory, hit the surface in an area of earthy, relatively soft, ground where the shaft/engine of he projectile remained dug in, undisturbed until investigated.

"The said shaft/engine, presenting no form of lateral bending, pointed in a bearing of 285 degrees that, again, represent a reverse azimuth to the trajectory followed by the rocket during its flight. It can be, thus, concluded that the original azimuth of the rocket trajectory had an azimuth of 105 degrees, in an East/Southeast trajectory."

If you draw the azimuths in reverse, the lines point to Jabal Qasiyun, the garrison of the Republican Guard (under the command of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's brother Mahir) which has been used to shell the East Ghutah (Impact Site 4) and Mu'adhamiyah (Impact Sites 1 and 2) areas for months. Alternately, the attack on Mu'adhamiyah could have been launched from al-Mizzah air base, also on the same axis.

To this military analyst, these are sound indications that it was the Syrian regime that fired the chemical rockets. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov might want to read the United Nations report instead of continuing to advance their fantasy that it was the rebels who used the nerve agent to provoke a Western reaction.

Sorry, товарищи (comrades), it was your man in Damascus that did it.

Syria: What does Bashar al-Asad get for giving up his chemical weapons?

Bashar al-Asad and Vladimir Putin

Part of the deal between the Russians and the Syrians that led to the Syrians admitting that they possess chemical weapons and have committed to relinquishing them is believed to be Russian agreement to reinstate the halted deliveries of two military aircraft contracts with the Syrian Air Force.

Prior to the outbreak of the civil war, the Syrians contracted for a replacement trainer aircraft for their aging fleet of 1980s-era Czech-built L-39 trainers. The L-39 was used in the initial months of the civil war by the Syrians as a light attack aircraft - it is equipped with a gun pack and hardpoints on the wings to carry bombs and rocket launchers.

The L-39's have largely been marginalized because of increasing shoulder-launched air defense capabilities of the opposition forces (some seized from Syrian army depots and some provided by foreign countries), and the fact that most of the L-39 operating bases have been overrun or are under siege by the rebels.

The aircraft purchased - but not yet delivered - to replace the L-39 is the Yak-130 (NATO: Mitten), built with involvement of the Italian aircraft manufacturer Alenia. The Syrians have contracted for an initial lot of 36 of the aircraft. The Yak-130 can carry an external load of three tons (bombs, missiles, cannon pod, or fuel tanks).

In addition to the Yak-130, the Syrians have ordered between 10 and 24 MiG-29M2 (NATO: Fulcrum E), the newest version of the 1980's-era (fourth generation) fighter aircraft. Unlike the estimated 48 MiG-29 (NATO: Fulcrum) air-to-air fighters currently in service with the Syrian Air Force, the newer version is a multirole aircraft that adds a significant air-to-ground capability, including precision guided munitions (PGM).

The two aircraft represent a generational advance for the Syrian Air Force, giving them a heretofore nonexistent capability to deliver precision guided munitions. When equipped with PGM (either laser of GPS guided), the aircraft will be able to remain outside the threat envelope of the shoulder-fired air defense missiles available to the opposition forces, while being able to place weapons accurately on specific targets rather than dropping them near suspected rebel locations or indiscriminately on civilian populated areas.

In the absence of a no-fly zone, the addition of the capability to deliver PGMs will be a quantum leap in the effectiveness of the Syrian Air Force against the opposition. While these are not state-of-the-art fighters in the Western sense, they can he highly effective in the Syrian battlespace.

Syrian Chemical Weapons Strikes - Random Attacks or Viable Military Targets?

The August 21 chemical attacks that the U.S. government has ascribed to the Syrian armed forces killed over 1400 people, including over 400 children. President Obama is contemplating military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad in response to what he terms as a "violation of well established international norms against the use of chemical weapons...."

There has been a great amount of coverage of the results of the chemical warfare attacks - mostly based on videos posted on social media sites, but also hair, soil and blood tests that indicate the use of sarin gas, a nerve agent also known as GB. The videos show the agony caused by nerve agents, and hundreds of dead bodies. The rows of dead children wrapped in burial shrouds were difficult to watch.

What has gotten lost in the coverage is an answer to the basic question: Why did the Syrians use chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus? Let's look at the map (above - click for larger view).

