Iran's Fingers in the Many Middle East Puppets

Interesting insight into Iran's proxies in the various Middle East messes from Amir Toumaj at The Long War Journal's IRGC commander discusses Afghan militia, ‘Shia liberation army,’ and Syria:

Discussing Iran’s military commitments, Falaki noted that Iran’s proxies are fighting on three major fronts: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

“One front of this army is in Syria, the other in Iraq, and another in Yemen,” he stated.

The first two are well known, though the claim about Yemen reflects the IRGC’s ultimate goal more than facts on the ground. The Houthis are known to be militarily and politically supported by the IRGC, though the Guard may not exercise full control over the Houthis. The IRGC’s objective is to use the Houthis as a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula, on Saudi Arabia’s southern border. The suspicion of the Houthis being a full Iranian proxy is precisely the reason the Saudis and allies have launched a war in Yemen.

The Houthis, however, are not IRGC proxies like the Fatemiyoun and Iraqi militias. Houthi leaders have publicly complained about IRGC claims of full support. A senior Houthi official in March lashed out at a senior IRGC commander who claimed that the Guard would support the Houthis anyway it could, criticizing Tehran for “exploiting” the Yemeni file.

The Houthis exercise some measure of independence, and do not presently appear to be inclined to serve as the IRGC’s proxy in a perpetual fight against Saudi Arabia, as noted by Yemen scholars.

What is clear is the IRGC’s strategy to exploit the war in Yemen, primarily to be a thorn in Saudi Arabia’s side. They want to perpetuate the perception that Houthis are full Iranian proxies to elicit harsher Saudi reactions. The IRGC hopes that the continuation of conflict will leave the Houthis no choice but to fight and fully embrace the IRGC in order to survive.

Recommended reading, just like Long War Journal always is.

Good thing we have paid so much money to Iran to advance their peaceful intentions.

Sometime it seems we forget how relatively small an area we are dealing with in the Middle East. Here's a nice U.S. government map I liberated from here that might help put things in some perspective:

CNAS2016: ISIS Study Group - Presentation and Discussion

A truly excellent discussion of fighting ISIS from the Center for a New Anerican Security 2016 conference

It's Almost Like They Have a Plan: "Indiscriminate Russian Bombing in Syria Worsening European Immigration Crisis"

Map source UNHCR

U.S.General in charge of European Command says "Indiscriminate Russian Bombing in Syria Worsening European Immigration Crisis" reports USNI News:

The U.S. senior commander in Europe warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Syrian regime’s continued use of barrel bombs and Russia’s use of indiscriminate strikes in backing President Bashar al Assad is exacerbating the European immigration crisis.

Even after an agreement to a cessation of fighting between the Syrian regime and moderate opposition groups “we have not really seen a change in the type of sorties being flown” by the Russians, U.S. European Command commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove said.

“We need to see how [the ceasefire] works [because] actions speak louder than words,” he said.

But, “What we have seen is an intense flow [of refugees] into the neighboring countries” such as Jordan and Turkey, as well as Europe, that is continuing even after the ceasefire, Breedlove said later in the hearing.

Breedlove said, “What we have seen growing” in the flow of refugees fleeing Syria and migrants leaving depressed countries in the Middle East and North Africa” are “criminals, terrorists and [returning] foreign fighters” coming into Europe.

Why, it's like Russian might want to destabilize the West or something.

General Breedlove knows this:

Regarding a resurgent Russia, he told the committee Moscow “had chosen to be an adversary,” in part “to re-establish a leading role” for itself on the world stage.

Yep.

Expensive Lessons in Governing Captured in NYTimes "More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Concludes"

First, you have to read this Joshua Foust's Staff: The Forgotten Metric of Presidential Success (hat tip to Brett Friedman):

Obama did not rely on his functional experts to do this work, the people who would have to mobilize the enormous apparatus of government to accommodate any big change in policy; he went to personal, trusted associates whom he knew would always defer to his judgment. His staffing decisions had the effect of cutting the State Department out of statecraft (at a speech last year in Cuba, John Kerry made it a point not to acknowledge Rhodes’ work while praising Obama’s other adviser, a subtle but unmistakable snub).

