US, Russia announce partial cease fire in Syria

A news article worth reading:

From the New York Times:

U.S. and Russia Announce Plan for Humanitarian Aid and a Cease-Fire in Syria 

Two quotations from the article:

. . . it excludes the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and the Nusra Front, both designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations — and highly fragile.

. . . the Russians have been bombing some rebel groups that the United States has been supplying, asserting that they are linked to the Nusra Front or other terrorist organizations.

Recently Russia has bombed Mountain Turkmen because one of them is alleged to have shot and killed a Russian pilot as he image out of his owned plane, causing a great storm of ire in Russia.  Shameful; disproportionate.

An image from the article:

Syrians waiting at a crossing gate near Kilis, Turkey, to return to Syria on Thursday.CreditBulent Kilic/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

For information on the fighting groups in Syria and their bitter hatred of one another, see Mansouled Frey Islands, 

Syria and the contending interests clearly described; why the outcomes mater, and to whom

Billionaires and the Nuclear Deal with Iran

There is a concurrence of the locations on the globe of the nations that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran: China, Russia, Germany, France, England, the European Union, and the United Sates. . .

The ministers of foreign affairs and other officials from the P5+1 countries, the European Union and Iran while announcing the framework of aComprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme. 

and the location of global billionaires gives rise to interesting thoughts.

The concurrence does not prove anything.

The concurrence does imply that the most powerful individuals in the World do not want a repeat of the Iraq Debacle.

The implication, if meaningful, suggests that the most powerful of us are collaborating on the beginning of a global, though unofficial, government.  We have no reason to believe they will continue to act in concert.

Unless you have billions, you are unlikely to know if the implication is meaningful.  It seems to be.

 The World Economic Forum Annual Meetings at Davos give some hints of its contours.

About all that can be done from a small island in the middle of he Pacific Ocean is watch and bug our senators, which all should do happily.

Iran Greens in some power positions

Information about Iran is hard to come by.  This article reports that at least parts of the Green Revolution are not only free but in power positions in Iran.  If true it is good news indeed.

Russia joins Iran in support for Assad, and the US has moderated its insistence that Assad must go before a new government is formed.  Islamists have been he main problem in Syria from the beginning, and they have and continue to have support from the Gulf Dictatorships.

Should Russia be encouraged to arm Kurds in the North of Iraq?  (The US fears doing so out of respect for Turkey).  The news reports don't mention any substantial Russian opposition to ISIS in Syria.  Russia's arming Kurds might bolster its control over restive Russian provinces in Russia's South.

Russia should give up its Ukraine adventure, and concentrate on ISIS, its actual enemy.  The US should freely encourage Russia in doing so, and the likes of Miss Lindsay Graham be damned!

June 4, 2015

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (R) holds a press conference with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Moallem, in Tehran, Dec. 8, 2014. (photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images)

Why did Iran's Reformists shift on support for Syria?

Ali Akbar Velayati, a top aid to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, visited Syria to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on May 19 and announce once again his country’s support of Assad. The visit came only a few weeks after Syria’s defense minister, Fahd Jassem al-Freij, visited Tehran on April 28 to meet with Iranian officials. In another development, two Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) generals were killed in Syria in a military operation against anti-Assad fighters on May 20. In Iran, killed IRGC generals are highly respected and hailed as patriot heroes who fought against the Islamic State (IS) and sacrificed their lives in defense of their country and the holy shrines of the Shiite faith. After a long period of controversy and disagreement about foreign policy issues between Reformists and conservatives, there appears to be a consensus on national security.

Many Reformists in Iran initially welcomed the protests against Assad. Between Aug. 5, 2011, and Oct. 18, 2012, the Coordination Council for the Green Path of Hope, one of Iran’s main Green Movement groups, issued a series of statements lending fundamental support to the uprising of the “oppressed people of Syria,” comparing their protests to the Iranian Green Movement protests and suggesting that freedom-seekers throughout the world should learn from each other. In September 2011, 150 Iranian physicians wrote a letter to Assad, condemning “the massacre of defenseless Syrian people.” Leading Reformists such as Mostafa Moeen, Mohammad Reza Khatami and Ali Shakouri-Rad were among those who signed the letter.

