ISIS versus ISIL - what's in a name?

The term ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, has become a common word in newsrooms and on news broadcasts over the past few weeks as the group it describes continues to challenge the Iraqi army as it moves toward Baghdad. Yet, when the U.S. government describes this group, they use the acronym ISIL, or Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

What is the difference and which is correct?

Let's start with the actual name of the group. In Arabic, it is الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام, or al-dawlat al-islamiyah fil-'iraq wal-sham. That translates to "the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham." Even the Arabic-language media uses an acronym* using the first letters of the Arabic words - داعش, or da'ish. It is the translation of the Arabic word al-Sham that becomes problematic.

Al-Sham can be translated in several ways, depending on context. It can mean the city of Damascus, the country of Syria or the area also known as "greater Syria" or the Levant. In the past, the Levant included the island of Cyprus and what are now the countries of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and the Gaza Strip), and part of southern Turkey.

Today, it is generally accepted as referring to the area that comprises the countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Although the translation of al-Sham as "the Levant" (and thus ISIL) is technically more accurate, for the purposes of describing this group, I prefer to use the more generic "Syria" (and thus ISIS), since that appears to be everyone's focus at this time. That does not change the group's larger goal.

_________________
* Although acronyms are not as common in Arabic as they are in English, they do exist. The most common one in the media is HAMAS, an acronym for حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, harakat al-muqawamah al-islamiyah, or the Islamic Resistance Movement.

The capture of Ahmad Abu Khatallah - what took us so long?

Ahmad Abu Khatallah

Last weekend, a team of American special operations forces and FBI special agents conducted a covert mission into Bengahazi, Libya, and captured the most wanted suspected leader of the Islamist group responsible for the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA facility in that city. Four Americans were killed in that 2012 attack.

It has taken 21 months to capture Ahmad Abu Khatallah. Yet, the media is abuzz with recriminations and accusations, decrying how long it has taken, pointing out that Abu Khattalah was available for interviews with several journalists, including CNN's Arwa Damon last year. (Disclosure: As I write this, I am a paid CNN military analyst.) Arwa is an excellent journalist, has excellent Arabic language skills, and was able to get a good interview. I listened to the interview in the original Arabic - to me, Abu Khatallah sounded arrogant and condescending.

As I sit in the CNN New York bureau, I am watching almost every network and cable outlet repeatedly point to their journalists' meetings with Abu Khatallah and ask that if it was possible for their journalists to find him, why couldn't the United States armed forces, intelligence community or FBI do the same?

The short answer is, of course, that they could - he wasn't lost. Knowing where someone is not the same as being able to seize him, transport him and then - an important point - successfully convict him.

Now for the long answer. The days of capturing illegal combatants and taking them to Guantanamo is over. The Obama Administration is trying to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, not increase the inmate population. The preferred method of bringing these types of individuals to justice is via the U.S. federal court system.

Prosecuting a case in federal court, subject to the rules of evidence and judicial procedure, requires evidence that will prove Abu Khatallah's guilt to the standard required in criminal case - beyond a reasonable doubt. Gathering that evidence in an area known to be hostile to the United States is problematic, and thus takes time.

Only when you have gathered the required evidence for a successful prosecution can you mount an operation to seize the accused. This is when the months of surveillance become critical. Knowing where someone is not the hard part; extricating him is.

Being able to arrange an interview for a journalist is not difficult when the subject is not afraid of being captured. A journalist meeting with a subject in an area that the subject controls is not a threat - it is his security, his schedule, his location. Conducting a covert special operations mission is a different matter. It is not simply a matter of taking a camera and recorder to a meeting in a coffee shop.

The essential ingredient for a successful operation is accurate intelligence. That intelligence has to be precise and specific, gathered via a variety of sources and methods - human, electronic, visual, including any information gleaned from the journalists' interviews.

Examples of the types of intelligence information required for these types of operations: where does he live, where does he work, how does he travel, does he vary his routes, does he always use the same vehicle, what is his security situation at home and work, and during the period when he travels back an forth? Are the potential locations where an operation could be mounted, what is the local security situation, will a local police force or a security organization respond, how long does that response take, are their medical issues with the subject? - the list goes on.