The green line is a highway called the "Southern Beltway" - it is the de facto dividing line between the Syrian army to the west and the opposition forces to the east. The opposition forces in this area, called the East Ghutah, consist mostly of units who self-identify as part of the Free Syrian Army.

I have placed a red dot to the east of the highway in the government-controlled area. That is the location of al-'Abasiyin Square (although it is a circle). The conventional wisdom among military analysts is that if the opposition can break though the line and reach al-'Abasiyin Square, they may well be able to push into the heart of the city and take it.

To that end, there is ferocious fighting in the suburbs of Jawbar and al-Qabun as the rebels make forays to the west of the highway. There is almost constant fighting on the Southern Beltway itself as the army tries to retain control of the road, losing quite a few of its T-72 tanks (mostly of the 4th Armored Division and Republican Guard) to the opposition's antitank missiles.

If the Syrian regime was concerned that they might not be able to hold the line represented by the Southern Beltway, or if they wanted to send a message to the residents of the suburbs located to the east of the road perceived as supporting the opposition, they may have resorted to the use of chemical weapons.

'Ayn Tarma and Zamalka are two of these suburbs. The two areas have come under heavy artillery and air attacks for the last two years, but those attacks have not had the desired effect. The suburbs are directly opposite al-'Abasiyin Square. There are reports from other suburbs in the East Ghutah based on the presence of victims at medical facilities. However, soon after the attacks, the medical services of the FSA mobilized clinics and medical personnel in the neighboring suburbs to handle the mass casualty event.

Conventional weapons kill with blast effect and shrapnel, but are concentrated and do not cover wide areas, probably not as widespread as a suburb. Chemical agents in gas form, however, can.

Although the numbers - approximately 1400 dead - pale in comparison to the estimated 120,000 dead in the civil war thus far, killing that many people in two concentrated areas in one attack is effective. Not only does it clear an area of concern, it sends a psychological message to the remaining residents.

Recent reporting also indicates there were also attacks in the southern suburbs of Mu'adhamiyah and Daraya. In this case, the regime is protecting what they consider a strategic resource - al-Mazzah air base. I have annotated the base with a red dot as well.

These were not random attacks - someone chose these targets.

______________
Personal anecdote: Al-'Abasiyin Square is really a large traffic circle. My wife was in a minor traffic accident when a dump truck forced the car she was driving into the barrier that surrounds the center of the traffic circle.

The police arrived, took a statement from my wife and the driver of the truck. The police then sent the truck driver on his way and provided my wife with an accident report, citing the cause of the accident as the "will of Allah."

Try filing a claim with your insurance company with that police report.

Obama "blinks" - a gift to Bashar al-Asad

President Obama "blinking"

If you watch/read Syrian and other Middle East media, as I do, the perception is that President Barack Obama "blinked" in the face of Syria's claims that it will defend itself and wreak havoc on American forces in the eastern Mediterranean. Yes, we all know that it is meaningless bluster from Damascus, but our understanding is not what matters in the region - their perception becomes the reality.

What we might regard as cautious deliberation over the use of military force - a good thing by many standards - is regarded as weakness and indecision by those in the Middle East. Al-Thawrah (The Revolution), the official newspaper of the Syrian Ba'ath Party reported, "Obama announced yesterday...the beginning of the historic American retreat."

It is difficult to find fault with Syrian media account. Despite Secretary of State John Kerry's tap-dancing semantics, the President has handed the ball off to the Congress, who may vote against military action, tying the President's hands. The President can't go to Congress and, if the authorization fails, later ignore the vote. This is not leadership - this is the Pontius Pilate school of politics.

I normally try to stay out of political analysis, but this was purely a political play on the part of the President. If, like their British counterparts, Congress refuses to authorize military action (although I do not believe Congressional authorization is required), the President has an out.

I firmly believe that Barack Obama has no desire to take any military action against Syria but has put his - and more importantly, American - credibility on the line. He can say, "I was ready to pull the trigger, but Congress would not give me the authority." If they approve it, then he may look for another excuse not to act, but he will have kicked the can down the road at least 10 or more days. If Congress votes no, it does set a precedent that this president and future presidents may regret.

In making this announcement, President Obama has given Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian armed forces a gift. Rather than having to allocate intelligence resources to determine when an American attack might occur, the Syrians know that they have at least 10 days in which to prepare for whatever military action President Obama might order. Of course, given the recent failure of British Prime Minister David Cameron to secure Parliamentary approval to participate in military action against Syria, the Syrian may feel confident that their American counterparts may do the same.