Since March, the Reformists’ stance on Syria and Iraq has transformed so dramatically that a leading Reformist-minded journalist outside of the country, Masoud Behnoud, described with admiration Qasem Soleimani — the head of the Quds Force of the IRGC who runs Iran’s regional policies — with such unusual words as the Saint General, likening him to legendary Iranian military Cmdr. Mostafa Chamran. In April, Abbas Abdi, an acclaimed Reformist politician, criticized his fellow Reformists’ previous views on Syria more blatantly and accused them of siding with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

But the question remains how such a significant shift took place, bringing Reformists so close to their conservative rivals on foreign policy.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s success in the 2013 presidential election, the disappointing aftermath of the Libyan and Egyptian revolutions and the surge of IS in Syria and Iraq led Reformists to revise their attitude toward Syria. The Syrian uprising commenced when the Iranian Green Movement was undergoing its second year in 2011; as a result, Iranian Reformists compared Syria with Iran, correspondingly condemning Assad and hailing the rebels. Iranian Reformists felt that they sought the same democratic goals as peacefully as Syrians and that they were oppressed in the same way by the Iranian government as Assad oppressed his people. Therefore, they felt sympathy with Syrian rebels fighting Assad. But with the success of Rouhani in the June 2013 presidential election, they were no longer opposition leaders outside of the power structure; instead, they became part of a ruling government that was required to define and shape the foreign policies of the state, taking into consideration broader issues of geopolitical significance such as the Iran-Saudi power balance. Iran’s Green Movement leaders and other figures remain under arrest and outside of power.

But the Syrian issue was redefined in a framework of broader geopolitical realities with immediate consequences on Iran’s regional influence, rather than only a source of sympathy or a comparison and victimization to be used in domestic political competitions.

Developments on the ground in Libya, Syria and Iraq, however, were also very relevant in that the whole Arab Spring, democracy and human rights discourse turned into a discourse of brutal jihadi terrorists fighting a secular (and previously stable) government. While at the outset, the strings of Arab revolutions were monitored optimistically and were models to be followed in other countries, eventually the chain of the events — especially in Libya and Syria — became so dreadful that desirability of any further revolution was questioned. With the shocking failure of the Libyan model, the idea of similar activities no longer had any appeal in Iran. Any call for radical reforms was responded to only by referring to Libya and Syria and their outcomes.

Another factor that led to the change of some Reformists’ views was the surge of IS in Syria and Iraq in May and June 2014, where the foreign policy of Reformists became even closer to that of the conservatives. The IS blitzkrieg takeover of Mosul alarmed many in Tehran and was considered a looming threat to the nation. Iran’s involvement in Syria, formerly considered by many Reformists as illegitimate support of a tyrant, was suddenly considered a nationalistic defensive action against an immediate and imminent threat. The IRGC’s earlier argument that “if we do not fight them in Damascus, we have to fight them back in the streets of Tehran” found more support. Therefore, Iran’s involvement in Syria and Iraq was hailed as an unavoidable pre-emptive and defensive war against IS brutalities rather than the support of Assad. Furthermore, it gave Iran legitimacy in its support of Assad internationally, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif emphasized in his interview with Spiegel: “If we had not provided that support, you would have had [IS] sitting in Damascus now.”

The relative unanimity in foreign policy among the main political blocs in Iran, however, was not totally due to the shift in Reformists’ views; rather, it was also because of conservatives’ change of view. Khamenei’s assertive policy change, demonstrated by his well-known phrase of "heroic flexibility," indicates conservatives’ move toward more congruity with Reformists. While for years Khamenei firmly resisted any overt negotiations with the United States, foreign ministers of the two countries have met several times during the last few months. Recently, Zarif clearly announced the willingness of his country to extend engagements with the United States “far beyond nuclear negotiations.” This followed Khamenei’s previous implicit confirmation a few days earlier.