Developing a file on one person to this level of granularity takes time and resources. In Libya, it is complicated by the fact that there is virtually no American presence in the area.

Once you have the intelligence required to mount an operation, then you have to plan the operation itself. Who is going to do it, how many special operations personnel are required for success without creating a alerting signature? Deploying a large number of assets to an area could very well tip off the target that an operation may be in the works. How do you safely get into and out of the designated target location? What type of transportation will be required, where will helicopters or boats stage from, what are the defenses in the area, where will the subject be taken once seized, etc.? Again, the list goes on and on. The goal is to have as much of the situation controlled as possible.

I have some experience with this type of operation - I was the deputy chief of a team hunting war criminals in Bosnia. After that operation concluded years later, I wrote a book about it. Warning: unabashed plug here - Chasing Demons - My Hunt for War Criminals in Bosnia.

Here is what I wrote about a similar situation during our successful hunt for five indicted war criminals, which took a few years:

Quote from Chasing Demons

The Hunting Party

The Hunting Party is the title of a movie made in 2007 starring Richard Gere, Terrence Howard, Jesse Eisenberg and James Brolin. According to the movie plot, three war correspondents embark on an unauthorized mission to find the most wanted war criminal in Bosnia. The villain is easily representative of Ratko Mladić. The group finds themselves in serious jeopardy when they are mistaken as a CIA hit squad and their target decides to come after them.

The movie had authentic scenery and was entertaining, but the producers could not just provide us with entertainment. No, they had to end the movie with a political statement ridiculing the actual hunt by Razorback and Buckeye bases (subject of the book).

Their ridicule was misplaced and inaccurate. I know the effort that went into hunting down these dangerous men; they do not. It is easy to make unfounded statements and shoot a movie. It is quite another thing to pick up a weapon and go forth into the fray, or as my Navy friend Tony Harper said, "where angels have second thoughts about treading."

End Quote

Bottom line

Criticizing the intelligence community, special operations forces and law enforcement agencies about the length of time it took to mount this high-risk successful operation is a cheap shot. There are valid reasons for being critical of these organizations - this is not one of them.

Interview: ISIS and the move towards Baghdad

I appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show today to talk about the situation developing in Iraq.

Here is the story that accompanies the video, and the video itself.

Iraq's second largest city falls to Islamists - fault of the United States?

whitehouse.gov

As you can see from the image above, taken from the White House website, President Barack Obama committed in his 2009 inauguration speech to end the war in Iraq responsibly - his exact words, "We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people."

During the campaign, he also committed to leaving a residual force of American troops in the country to continue training Iraqi military and security forces, and to provide a rapid response capability should the Iraqi forces be faced with a situation beyond their capabilities.

When Mr. Obama assumed office, the United States and Iraq were operating under a Status of Forces Agreement signed during the Bush Administration that called for the removal of American forces by the end of 2011, unless the security situation warranted the extension of an American presence.

During the summer months of 2011, the Obama Administration engaged in just such extension negotiations with the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'a Muslim (and many would say, Iranian puppet). In the middle of negotiations, the American side abruptly terminated the talks and walked out.

In my opinion, President Obama had no intention of keeping American forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011 and was merely going through the motions. He used the back and forth nature of the negotiations as an excuse to walk away from the table and pull out American troops by year's end. By December 2011, the Iraqis were on their own.

Without the presence of American combat power in the country, it was not long before the old animosities that had been simmering beneath the surface since the American surge in 2007 had tamped down the sectarian violence, re-ignited and violence began to reappear. Sunnis and Shi'a again drew battle lines - the Sunnis gaining support from al-Qa'idah affiliated and other Islamist groups, and the Shi'a from the Iranians - the self appointed guardians of Shi'a worldwide.

I admit that I was surprised at the level of activity by the Islamist groups, particularly the group formerly known as al-Qa'idah in Iraq (AQI), which renamed itself the Islamic State of Iraq. After a series of successful operations in Iraq, it sent fighters to participate in the Syrian civil war in cooperation with other Islamist groups, particularly jabhat al-nusrah (the Victory Front). The Jabhat al-Nusrah remains a group subordinate to al-Qa'idah, while ISIS is an independent Islamist organization.