The Syrians also know, thanks to the Secretary Kerry's pronouncements, what targets the United States has taken off the table. There will be no strikes aimed at regime change, no attempt to change the situation on the ground and no strikes of chemical weapons depots (for fear of dispersing the chemical agents). That leaves military garrisons, command and control facilities, and air bases as potential targets.

While all of these potential targets in the country are vulnerable, the Syrians have at least 10 days to prepare for strikes. It is possible - and militarily prudent - to disperse high-value equipment (combat aircraft, for example), move transportable radars to alternate pre-surveyed locations, move sensitive equipment into hardened shelters that are not vulnerable to the Tomahawk warheads, and deploy tactical air defense systems with an anti-missile capability (such as the Pantsir-S1, NATO: SA-22 GREYHOUND) to protect static sites.

Wouldn't it be nice to have 10 days notice before an attack? Well, that's what the President has just done for Bashar al-Asad. Meanwhile, there are over 2000 American sailors and marines in the eastern Mediterranean, whose positions are fairly well known.

France24 Debate - A Panel on Potential U.S. Intervention in Syria

I participated in a panel discussion on potential U.S./NATO intervention in Syria for France-24 television. Click here to view the discussion.

Interview on NPR's The "Takeaway" with John Hockenberry

I was interviewed by John Hockenberry for his August 27 "The Takeaway" show on NPR.

Foreign Policy Article - Corrections and Clarifications

The recent article in the magazine Foreign Policy,Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran, both quotes me and attributes things to me that are inaccurate or taken out of context. While trying to correct already published articles in widely-read publications is akin to unringing a bell, I think it important to respond to correct and clarify words and actions attributed to me.

While the article is technically truthful, it is nuanced and written to portray a cavalier attitude among the participants in several foreign policy initiative and intelligence operations during the last full year of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, specifically from September 1987 to August 1988. Having been one of the participants in these events, I can assure that we were serious about our work, attempting to do the best we could in a very unpleasant set of circumstances.

Let's start with the line right under the title:

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

Technically, this is true - but out of context. U.S. assistance to Iraq continued after it became known that the Iraqi armed forces had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops during the April 1988 offensive that reclaimed Iraq's al-Faw peninsula. I was on the al-Faw battlefields a few weeks after the battle. It was obvious to the other Defense Intelligence Agency officer and me that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons during the fighting. Our first clue was the presence of used atropine injectors on the ground, and in captured Iranian military weapons and equipment.

Atropine injectors are the universal antidote for exposure to nerve agents. When I asked the Iraqi officers escorting us about the injectors, they explained that they used a lot of obscurant smoke rounds in the artillery fires prior to the attack and that the Iranians may have been confused and thought they were being attacked with chemical weapons. While you could be skeptical, it was an explanation. It was an explanation that soon evaporated as we found decontamination fluid on the captured Iranian equipment. If there was no chemical warfare exposure, there was no need to decontaminate the vehicles.

We reported our findings to the embassy in Baghdad as well as all of the offices in Washington - CIA, State Department and Defense Department. Our cooperation with the Iraqis stopped immediately. A series of meetings were held in Washington - at a level, as we say, "way above my pay grade." In the end, we reluctantly resumed our program with the Iraqis. It was the only slightly better of two bad choices: stop helping the Iraqis and the Iranians would likely win the war, or continue to work with a country now using nerve agents on the battlefield.

Although we did not know it at the time, Saddam Husayn had already ordered his forces to use nerve agents against his own people - Iraqi Kurds living in the northern city of Halabjah. Thousands died in March of 1988 in what many analysts later believed was a weapons test of the nerve agent Sarin (GB).

America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen.

I am not sure we were in a position to stop the Iraqis from using chemical weapons, a capability they denied until years later.

U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

This is not accurate. While we did provide order of battle data about Iranian forces to the Iraqis, no one was "fully aware" that the Iraqis were going to use nerve agents. The first evidence that the Iraqis had successfully developed and weaponized nerve agents was after the attack on the al-Faw peninsula, not before.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture. "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew."