After the Iran Nuclear Deal is signed and the sanctions are lifted . . .

The article following seems about right to me.  

Hard to know how Ms. Clinton fits in, if she is elected President.  

By then the nuclear deal will have been signed, and Iranian oil will begin to flow.  

China, India,and Pakistan will be eager for the natural gas from the Pars Field,  though China will try for a pipeline route that bypassed India.  

World oil prices will be affected, and I don’t know how.  I haven’t sen much speculation on oil prices.  My guess is that US oil companies will profit from  the deal.  I assume oil companies concur with the deal because they aren’t making much noise in opposition.

Iran’s economy will be booming; French automobiles will sell like hotcakes.

The Gulf Dictators will gnash their teeth.   They will be affected by a drop in oil prices, but only poor Yemen will suffer from the effect. 

Israel will continue to be safe.  I don’t see how it will be much affected, except in its internal politics.

No one will start a War. 

Fill me in with your guesses or knowledge.

al-Monitor

ISRAEL PULSE

בעברית

ישראל פולס

US President Barack Obama hugs Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, March 20, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Jason Reed)

US willing to 'compensate' Israel on Iran deal

At the conclusion of a long, exhausting and beleaguered campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present his fourth government to the Knesset early next week. He will hope and pray that the Knesset will give him a vote of confidence. If, indeed, his fragile, narrow majority (61 Knesset members out of 120) passes the confidence vote, the government could hit the road. Numerous tasks wait for this government, and a considerable number of urgent problems need immediate treatment. Since October 2014, Israel has been running on autopilot without proper management: without a budget, without fully active ministers and without a steady, focused hand on the governmental rudder. On his way to victory in the polls, Netanyahu endangered many Israeli national interests. These include relations with the United States, domestic relations with Israeli Arabs and the state’s international image. Now the time has come to mend the fences.

Summary

⎙ Print

 The United States doesn’t understand why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to focus on battling the Iranian deal and rejects two large and strategic “special interest deals” with the US administration.

Author Ben Caspit

Posted May 12, 2015

TranslatorDanny Wool

The most urgent issue of all is that of relations with the United States. Since the elections on March 17, quite a number of US officials have visited Israel, including active members of Congress and former high-level officers of the administration. A summary of the conversations by these visitors with their Israeli hosts brings to light painful observations on the future of bilateral relations between Israel and the country that is perceived as Israel’s greatest ally, the United States.

“The personal relations between Netanyahu and [US President Barack] Obama have soured beyond repair,” a US source who is an expert on the topic said this week, in regard to the talks he held here with Israeli colleagues. “There is no chance to patch things up or turn the clock back. President Obama knows that Netanyahu has long since wiped him off the map. Netanyahu knows that President Obama knows, and both of them yearn for the day that one of them finishes his term of office. Most probably, it will happen first to Obama,” the US visitor said. This diagnosis was shared by almost everyone who was asked questions on the subject in recent weeks. “It is a poisonous relationship,” another US source said. “The two don’t believe each other, don’t care about each other and express no interest at all in changing the situation or believing that it can be changed.”

Note of caution: In politics in general, and in Middle East politics in specific, the rule is, “never say never.” Former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who only yesterday sat with Netanyahu and was viewed as Netanyahu’s ally, stormed Netanyahu May 11 with a pitchfork and called him a liar and a cheater in full view of the Knesset cameras. However, that will not prevent Liberman from returning to cooperate with Netanyahu in his fifth government (in another six months or two years), if he decides that such a move suits his political interests.

That’s the way it is in Israel, and it could be that that’s the way it is regarding the stable and magnificent relationship that used to exist between Jerusalem and Washington. For instance, Alon Ben-David, Israeli TV Channel 10's much-esteemed defense correspondent, reported May 8 that Obama told several of his interlocutors that he had decided, despite it all, to cast a veto on the French proposal regarding the Middle East conflict (for a UN resolution on Palestinian statehood), if and when it comes to a discussion and vote in the UN Security Council. This is despite recent assessments that the Americans had decided not to cast such a veto.