As the organization grew in strength in Syria, it renamed the parent organization the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).* They believe (with some justification) that the border between Iraq and Syria is an artificial creation of mandatory powers Great Britain and France following World War One, and should not exist. A new Islamic state should replace both colonial legacy nations.

While ISIS continues to fight the Syrian regime and at times the secular Free Syrian Army (also opposed to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad), it also continues to mount attacks on Iraqi government facilities and troops in both the Sunni Arab and Kurdish areas. They have already taken the city of Fallujah, and the Iraq army has not been able to recapture it. It's area of focus is the area shaded in green on the map below.

Debkafile Map (debka.com)

These operations culminated on June 10, 2014 with the capture of Iraq's second largest city, Mosul (al-Mawsil). The Iraqi army units assigned to Mosul simply dropped their weapons, abandoned hundreds of American-made (and funded) vehicles and departed the city, leaving it defenseless to the attacking Islamists. So much for security being in the hands of the Iraqis, as described by the President in 2011.

The President repeatedly claims to have "ended the war in Iraq." Mr. Obama, you did not end the war. You merely ended our involvement in it - the war has never stopped, and as we see today, is escalating. Thanks to your ill-advised decision to cut and run rather than hammer out an agreement with the Iraqi government that would have provided an American backstop to the Iraqi military, we are now faced with the impending dismemberment of a country that we fought to make into an fledgling democracy. Iraq may become the next major haven for Islamists worldwide.

If ISIS is successful in expanding its control of territory in Syria, it will soon become a national security threat to the United States - too large of a threat to ignore. At some point, we are going to have to address this threat, or it will address us. It reminds of the old car repair commercial, "Pay me now or pay me more later." Later is fast approaching, Mr. President.

By the way, Mr. Obama is doing the same thing in Afghanistan that he did in Iraq. He has told the Taliban when we are leaving. I won't even address his release of the Taliban's top five leaders. That too will come back to haunt the United States.

________________
* The name in Arabic is actually al-dawlat al-islamiyah fil-'iraq wal-sham. Al-Sham can be translated as either Damascus, Syria or the Levant, depending on context. I prefer to use "Syria."

ADDENDUM - Upcoming Syrian Presidential Election - A Prediction

This is a follow-up to my original article (quoted below) predicting Bashar al-Asad's landslide re-election. That prediction, of course, took no real political acumen - it was a foregone conclusion. The only question was the size of the victory that al-Asad's political machine could engineer. As we expected, there were numerous reports of government thugs "encouraging" people to vote, and how to vote.

Here are the numbers, courtesy of the Syrian constitutional court:
- Number of citizens eligible to participate in the presidential elections: 15,845,575
- Number who participated: 11,634,412
- Particpation: 73.42 percent
- Results: Commander in Chief, President Bashar al-Asad re-elected with 88.7 percent of votes.

What a sham* (see comment on original article).

___________________

Bashar al-Asad supporters in Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, who has been in office since his father's death in 2000, is nearing the end of his second seven-year term. A quick reminder of how Bashar came to be the president will provide some insight into the Syrian electoral process. Bashar, second son of Syrian strongman Hafiz al-Asad, was called back from his ophthalmology studies in the United Kingdom when his older brother Basil was killed in a car accident in 1994. The poster in the above photograph refers to "the eye doctor."

After his return, the tall, introverted physician was groomed to succeed his father, much as Basil before him. That entailed a direct field-grade commission in the army, imaginary graduation from the war college, command positions, etc., most in name only. It was no secret to anyone in the country that Bashar would be the next president of Syria, but that was never mentioned out loud.

Although many Syrians objected to what amounts to a dynasty in the country, they have had no say. Despite the trappings of a republic, Syria is a dictatorship ruled by the Ba'ath Party, a party dominated by the minority Shi'a-offshoot 'Alawi sect and the al-Asad clan. Complaining about the al-Asad family out loud in Syria usually results in the complainer going wara' al-shams (behind the sun, meaning they just disappear).

In 2000, Hafiz al-Asad died, putting Syria into somewhat of a constitutional crisis. The Syrian constitution, regarded by most Syrians as merely hibr 'ala waraq (ink on paper), required that the Syrian president be 40 years of age, and a Muslim. At that time, Bashar was only 34 years old. The Syrian parliament went into emergency session and within one hour changed the Syrian constitution to change the age requirement to 34 years of age. You can't make this stuff up.