First of all, governments who deny possessing chemicals weapons don't announce they are going to use them. Second, armed forces do not generally announce in advance what weapons they are going to use, let alone the fact that they are going to launch an attack. For the sake of accuracy, I was not a military attaché in Baghdad - I served as a liaison officer to the Iraqi forces. As for the quote attributed to me, it is true - the Iraqis never told us they intended to use chemical weapons; they denied having them. After al-Faw, they did not need to admit to it, we knew.

Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as "GA") against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.

There is a problem here with "what I knew and when did I know it." I did serve in Jordan in 1984, although as an advisor to the Jordanian armed forces, not as an attaché. I learned about Iraq's 1984 use of the nerve agent Tabun after I had begun working on the Iraqi issue in 1987 - I had read these same documents that have now been released.

In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona's shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled "At The Gates of Basrah," warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives....

Just a minor correction here: That well-written report about the coming offensive was done by the analysts at the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center, not my office. I am not sure whether or not it warned of a larger offensive than normal, but it might have.

The last of these attacks, called the Blessed Ramadan Offensive, was launched by the Iraqis in April 1988 and involved the largest use of sarin nerve agent employed by the Iraqis to date.

Actually, the April 1988 offensive to re-take the al-Faw peninsula was the first of four offensives in 1988 that eventually brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. The use of chemicals in the later offensives was greater than the first.

There is an excellent New York Times article written by Patrick Tyler on these events (in which I am mentioned but for which I was not interviewed): OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS.

Russian arms to Syria - interview on the Steve Malzberg Show

Air Force Expert: US-Russia Confrontation Likely If Russia Delivers Missiles to Syria

(Story at: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/russi-syria-missiles-confrontation/2013/05/31/id/507429#ixzz2UuriXOf9)

A looming threat by Russia to deliver missiles to Syria will escalate tensions between Syria and Israel — and possibly trigger a confrontation between Russia and the United States, a former top Air Force intelligence officer says.

Retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV that the possible standoff could echo the tension that surfaced during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which began with a surprise Arab attack on Israel.

"If you remember the 1973 war, we started to resupply Israel. The Russians put all of their forces on alert. They were going to intervene in the Middle East, we were going to intervene in the Middle East, and this was going to spiral out of control," Francona said.

"And this has the capability of leading to that confrontation because the Russians are backing the Syrians and if we declare a no-fly zone, they may feel that they have to intervene on behalf of the Syrians. We're approaching a very critical time in this right now."

The new threat stems from a cache of missiles Syria ordered from Russia years ago. They have yet to be delivered because of the ongoing civil war between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and protestors trying to topple it.

"The Russians now are threatening to deliver the missiles. And as we get closer to a possible no-fly zone, you're going to see Syria pressuring the Russians to go ahead and deliver those systems that they paid for," Francona said.

"It looks like the earliest they can get them there would be this fall. But if these missiles are delivered, this is a game changer."

The reason being, he said, because while Syrians have a lot of military air power, their systems are old.

"It really hasn’t been upgraded in decades . . . The Russians have always built really great air defense stuff and this is about as good as it gets and if they get these into Syria, it will put the northern half of Israel at risk."

Francona said Secretary of State John Kerry is now trying to get all sides together to diffuse the situation.

"Hopefully, something will come out of that," he said. "I don’t hold much hope for that, but this has the potential to become, once again . . . the superpower confrontations of decades ago."

(There is more - please watch the video)

Memorial Day 2013

Note: I wrote this in 2007 while a military analyst at NBC News. With a few word changes, I think it holds true yet today. The original is still available at MSNBC.com.

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Do not forget our fallen men and women

COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
Military analyst - MSNBC

Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Ed and I served together in Desert Storm - this must have been his toughest duty.

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the "summer driving season" or a chance to buy appliances on sale. The constant news coverage of still high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It is not about driving or shopping – it is about remembering the men and women or our armed forces who died while in service to the country. It is important that we not forget that – after more than a decade, we are still at war and we still lose some our finest young men and women every week.

Yes, we are still at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Every one of the fallen volunteered to serve this country, and deserve a moment of remembrance. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces in the past – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a small village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, "In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil." A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, "You are welcome in France."

Over the years, over a million American troops have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the American flag draped on the coffin, an honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of seven rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation "on behalf of a grateful nation."

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive and Rick Francona

Iran - time to intervene in Syria?