This leak is viewed as a US attempt to sweeten the pot and show goodwill vis-a-vis the tough Israeli antagonist from Jerusalem. A sort of carrot-and-stick game in which the Americans try to entice the recalcitrant, weaseling Netanyahu by extending a hand, or half a hand, in peace. But there’s something else that’s been going on. High-echelon sources in the US administration have recently been expressing great amazement about Netanyahu’s pattern of behavior: The Israeli prime minister could now opt for pushing forward two large “special interest deals” with the administration. The first is called the “small deal,” and the second we will refer to as the “big deal.”

The “small deal” involves putting a stop to frenetic Israeli activity in Congress to torpedo, postpone, delay or change the emerging arrangement between Iran and the superpowers. According to the Americans, Israeli logic should dictate the following: Most likely, an arrangement will be reached; its outlines are already clear. And most likely, Obama will get Congress to approve the settlement. Therefore, the wise thing for Israel to do at this point in time is to ''cash in'' on halting the heavy pressure exerted by Jerusalem on US legislators (mainly Republicans) in exchange for military, diplomatic and general support, assistance, weapons, ammunition and the like from the United States. The Americans are ripe for this deal, but the hints they send to Jerusalem hit a brick wall. Netanyahu won’t budge; he continues to fight with all his might, backed by Sheldon Adelson’s money and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby (the two don’t work together) in Washington.

The “big deal” involves the same upgrading of strategic relations and alliance that is supposed to be signed between Israel and the United States, should an agreement be signed with Iran. Clearly, an agreement with Iran worsens Israel’s strategic position in the region (an Israeli defense source said behind closed doors), and, clearly, the United States will be willing to try to provide Israel with strategic compensation to offset this deterioration. For that to happen, discussions should be taking place right now. But there are no discussions, no talks, no connections and no overtures. Jerusalem doesn’t answer. Netanyahu won’t move an inch.

“We have an irrevocable strategic opportunity to receive things from Washington that we have never before received,” an Israeli source, who until recently served in a senior position in the defense apparatus, said at the beginning of the week in a closed meeting. “Israel could upgrade itself regarding the quality of US assistance in the future; it could update and consolidate agreements and arrangements that were closed in the past, but without clear expiration dates. Every time that something happened in the international arena that harmed Israel’s defense position, and every time that Israel took chances regarding security, America knew how to compensate it. Only this time, despite US willingness, it’s not happening,” he said.

Not everyone in Israel’s diplomatic and security systems agrees with Netanyahu’s policy, which is deeply influenced by Adelson. This approach advocates gambling on one toss of the dice, and not conducting negotiations. Meanwhile, scathing words of criticism are being voiced in Israel’s diplomatic and defense systems regarding the current disruption of relations between the United States and Jerusalem. The critics, who measure their words and are careful to retain their anonymity, say that Netanyahu is mortgaging many of Israel’s weighty strategic interests in the throes of the war of destruction he has declared against Obama.

“That is not wise and not correct,” the critics say, “You have to think about the day after.” In contrast, Netanyahu’s people say, “There will be time on the day after for these kinds of things too. Meanwhile, now we have to focus on the goal and not loosen our grip.” In their view, the goal is that the United States should internalize the fact that the agreement about to be signed with Iran is a bad agreement.

Jerusalem received a large boost this week when Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud refused an invitation to attend a landmark summit hosted by Obama at Camp David, in an effort to appease his Arab allies in the Middle East. “See, the Saudis also think like us and are giving Washington the cold shoulder,” a source close to Netanyahu said, with great satisfaction.