A referendum was held, asking the electorate to vote for or against Bashar al-Asad as the new president. With a turnout of 94.6 percent, Bashar was approved with 99.7 percent voting yes. The joke in Damascus at the time: when told of the results and asked what more he could ask for, Bashar replied, "the names of the 0.3 percent...."

Bashar was re-elected to a second term in 2007 with "only" 97.62 percent of the vote, with a 95.86 percent turnout. Although the numbers appear to be a slight decrease in support for Bashar, the internal numbers reveal almost the same impossible numbers. There were only 0.17 percent against Bashar's re-election - the remaining 2.21 percent were declared invalid ballots. It's all a sham.*

Voting in Damascus's fifth election precinct in 2012

In 2012, under pressure from the rebels who were on the verge of overthrowing the al-Asad government, Bashar ordered the drafting of a new constitution, which to no one's surprise, was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum.** The voter turnout was only 57.4 percent (remember - this was during a civil war), and 89.4 percent voting in favor.

The new constitution changes the selection of the president from a referendum on one candidate to an election with multiple candidates. A law adopted by the Syrian parliament in 2014 (at Bashar's direction) prohibits candidates who have not lived in Syria for the past 10 years - this removes self-exiled opposition leaders from eligibility.

For the election which will be held on June 3, a total of 24 potential candidates have applied to be on the ballot. Of these 24, only three have been determined to meet all the eligibility requirements and will appear on the ballot. It is meaningless theater - Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

Yes, you heard it here first: Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

I have a good Syrian friend, a doctor - we will call him Dr. Walid - who described a voting experience a few years ago. He went to work at the hospital on election day. He was summoned to the hospital administrator's office, where he was introduced to two Ba'ath Party "officials" - his description of them was more akin to "enforcers." They explained that since the doctor was very busy with patients, they had taken the liberty of bringing his ballot to him and had already filled it out. How considerate, no?

This will be another sham (pun intended) election, Bashar will be re-elected by a huge margin, and the dictatorship in Syria will go on. The civil war will continue, more civilians will be killed.
___________________
* This is a play on words for my Arabic-speaking readers. The word sham in Arabic means Syria or Damascus, depending on the word preceding it. See also another use of the word at my earlier article, What's in a name? - the Syrian-Iranian car company.

** The military situation has changed dramatically since 2012. With the introduction of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters and advisors, plus fighters from Lebanese Hizballah, the Syrian armed forces have regained the upper hand.

The Bowe Bergdahl exchange - a mixed blessing

PFC Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan - 2009

The backslapping and media frenzy has begun following the prisoner exchange that resulted in the release of U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban Haqqani network, and the release of what many consider the top five Taliban prisoners formerly held at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo, Cuba.

Over the next few days, the press will hound the Bergdahl family and lionize the now-free soldier. This is all understandable, but after the media circus dies down, there will be serious questions that need answers. I will pose some of them here.

The Price

Here are the five Taliban leaders who were released in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. Let's take a quick look at who they are - all were part of the Taliban government that brutalized what it called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001 when it was removed by American forces. As you read this, you might wonder why these Islamic fanatics are still alive.

Top left: Muhammad Nabi 'Umari (Mohammad Nabi Omari), served as the Taliban’s chief of communications and assisted in the escape of al-Qa'idah leaders to Pakistan, and was part of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militant group associated with al-Qa'idah.

Top center: 'Abd al-Haq Wathiq (Abdul Haq Wasiq), deputy chief of the Taliban intelligence service, also affiliated with al-Qa'idah's intelligence effort, and like 'Umari, a member of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militant group.

Top right: Nurallah Nuri (Norullah Noori), former governor of Balkh province during the Taliban rule and a key participant in the fight against the Northern Alliance.

Bottom left: Muhammad Fazl Akhund (Mohammad Fazl), army chief of staff in the Taliban government, and led the fighting against the American-led invasion in 2001. He is believed to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghan Shi'a between 1998 and 2001, and was also affiliated with al-Qa'idah.