More prosaically, Obama has made choice after choice that belie a worrying ignorance of the power that good staff can have.
***

That provides a context for this NYTimes piece by Michael S. Schmidt and Helene Cooper More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Conclude

In the past, the Pentagon’s requests for additional troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been met with skepticism by Mr. Obama, and his aides have said he has resented what he has regarded as efforts to pressure him. But the rise of the Islamic State has alarmed the White House, and a senior administration official said Thursday that the president is willing to consider raising the stakes in both Iraq and Syria.

I suppose we will be debating whether the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 under President Obama was precipitous and whether that allowed ISIS to "pop up" for the rest our natural lives. The debate will include whether Mr. Obama was responsible for the withdrawal or was merely playing out the hand dealt to him by his predecessor. See this NPR "fact check" which contains an interesting assessment of Mr. Obama's inaction:

Thousands of American troops had died, and by the time Obama announced the withdrawal, fully three-quarters of Americans supported the withdrawal (though a majority of Republicans did not).

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

You can sort out your own issues of "sins of omission" vs. "sins of commission," but in my world the person who relieves the previous officer of the deck (OOD) and then does not change course to avoid a collision that was not apparent to the previous OOD cannot then blame the prior watch for "putting the ship on a course to a collision." As the saying goes, "That dog won't hunt."

Worst of all is the apparent lack of a strategy in the U.S. effort in the Middle East. As the NYTimes reporters have it:

The Pentagon’s desire to expand the military presence on the ground comes as the American public remains skeptical of the United States’ getting more deeply involved in another conflict in the Middle East. Polls have shown that Americans are not convinced the Obama administration has a plan to defeat the Islamic State, which has maintained control of nearly all the large cities it took over in 2014.

How can you have plan to defeat ISIS unless you have an idea of what the Middle East should look like when ISIS is defeated? Mr. Obama has already called for Syria's Assad to "go away" though he seems lately to have been more wishy-washy on that view. Russia and Iran are involved in Syria now and had we decisively acted earlier they might not have been so.

Perhaps Mr. Obama feels strongly diffident and, taking the easy path, has simply voted "present" again. Those deferred decisions tend to catch up with you, though. So, now, more U.S. boots on the ground.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda done this earlier and squashed ISIS at the gitgo.

See also here, here and here.

Turkey v. Russia: Turks Defend Their Airspace

Reuters report "Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border, Moscow denies airspace violation". Hurryiet report:

Turkish F-16

Two Turkish F-16's shot down a Russian-made SU-24 jet on Nov. 24 near the Syrian border after it violated Turkish airspace, presidential sources said.

Turkey shot down the jet after it failed to heed the warnings within the rules of engagement.

Initial reports said the jet belonged to Russia, but presidential sources later clarified that the jet's nationality was unknown.

SU-24

The Turkish Armed Force also stated that the jet of “unknown nationality” had been warned 10 times in five minutes about its violation of the airspace.

Hmmm.

Blowing the Middle East Scenario

Small Wars Journal has it in a headline: Obama Claims His Critics Forced Him to Make a Mess of Syria, quoting Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo:

In what surely is the most cringe-worthy excuse offered by a commander-in-chief, President Obama last week complained that his critics — whom he routinely ignored and scorned — forced him to make a mess of Syria. To say it is unbecoming of a president to whine that he was only following what critics told him to do, understates just how dishonest the president is and how morally repugnant is his approach to a war that has claimed more than 200,000 lives, created millions of refugees and provided the Islamic State with a base of operations.

Well, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Air war alone? Not so much, as noted here a year ago:

"Pretty adaptive" ain't going to cut it - the OODA loop is getting away from us because of self-imposed limitations on engagement. Being a "one trick pony" makes it easier on the enemy who gets a vote on how to respond to your threat.

If we are going to "beat" these guys, we need to hear the sound of boots on the ground and see the ISIS logistics flow of people, money and weapons disrupted big time.

Oh, yes, and "cooked intel" designed to give the "boss" what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear:

The situation is serious. The term “mass uprising” has been heard in espionage circles and we now know that more than fifty analysts in Tampa, a high percentage of those assessing the Islamic State, have blown the whistle on politically skewed analysis.