Only time will tell who was right in this debate. Meanwhile, Obama’s administration is adjusting itself to Netanyahu’s fourth government as someone would resign himself to a serious chronic disease. There is still no invitation for Netanyahu to come to Washington, and it will not be extended until after June 30. Meanwhile, in the mistrustful overtures between the two capitals, another option was raised: that the focus of the Israel-US relationship should switch from the broken Netanyahu-Obama alignment to the efficient, friendly and better functioning axis of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and his US counterpart, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. At least this channel has continued to operate effectively in recent months.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/israel-netanyahu-iranian-nuke-deal-us-rapprochement-efforts.html#ixzz3a3MbfWaR

d

Tthe Disheartning Present of Droning; the Dismal Future of Dronning

Remember the halcyon days "after America won the War" and America had a monopoly on The Bomb?  No?  You don't?  We lived in fear that Russia would develop The Bomb.  It did, and then we lived in terror that it would use it. 

Now we live in halcyon days when we have a near monopoly on drones, and we use them freely on countries with whom we are not at War.  

We use them to kill a 17-year-old American boy who pose no threat to America.  

[This is the boy; this is what a Hellfire missal left of him, his 19-year-old cousin, and four of their young friends . . .

. . . except for a scrap of flesh, used for the burial.  The waste still burns and festers in me, made worse because done by my country, and therefore in my name.  Imaging what the burning death does to Yemen grandparents, you who can imagine such things.]

We use drones when it would be possible to use police tactics without the attendant civilian death and injury, as the US did when it killed Osama ben Laden.  We use drones when we know millions hate us for using them, because of the dead and wounded relatives and friends.

What a precedent we set!  What a world is a-borning!

Soon enough all countries worthy of the name will have silent, undetectable drones.  For that great day, I've  got a lovely bunch of drones, sweet as coconuts:

 --  There they are a-standin on a row (Bom bom) 

      Big ones small ones some as big as your head . . . .

 Try to imagine the day when Uruguay is displeased with a decision Hawaii's governor makes, and acts out its displeasure by dropping a tiny, undetectable powerful drone on peaceful, beautiful Aina Haina on Oahu, Hawaii -- presently unthinkable.

Then these will be the Good "ol Days, indeed.

Elect Bernie Sanders president!

From

RonDoids: China Preparing for Drone Warfare!X

Sunday, May 10, 2015

China Preparing for Drone Warfare!

PLA plans to build 42,000 UAVs, Pentagon says

China’s military plans to produce nearly 

42,000 land-based and sea-based unmanned 

weapons and sensor platforms as part of its

 continuing, large-scale military buildup,

 the Pentagon’s annual report on the

 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) disclosed Friday.

China currently operates several armed and 

unarmed drone aircraft and is developing 

long-range range unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs) for both intelligence 

gathering and bombing attacks.

“The acquisition and development of longer-range 

UAVs will increase China’s ability to conduct 

long-range reconnaissance and strike operations,” 

the report said.

China’s ability to use drones is increasing 

and the report said China “plans to p

roduce upwards of 41,800 land- and 

sea-based unmanned systems, 

worth about $10.5 billion, between 2014 and 2023.”

Four UAVs under development include the 

Xianglong, Yilong, Sky Saber, and Lijian,

 with the latter three drones configured to 

  fire precision-strike weapons.

“The Lijian, which first flew on Nov. 21, 2013, 

is China’s first stealthy flying wing UAV,” 

the report said.

The drone buildup is part of what the 

Pentagon identified as a decades-long 

military buildup that last year 

produced new multi-warhead missiles 

and a large number of submarines and ships

-------------------------

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

W. B. Yates,The Second Coming 

fragment) (1865-1939) 

Give the Kurds all the help they ask for!

A news article with which I and many friends agree. From the

International Business Times UK

Iraq Isis news: Send Kurds more guns to help defeat Islamic State, says foreign minister Falah Mustafa

• By Orlando Crowcroft Executive Editor
  April 2, 2015 14:15 BST
•  14   

Kurdish peshmerga fighters train in the grounds of their camp in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq(AFP)

Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State (formerly known as Isis) need more guns, tanks and heavy artillery to push the radical Islamist group out of Iraq, a senior Kurdish minister has toldIBTimes UK.