Bottom right: Khayrallah Sa'id Wali Khayrkhwah (Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa), served as interior minister during the Taliban’s rule, and was directly associated with al-Qa'idah leader Usama bin Ladin, as well as Al-Qa'idah in Iraq (AQI) leader Abu Musa'ib al-Zarqawi. He also was a major opium drug lord.

My questions

A few words before I delve into the questions I feel are relevant to this case. Make no mistake - I, as all Americans should be, am pleased that Sergeant Bergdahl has been recovered. I am happy for the Bergdahl family that their son is now free and on his way home, and I am relieved that there are no remaining American prisoners of war, putting to bed any thought that we were going to leave any of our troops behind when we leave Afghanistan. Despite the circumstances surrounding Sergeant Bergdahl's capture (I will use that word for now), he is a U.S. Army soldier, and we could not break faith with him.

Now, for Sergeant Bergdahl:

1. What are the circumstances surrounding your "capture" on June 30, 2009. There are several versions, only one of which can be true. You say you were lost after you fell behind on patrol - that's been debunked. There are claims from your fellow soldiers that you simply walked away from your post with a few days supply of water. This came after you sent some bizarre emails to your family complaining about the war and how it was being conducted, as well as unflattering descriptions of the troops with whom you served. The Taliban claims you were drunk and outside the post. I am inclined to believe the words of your fellow soldiers.

2. Did you plan to desert? Your emails indicated that you were ashamed to be an American, you mailed home your uniforms and books (although your deployment was not over), and you asked a sergeant if you should take your weapon if you left the post (really?). This all sounds like you were planning to leave.

3. Did you have any communications with the Taliban before you came under their control? It is curious that the Taliban kept you alive - most Islamists torture and behead their captives. What did you tell them? Why did they keep you alive? It may have been to exchange you for the Taliban Five, but how could they know it would work?

4. Assuming that your departure from your post was voluntary, are you aware of the resources expended to try to locate and retrieve you? Five years of intelligence work and special operations, lots of money spent and time wasted because of your actions - not to mention the danger in which you put the people trying to find you.

5. Do you understand that your actions have led to the release of five dangerous Taliban militants?

6. Do you stand behind your rather inflammatory characterizations of American troops in Afghanistan. Yes, the same ones that spent time, sweat and blood trying to locate you, the same ones that were at risk at the turnover on May 31.

For the Administration:

1. Is it now U.S. policy to negotiate with terrorists?

2. What is the nature of the release of the five Taliban militants? Are they to be detained in Qatar, or will we find them on a battlefield in Afghanistan attacking American troops?

3. My understanding is that release of Guantanamo detainees requires Congressional authorization. Who in Congress was notified, and when?

4. Will Sergeant Bergdahl be called to answer for his actions in June 2009?

The list for both the sergeant and the Administration goes on and on. If I was interrogating Sergeant Bergdahl, it would take months. Eventually, the truth will come out. If he walked away from his post as it appears, given the information we have now, he needs to be held accountable. He has already been through hell, although possibly of his own doing, so I think any type of punishment is out of the question.

However, he could be given a less than honorable discharge. If that is the case, he should be enjoined from making any money from this ordeal - no book or movie deals, etc. Any monies generated from these kinds of endeavors should be put into a fund for the families of our fallen troops.

Bob Bergdahl

Then we have Bob, Bowe's father. I am willing to give him some leeway - no doubt the last five years have been traumatic, but it is how we conduct ourselves when faced with adversity that defines us. That said, I have some concerns about Bob Bergdahl. He appears to have, as we used to say in the human intelligence field, "gone native."

He has adopted the beard of devout Muslims, the Muslim-style skullcap, and recited the bismillah* during his remarks at the White House. I think he knows his son is likely in trouble and this may be his way of dealing with it. His tweets on Twitter are telling. See <@bobbergdahl>.

What's next?

As I said, the truth will come out. There will be long interrogations, sorry, interviews, ahead for Sergeant Bergdahl. It will become clear what happened that night in Yahya Khel, Afghanistan. I hope that this Administration provides that information to the public, although their track record with that is a bit spotty....