Recent reports paint a disturbing picture of a badly distorted intelligence process at CENTCOM headquarters, with senior officers directly pressuring analysts to change their assessments to fit the administration’s optimistic take on the war against the Islamic State. Senior military officers like to toe the official line—you get promoted for “speaking truth to power” in the movies, not in the U.S. military—and clashes with intelligence analysts, especially when they are civilians, are commonplace.

Hmm. I wonder if anyone warned the Boss that the Russians might make a move into Syria? Or was it another "Surprise?"

Take a look at that map above. How many reasons can you see that Russia/Putin might see the advantage of a Russian "friend" in Syria? Warm water port on the Mediterranean? Another border with old rival Turkey?

UPDATE: See Government Report Is Compelling Indictment of Obama’s ISIS Strategy.

War Against Terrorists: Al Qaeda is back in the news and gets attacked to forestall "imminent attack"

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Carlos M. Vazquez II

Al Qaeda makes the news again, and gets attacked in Syria, as set out here

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby confirmed Tuesday that the plotting was far along.

“This is a very dangerous group,” Kirby told Fox News. “We had information, good information that they were very actively plotting and very close to the end of that plotting -- and planning an attack on targets either in Europe or the U.S. homeland.”

As for the result of the airstrikes, he said: “We think we hit what we were aiming at.”

More from the Long War Journal:

The US-led bombing campaign in Syria is targeting the Al Nusrah Front, an official branch of al Qaeda, as well as the Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot that is one of Al Nusrah's fiercest rivals.

Before they were launched, the air strikes were framed as being necessary to damage the Islamic State, a jihadist group that has seized large swaths of territory across Syria and Iraq. But in recent days US officials signaled that they were also concerned about al Qaeda's presence in Syria, including the possibility that al Qaeda operatives would seek to use the country as a launching pad for attacks in the West.

Several well-connected online jihadists have posted pictures of the Al Nusrah Front positions struck in the bombings. They also claim that al Qaeda veterans dispatched from Afghanistan to Syria, all of whom were part of Al Nusrah, have been killed.
***
Among the Al Nusrah Front positions targeted in the bombings are locations where members of the so-called "Khorasan group" are thought to be located. Ayman al Zawahiri, the emir of al Qaeda, sent the group to Syria specifically to plan attacks against the US and its interests. The group, which takes its name from al Qaeda's Khorasan shura (or advisory) council, is reportedly led by Muhsin al Fadhli, an experienced al Qaeda operative who has been involved in planning international terrorist attacks for years.

Al Fadhli's presence in Syria was first reported by the Arab Times in March. Shortly thereafter, The Long War Journal confirmed and expanded on this reporting. [See LWJ report, Former head of al Qaeda's network in Iran now operates in Syria.] The Long War Journal reported at the time that al Fadhli's plans "were a significant cause for concern among counterterrorism authorities."

The New York Times reported earlier this month that al Fadhli leads the Khorasan group in Syria.

Unconfirmed reports on jihadist social media sites say that al Fadhli was killed in the bombings. Neither US officials, nor al Qaeda has verified this reporting. The fog of war often makes it difficult to quickly confirm whether an individual jihadist has been killed, wounded, or survived unscathed. Initial reports should be treated with skepticism and there is no firm evidence yet that al Fadhli has been killed.

Read more: here

More on the Al Nusrah Front here:

Al-Nusra Front (also the Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra) was formed in late 2011, when Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julani to Syria to organize jihadist cells in the region. The Nusra Front rose quickly to prominence among rebel organizations in Syria for its reliable supply of arms, funding, and fighters—some from donors abroad, and some from AQI. Considered well trained, professional, and relatively successful on the battlefield, they earned the respect and support of many rebel groups, including some in the secular Free Syrian Army (FSA). However, al-Nusra also made some enemies among the Syrian people and opposition by imposing religious laws, although the group has shied away from the types of brutal executions and sectarian attacks that made AQI unpopular. Al-Nusra was also the first Syrian force to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks that killed civilians. (footnotes omitted)
***
Al-Nusra is affiliated with AQ and has pledged allegiance to the organization, serving as its only official branch in the Syrian conflict after global AQ emir Ayman al-Zawahiri publicly disowned ISIS following months of ISIS disobedience to AQ orders.