Speaking from his office in Erbil, Falah Mustafa, foreign minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, said that 1,000 Kurdish soldiers had so far been killed in the fight against IS with a further 5,000 wounded.

Iraqi Kurdistan's foreign minister Falah Mustafa

He said that the Kurdish army - known as the peshmerga - was on the offensive and had successfully captured 20,000 square kilometres of previously IS-held territory in northern Iraq, but that the Kurds needed more weapons.

"We are thankful for the support that has been provided so far but we need more. More weapons, more ammunition, more training and coordination," he said.

An international coalition led by the US, Canada and European nations have been involved in backing the Kurdish campaign against IS, which began in June 2014 when the Islamist group conquered Mosul. A third of Mosul residents are Kurds, and as IS spread out from the city into both Kurdish and Arab areas the peshmerga have pushed back.

“'We fight on behalf of the free world.'”

- Falah Mustafa, foreign minister, Iraqi Kurdistan

More recently, US air strikes have targeted IS positions in the southern city of Tikrit, backing the Iraq army and Iranian-backed Shia militias. The Iraqi army and militia fighters are pushing north towards IS-held Mosul.

Kurdish fighters are already on the borders of Mosul but are reluctant to enter the Sunni Arab-majority city without a "coordinated effort" from the southern Iraqi forces, local Sunni communities and the international coalition, said Mustafa.

"Mosul is key to defeating IS in Iraq as a whole, which is why the front line is there. There have been clashes – they have attacked, we have attacked. The issue is that [...] it has to be an Iraqi attempt that has to be coordinated with the Iraqi army, the Sunni community, peshmerga support and the US and the coalition," he said.

Mustafa said that the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) had given a list to its international partners of the weapons it needed, which included tanks, heavy artillery, Humvees, mortars and APCs. The Kurds were currently fighting with poor quality weapons, and did not have either the equipment or training to deal with the threat of IEDs, which have killed 70% of Kurdish soldiers so far.

The minister said that while IS presented an existential threat to Iraqi Kurdistan, pushing on its borders, the peshmerga were fighting the militants on the behalf of the world. The foreign fighters that have flooded in to Syria and Iraq – many of them from Europe – meant that the war was an international responsibility, he said.

"It is our joint responsibility to be able to deal with this. IS is a common threat, it affects everyone. It is true that we are fighting for our people, our land and our values but [...] we do not feel that we are fighting only for ourselves, we fight on behalf of the free world," he said.

Mustafa was reluctant to put a date on either the operation to take Mosul or the defeat of IS in the long term, but he said that even when the fighting was over, the war would not be won.

“'The federal government has to make sure that the Sunni community in the west of Iraq feels that they are respected.'”

- Falah Mustafa, foreign minister, Iraqi Kurdistan

It will be critical, he said, to re-build relations between the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad and the Sunni tribes of Western Iraq, where radical elements had been able to exploit anger in cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi that Sunni Iraqis were being discriminated against.

"The federal government has to make sure that the Sunni community in the west of Iraq feels that they are respected, that they are a partner and are treated properly. It is not only a military fight, there is a political aspect – for the Sunni community to feel that they are [part] of the process," he said.

The KRG has run Iraqi Kurdistan since the end of US-led war in 2003 and was looking increasingly likely to split from Iraq prior to 2014, when IS took Mosul. Iraqi Kurdistan has its own government, military and borders, and has had a degree of autonomy since the 1990s, when a no-fly zone was imposed over the northern Kurdish area of Iraq. 

Unstated differences between the US and Turkey

This is a useful article, particularly on Turkish concerns about Kurdish ambitions.

Turkey and the US share a stated objective of ousting Assad from office,so this seems a phony reason for Turkey's refusal to provide help to Syrian Kurds.

The unstated difficulty may be over who should succeed Assad.  