The Syrian civil war has raged on for over two years - over 70,000 Syrians have been killed. Most of the world is merely watching events unfold, while a few nations are supporting the opposition with low levels of arms and money. Western nations are debating the possibility of imposing a no-fly zone over the country, wondering if their national interests require involvement in yet another country in the troublesome Middle East.

Each country is doing its own calculations on what happens if Bashar al-Asad remains in power or not. For one country, however, the stakes are abundantly clear. The removal of the regime will be a serious foreign policy setback for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Syria is the key to their access to Lebanon, home of a sizable population of Shi'a Muslims and, more importantly, their proxy paramilitary force, Hizballah. Hizballah was created by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Syria/Lebanon contingent in 1982 - that contingent formed the basis for the now-infamous Qods Force, the IRGC's special operations and "dirty tricks" unit.

Hizballah is part of Iran's greater strategy to isolate and confront Israel, which it regards as its primary enemy in the region and second only to the United States worldwide. Access to - and many would argue, control over - Hizballah allows Iran to open a northern front against Israel, or conduct a low-level war against the Jewish state with virtually no overt Iranian involvement. The ability of Hizballah to tie up huge amounts of Israeli military resources was demonstrated in the Israel-Hizballah war of 2006.

Iran's ability to maintain Hizballah as an effective organization - it provides virtually all of its weaponry, training and funding - is dependent on access to Syrian territory. Virtually all of Hizballah's weapons are delivered by Iranian aircraft - Iranian air force cargo aircraft or state-owned charters. The primary entry point for these supply flights is Damascus International Airport, about half an hour from the Lebanese border and Hizballah's strongholds in the Biqa' Valley.

As far as Syria itself, having an alliance with Damascus allows the Iranians to put additional pressure on Israel. Not only does Israel have to concern itself with Hizballah on its northern border with Lebanon, it also must be prepared to defend itself from the national armed forces of Syria.

Although the Syrian armed forces have recently gained the upper hand against the combined opposition of the Free Syrian Army and the more troublesome Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusrah, it is mostly through control of the sky that allows the regime to make gains against the opposition. Imposition of a no-fly zone - which is a distinct possibility as talks between Western powers begin in earnest - might tip the balance towards the overthrow of the al-Asad regime.

Iran may intervene militarily to prevent that from happening, and we may be seeing the next steps of that intervention. There have been IRGC troops in Syria for some time, but this week, the Iranian leadership announced that it was dispatching 10,000 IRGC fighters and basiji (volunteer augmentees) to Syria. The ostensible reason for the deployment was to defend two shrines in the Damascus area holy to Shi'a Muslims, and to defend the Golan Heights. The last excuse is interesting, since the Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights since 1967.

The two holy sites are the shrines of Sayidat Zaynab (left) and Sayidat Zukaynah (right). The shrine of Sayidat Zaynab is located just south of Damascus in the city of the same name (33°26'39"N 36°20'27"E) - it is the tomb of Zaynab, daughter of 'Ali (the first imam, son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad) and Muhammad's daughter Fatimah, making her Muhammad's granddaughter, a woman revered among the Shi'a.

The shrine of Sayidat Zukaynah is located just a few miles southwest of Damascus in the suburb of Daraya (33°27'32"N 36°14'26"E) - a heavily contested area near an important air base (al-Mazzah). Zukaynah was the daughter of Husayn bin 'Ali (grandson of Muhammad), and thus the great granddaughter of the Prophet - she died in a Yazdi prison at age four.

There also is no need for Iranian IRGC or Basijis to guard either of the shrines. The Sayidat Zaynab shrine is in a heavily Shi'a area with plenty of Iranian guards already present, and the Zukayna shrine is in an area that the regime must hold; it has devoted a lot of resources to defend the entire area, not just the area of the shrine. It is a minor shrine - I lived close to this area and had never heard of it.

Defense of the Golan Heights? On the surface, one could make the case that since the Syrian regime has withdrawn much of its military force that was in the area between Damascus and the Golan Heights to bolster the defense of the capital, it is highly unlikely that Israel would move into southern Syria. Why interfere when one of your enemies is imploding on its own?

It appears to me this is just what the Iranians believe is a non-threatening means of deploying 10,000 troops to Syria. Once there, they can be used as needed to bolster one of Tehran's few allies. It might be the first step in a much larger intervention in the country, because if Bashar al-ASad falls, Hizballah will likely die on the vine.

,