____________
* The bismillah is the Arabic phrase باسم الله الرحمن الرحيم (bismillah al-rahman al-rahim - In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). It is the first phrase of every sura (chapter) of the al-Qur'an. It also appears on every piece of official stationery of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Memorial Day 2014

Note: I wrote this in 2007 while a military analyst at NBC News. The situation has changed a bit, but I think the sentiment still is true today.

'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

Iranian nuclear talks fail - the kabuki dance continues

So why are we talking to these people?

It came as a surprise only to those few in the Obama Administration who are naive enough to believe that Iran is serious about curtailing its nuclear enrichment activities and halting its quest to develop nuclear weapons - the May 16 round of talks in Vienna were at best a failure. Nothing was accomplished, except that the Iranians agreed to, yes, meet again to talk about the talks.

While this kabuki dance continues, the centrifuges in Iran continue to spin unabated. Yet, President Barack Obama, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry remain confident that they can convince the Iranians to give up their ambitions to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

The talks were obviously such a disaster that the negotiators, the EU's Catherine Ashton and Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, were joined by Secretary Kerry in an effort to salvage something, anything, positive. It does not appear that was successful - in typical Iranian fashion, Iranian deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi stated that although "there was no tangible progress in this round of the talks" and the differences between the two sides were too great to begin drafting a final agreement - due by July 20 - the talks would continue next month.

This is what the Iranians do - present an unrealistic, non-negotiable position that is rejected by the P5+1 (the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany), and then agree to continue the talks. In case Mr. Kerry does not recognize this tactic, it is called buying time. We wait for the next round of talk, the Iranians continue to enrich uranium. Am I missing something here?

The talks will continue - a day here, a day there. As the July 20 deadline approaches, the two sides will exercise the six-month extension provision that is part of last year's "temporary agreement" to continue to try and reach a final agreement. In that temporary agreement, the West agreed to lift some sanctions on Iran and release some of its assets that had been frozen in the United States. In return for what? Yes, an agreement from the Iranians to talk and to limit its enrichment of uranium to the five percent level.

Unwittingly, Secretary Kerry tacitly granted the Iranians something that up until that time they did not have under their international treaty obligations and at least six UN Security Council resolutions - the right to enrich uranium at all.

The remarks of current and former Obama Administration officials have been interesting.

- Speaking to the American Jewish Committee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that "no deal is better than a bad deal." Considering the audience, was she supposed to say (truthfully), "We are doing nothing and will worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon after the fact. After all, they are not a threat to us - yet." She also said she was "personally skeptical" that Iran would agree to a comprehensive deal to remove its nuclear weapon capabilities but that the Obama administration faced a promising opportunity that required it to "give diplomacy space to work." Really? Just what is this "promising opportunity?"

- Ambassador Rice, speaking at an Israeli Embassy event reiterated the American commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Again, considering the audience, what else could she say?

- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, speaking in Israel, stated that United States "will do what we must" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I don't think the Iranians are frightened by Hagel's thinly-veiled threat of use of military force - they have assessed the Obama Administration as weak and indecisive.

I also don't think the Israelis believe or trust the Obama Administration. The American officials (I originally used the word "leaders," but thought better of it) say all the right words, but they seem desperate to reach some sort of agreement with the Iranians. That would give them at least one foreign policy success after a parade of stunning failures, the last of which was the embarrassing collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks while Secretary Kerry was directly involved.

I hope the Administration remembers Hillary Clinton's words, "no deal is better than a bad deal." So far, this is a bad deal.

Upcoming Syrian Presidential Election - A Prediction

Bashar al-Asad supporters in Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, who has been in office since his father's death in 2000, is nearing the end of his second seven-year term. A quick reminder of how Bashar came to be the president will provide some insight into the Syrian electoral process. Bashar, second son of Syrian strongman Hafiz al-Asad, was called back from his ophthalmology studies in the United Kingdom when his older brother Basil was killed in a car accident in 1994. The poster in the above photograph refers to "the eye doctor."

After his return, the tall, introverted physician was groomed to succeed his father, much as Basil before him. That entailed a direct field-grade commission in the army, imaginary graduation from the war college, command positions, etc., most in name only. It was no secret to anyone in the country that Bashar would be the next president of Syria, but that was never mentioned out loud.