Turkey favors the Muslim Brotherhood, with whom it has had a long friendship.  The MB favors elections. 

The Saudis favor groups who hold that free elections are counter to the system of government envisioned in Muslim Wahhabism theology.  

It may be that the US won't renounce the Saudi objective of having groups favorable to their religion in control of Syria.

If that is the case, the US should rethink its position, and quickly.

Washington Post 9 Oct 24

U.S. frustration rises as Turkey withholds military help from besieged Kobane

By Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly October 9 at 6:39 AM

Islamic State fighters were battling outgunned Kurdish fighters in the heart of Kobane on Thursday, a day after the Pentagon warned that U.S. airstrikes alone will not save the Syrian border town from being overrun by the militants.

The fresh push came amid rising tensions between the Obama administration and Turkey, a NATO ally, over who should take responsibility for helping to save the town.

The Islamic State made gains overnight despite stepped-up American airstrikes over the past three days, and senior senior administration officials have expressed growing exasperation with Turkey’s refusal to intervene, either with its own military or with direct assistance to Syrian Kurdish fighters battling the militants.

“Of course they could do more,” a senior official said Wednesday. “They want the U.S. to come in and take care of the problem.” The administration would also like Turkey to be more zealous in preventing foreigners from transiting its territory to join the Syrian militants. 

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu countered on Thursday that a unilateral ground operation by Turkish troops also would not be enough to halt the militants’ advance.

U.S.-led airstrikes against the Islamic State, Aug. 8 to Oct. 8

SOURCE: Pentagon, CENTCOM, The Institute for the Study of War, news reports. GRAPHIC: Gene Thorp - The Washington Post.

Map: U.S.-led airstrikes on the Islamic State and the al-Qaeda Khorasan Group in Syria.

“It is not realistic to expect Turkey to conduct a ground operation on its own,” Cavusoglu told a joint news conference in Ankara with visiting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “We are holding talks. . . . Once there is a common decision, Turkey will not hold back from playing its part.”

He reiterated Turkey’s position that it is not prepared to step up efforts to help the U.S.-led coalition counter the Islamic State in Syria unless the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also becomes a goal of the operation.

“As long as Assad stays in power, bloodshed and massacres will continue,” he said. “The Assad regime is the cause of instability, and therefore a political change is necessary.”

In a sign of their reluctance to directly antagonize Turkey on the eve of a key diplomatic meeting, U.S. officials Wednesday sent mixed signals on Ankara’s demand that the United States establish a protected buffer zone along Turkey’s border with Syria.

“It is not now on the table as a military option that we’re considering,” said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

Separately, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the idea of a buffer zone was “worth looking at very, very closely” and that it would be discussed when retired Gen. John Allen, coordinator of the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria, holds high-level meetings in Turkey on Thursday.

Britain and France, whose forces are conducting airstrikes against the militants in Iraq but not in Syria, also said they would not rule out a buffer zone.

French President François Hollande went further, saying after a telephone conversation with his Turkish counterpart that he supported the proposal made by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In separate comments, a senior French official emphasized that Hollande had shared with Erdogan his “deep concern” over the situation in Kobane and indicated that Turkey itself is the country most directly positioned to do something about it. Several U.S. and European officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to go beyond public statements.

The intensified airstrikes against the Islamic State in and around Kobane, a total of 19 since Monday, appeared to be having some effect. For the first time in days, there was almost no shelling of the town, and Kurdish activists said the militants had withdrawn from all but a few streets on its eastern edge.

But Kobane remains surrounded on three sides by the Islamic State. On the fourth side, to the north, is Turkey, which positioned tanks, artillery and armored vehicles along the demarcation line with Syria to deter the militants from crossing into Turkey.

“Airstrikes are not going to save the town of Kobane. We know that,” Kirby said at a Pentagon briefing. “We all should be steeling ourselves for that eventuality.”