So, it's not really that the Al Nusrah Front and the Khorasan group just sprang up - but have been around and have enjoyed the chaos of Syria as providing recruiting and a safe haven.

Until now.

Killing ISIS 2: What Bing West Says

Bing West has thoughts on how to kill ISIS (a/k/a ISIL) at "How to Defeat ISIL":

U.S. policymakers must commit themselves clearly to containing, disrupting, and defeating it.

You should read the whole thing.

Mr. West makes many good points, but as with solving most problems, the first step is recognizing you have a problem and then choosing a plan of action to eliminate that problem. I have serious doubts about the ability of the Administration and its aiders and abettors in the press to do that with ISIS, because, as Mr. West notes:

If the commander-in-chief does not perceive a mortal threat and if the press grossly underreports the persecution of Christians and other minorities, then the public will see no reason for our military to become heavily involved.

With the Obama administration, nothing is ever what it was or may be in the future. There is no constancy. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has described the threat in terms of “some of the most brutal, barbaric forces we’ve ever seen in the world today, and a force, ISIL, and others that is an ideology that’s connected to an army, and it’s a force and a dimension that the world has never seen before like we have seen it now.” The Visigoths, Attila, and Tamerlane have a new rival. Obviously this new scourge upon mankind must be destroyed.

But wait: Then Mr. Hagel delivered the punch line. “I recommended to the president, and the president has authorized me, to go ahead and send about 130 new assessment-team members.” Mr. Hagel is holding the rest of our force in reserve in case the Martians attack. One hundred thirty assessors are sufficient to deal with “the most barbaric forces we’ve ever seen.”

It occurs to me that the Administration having charted its course ("withdrawal by date X" and "no U.S. combat forces in country Y"), plods along, adjusting only its portrayal of the facts to rationalize that course. A ship's navigator who failed to alter course to allow for the effects of winds and currents is headed for rocks which cannot be avoided by repeating phrases such as "the plan was to steer 270 degrees and we are on that plan" or "most of the crew likes the course we are on" or "once we steered course 270 and ended up where we were supposed to be."

As noted in Killing ISIS? you need more than an announcement of what you want the end result to be ("We put a bell on the cat!" or ""ISIS must be destroyed") to make things happen. If the U.S. goal is to kill ISIS, then the planners better be put to work to use the tools available to make that happen. If it requires U.S. combat ground forces to cut off the ISIS logistics train - well, conditions on the ground have changed since there were promises made to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The Administration can blame it on unexpected ocean currents or winds or on the way the world works - as in the way bad guys tend to rush in to fill vacuums of power.

Well, even a blind hog . . .: "U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms"

NYTimes reports "U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms."

Aside from the fact that what is to be destroyed (sometime in the next year) can easily be replaced, I suppose we should all be content that no American troops, missiles and angst will be wasted in saving our "red line capacity."

As golfers are wont to say, "Sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn."*

Of course, sometimes there are landmines:

“This situation has no precedent,” said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.”

Not to be cynical (or more cynical) but is the destruction "red line" before or after the next U.S. mid-term elections?


*If you are unfamiliar with this expression, see here. Geez, Friedrich Schiller? Huh.

Syria: Magical Mystery Tour

Once upon a time . . . military planners were tasked to set up war plans that included asking questions that would make the mission about to be undertaken make sense. Sense, that is, from a military planning and action point of view. This form of planning gained some fame after the Vietnam flail.

Labeled the "Powell Doctrine" (see also here) the planners were to look at the following:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

At some point some of the vigor of this doctrine seemed to have slipped away.

As a result, we get the application of military force in the form of pin pricks (in the words of SecState Kerry and potential enemy often cushioned by leaks (see, e.g. "Loose Lips on Syria").

Not-So-Big Mystery: Who took out Syrian Anti-Ship Missiles? Hmmm.