Although many Syrians objected to what amounts to a dynasty in the country, they have had no say. Despite the trappings of a republic, Syria is a dictatorship ruled by the Ba'ath Party, a party dominated by the minority Shi'a-offshoot 'Alawi sect and the al-Asad clan. Complaining about the al-Asad family out loud in Syria usually results in the complainer going wara' al-shams (behind the sun, meaning they just disappear).

In 2000, Hafiz al-Asad died, putting Syria into somewhat of a constitutional crisis. The Syrian constitution, regarded by most Syrians as merely hibr 'ala waraq (ink on paper), required that the Syrian president be 40 years of age, and a Muslim. At that time, Bashar was only 34 years old. The Syrian parliament went into emergency session and within one hour changed the Syrian constitution to change the age requirement to 34 years of age. You can't make this stuff up.

A referendum was held, asking the electorate to vote for or against Bashar al-Asad as the new president. With a turnout of 94.6 percent, Bashar was approved with 99.7 percent voting yes. The joke in Damascus at the time: when told of the results and asked what more he could ask for, Bashar replied, "the names of the 0.3 percent...."

Bashar was re-elected to a second term in 2007 with "only" 97.62 percent of the vote, with a 95.86 percent turnout. Although the numbers appear to be a slight decrease in support for Bashar, the internal numbers reveal almost the same impossible numbers. There were only 0.17 percent against Bashar's re-election - the remaining 2.21 percent were declared invalid ballots. It's all a sham.*

Voting in Damascus's fifth election precinct in 2012

In 2012, under pressure from the rebels who were on the verge of overthrowing the al-Asad government, Bashar ordered the drafting of a new constitution, which to no one's surprise, was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum.** The voter turnout was only 57.4 percent (remember - this was during a civil war), and 89.4 percent voting in favor.

The new constitution changes the selection of the president from a referendum on one candidate to an election with multiple candidates. A law adopted by the Syrian parliament in 2014 (at Bashar's direction) prohibits candidates who have not lived in Syria for the past 10 years - this removes self-exiled opposition leaders from eligibility.

For the election which will be held on June 3, a total of 24 potential candidates have applied to be on the ballot. Of these 24, only three have been determined to meet all the eligibility requirements and will appear on the ballot. It is meaningless theater - Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

Yes, you heard it here first: Bashar al-Asad will be re-elected in a landslide.

I have a good Syrian friend, a doctor - we will call him Dr. Walid - who described a voting experience a few years ago. He went to work at the hospital on election day. He was summoned to the hospital administrator's office, where he was introduced to two Ba'ath Party "officials" - his description of them was more akin to "enforcers." They explained that since the doctor was very busy with patients, they had taken the liberty of bringing his ballot to him and had already filled it out. How considerate, no?

This will be another sham (pun intended) election, Bashar will be re-elected by a huge margin, and the dictatorship in Syria will go on. The civil war will continue, more civilians will be killed.
___________________
* This is a play on words for my Arabic-speaking readers. The word sham in Arabic means Syria or Damascus, depending on the word preceding it. See also another use of the word at my earlier article, What's in a name? - the Syrian-Iranian car company.

** The military situation has changed dramatically since 2012. With the introduction of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters and advisors, plus fighters from Lebanese Hizballah, the Syrian armed forces have regained the upper hand.

Russia to deliver military trainer/attack aircraft to Syria

Yak-130 trainer/light attack aircraft

Pravda, the virtual public affairs arm of the Russian government, reported this week that the Russian government-owned arms merchant Rosoboronexport and the majority state-owned United Aircraft Corporation will deliver the first batch of Yak-130 (NATO: Mitten) jet trainers to the Syrian air force later this year. The Russians will deliver nine jets to Syria before the end of 2014, an additional 12 in 2015, and the final 15 in 2016.

The delivery of the 36 aircraft will fulfill a 2011 contract between the two countries; Russian sources claim this is the last arms contract between the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad and the Russians. The timing of the delivery comes at a time when the Syrian air force needs better capabilities to deal with the ongoing revolution in the country, however, the delivery will no doubt generate loud protests from the United States and European nations.

(The following is from an article I wrote in September 2013 - Syria: What does Bashar al-Asad get for giving up his chemical weapons?)

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 be highly effective in the Syrian battlespace.