Kirby explained, with some apparent frustration, that the strategic goal of U.S. airstrikes in Syria is to destroy Islamic State infrastructure and prevent Syria’s use as a haven for operations in neighboring Iraq, not to save individual Syrian towns.

“There are going to continue to be villages and towns and cities that they take,” he said. “We all have to recognize that reality.”

The Pentagon considers the three days of strikes on militant positions around Kobane something of an interruption of its Syria campaign against Islamic State headquarters, oil refineries and command and control centers. The Kobane operation has been undertaken largely because the ground fight for the town’s survival has been broadcast live across the world from cameras just over the border in Turkey.

The Kurds say they do not want Turkish intervention but do want Turkey to permit weapons, ammunition and food to flow across its border to the 3,000 or so fighters defending the town.

Without fresh supplies, said Kurdish activist Ibrahim Kader, Kobane’s fall is only a matter of time. some estimates say tens of thousands of civilians are at risk in Kobane. A senior State Department official said that while exact numbers were difficult to obtain in a conflict zone, “our partners have indicated that the number of civilians in and around Kobane remains low” and that most needing protection had left for Turkey over the past several weeks.

The disconnect between U.S. and Turkish strategies is a reflection of differing goals — with the United States aiming to stop a terrorist threat and Turkey focusing on concerns that are much closer to home.

Turkey’s refusal to help the Syrian Kurds defending the town is based in part on the Turks’ long and convoluted history with the Kurdish Workers Party, the PKK, separatist militants in Turkey’s own Kurdish region. The PKK is affiliated with the Syrian Kurdish political movement whose military wing is defending Kobane.

Both Kurdish organizations are historically affiliated with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose ouster is Turkey’s primary, long-term objective in Syria.

At a widely reported “secret” meeting in Ankara this week, Turkey set out three conditions for supporting the Kobane fighters — that they abandon Assad, dismantle the self-governing cantons they have established along Turkey’s border and pledge not to threaten that border.

“Ankara wants to see the PKK weaken in Syria so the organization comes to the bargaining table from a position of weakness,” said Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

But Turkey has already seen considerable domestic backlash over its stance on Kobane. Protests erupted throughout the country’s Kurdish southeast this week on a scale not seen since the 1990s, with 19 people reported dead.

The issue of a buffer zone along the border has been repeatedly raised by Turkey since Syria’s civil war began in 2011.

The buffer zone was initially proposed to counter Assad’s own air attacks against U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, largely in the western part of Syria. Turkey and others proposed a “no-fly zone” in which patrolling U.S. aircraft would prevent Assad’s air force from attacking a protected area for opposition fighters and a corridor to funnel humanitarian aid to civilians.

The administration, with strenuous insistence from the Defense Department, consistently argued that Assad’s air defenses made it too risky, the resources required for constant air patrols were too great, and the strength and reliability of the opposition were questionable. Those arguments still apply, as Assad continues to bomb moderate opposition forces fighting in western Syria.

It was the rise of the Islamic State, in northern and eastern Syria, and its entry into neighboring Iraq, that provoked the U.S. air campaign, and destroying the Islamic State in both countries is the immediate U.S. objective. Assad is not bombing Islamic State positions, and the militants themselves have no air force, making a no-fly zone irrelevant to the U.S. goal.

Turkey believes that a U.S. fixation with the Islamic State has overtaken American interest in ousting Assad. The Turks have given no indication that they are prepared to participate in the coalition campaign in Syria unless Washington agrees to further the Turkish objective of removing the Syrian leader.

In a speech Tuesday, Erdogan spelled out Turkey’s conditions: the creation of both no-fly and buffer zones along its border with Syria — to protect the opposition rebels and to host more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees who have swarmed into Turkish towns — and training and arming the rebels. Obama has already said the U.S. military will begin a training program, which will take at least a year to put fighters in the field, and to step up its arms shipment.

“It’s all about keeping the removal of Assad as the priority,” Turkish political analyst Soli Ozul said.

Sly reported from Antakya, Turkey.