It is very small mystery but Syrian rebels say it wasn't their doing, Rebels Claim Israel Bombed

Russian-Made Anti-Ship Missiles:

Syrian rebels have implicitly fingered Israel for the bombing of Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles near the Syrian port of Latakia last week, a bombing that the Assad regime has blamed on a group linked with Al Qaeda terrorists.
***
The target at Latakia, according to the rebels, was a cache of Yakhont anti-ship missiles, which could be used to attack Israel’s offshore natural gas and oil rigs and would have been at least the fourth time Israel has bombed a site in Syria this year.

You remember the Yakhont threat, right?

More fun "speculation" by David Barnett over at The Long War Journal:

Hezbollah's Al Manar claimed that the explosions were the result of stray mortars from local clashes, according to Ynet News. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it was unclear who caused the explosions, according to Agence France Presse. A Syrian official purportedly told state media that al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists using European weaponry conducted the attack.

A source told the pro-Assad outlet Al Akhbar that three missiles were fired at the base, which caused the explosions and led to the death of at least one soldier. The report further alleged that the rockets may have been fired near the coast, if not from the sea itself.

Reuters today quoted Qassem Saadeddine, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, as saying foreign elements were behind the attack on Latakia. "This attack was either by air raid or long-range missiles fired from boats in the Mediterranean," Saadeddine stated. Saadeddine also said that the attack targeted "newly supplied Yakhont missiles," according to Reuters.

Oh, well, whoever did this - nice targeting.

Syria: Russia Supports the Dictator, Ships "Sophisticated" Anti-Ship Missiles

Reported by the BBC as "Syria crisis: Russia 'sends sophisticated weapons'":

Yakhont Missile

According to the New York Times report, a recent Russian shipment to Syria included an advanced form of the Yakhont, a 6.7m-long (22ft) missile with a range of 290km (180 miles) and carrying either a high-explosive or armour-piercing warhead.

UPDATE: NYTimes reports(along the line of Steeljaw's question in the comments below) that these are new and improved Yakhonts:

Russia has previously provided a version of the missiles, called Yakhonts, to Syria. But those delivered recently are outfitted with an advanced radar that makes them more effective, according to American officials who are familiar with classified intelligence reports and would only discuss the shipment on the basis of anonymity.

Yep, it is a order fulfillment from some time ago - one warned of here in 2010:

Four decades later, the P800 Yakhont is far superior than the Styx missiles that failed to protect the Syrian Navy in 1973. Much like the Russian-Indian Brahmos, the earlier Moskit and Supersonic Alpha, Yakhont has the capability to strike its target at supersonic speed, flying

Arrow points to Tartus

at very low level, leaving the defender much shorter time to react.
***
AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel’s new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats. So does Israel’s ‘Magic Wand’ system, employing the Stunner missile interceptor, capable to counter these potent missiles effectively if employed in surface/surface or ship/surface role.

More on the Yakhont here. 180 mile/300 km maximum range spells some danger to near shore forces, but probably not so much to ships operations in "bluer" water.

Box is around Port of Tartus

The BBC also notes:

Another US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal (see here), reports that Moscow has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus.

Bora Class Guided Missile Corvette Samum

Hmmm. I guess if you have only one friend in the area, you gotta stand by and protect your warm water naval base.

More on that base here.

Our friend Cem Devrim Yaylalı (a/k/a Saturn5) has been keeping track of Russian warship traffic through the Turkish Straits, including a new visitor to those waters which appears to have returned home.

Middle East Mess: Turkey Claims Russian Arms on Moscow to Damascus "Airliner" Forced to Land in Turkey

The Republic of Turkey, which has, for the most part, tried to stay clear of the Syrian disaster unfolding on its border, now has pushed further into the mess by following up on some intelligence and forcing an aircraft headed from Moscow to Damascus to land in Ankara and undergo a search. This investigation reportedly resulted in a veritable hit, as reported by the NY Times in "Turkish Leader Says Russian Munitions Found on Syrian Jetliner":

The Turks, saying they had acted on an intelligence tip, forced the Air Syria flight with 35 passengers aboard to land at an airport in the Turkish capital, Ankara, on Wednesday.

“From Russia, an institution equivalent to our Machinery and Chemical Industry has sent military tools, equipment and ammunition to the Syrian Defense Ministry,” Mr. Erdogan was quoted as saying about the plane inspection. He was drawing a comparison to Turkey’s Machinery and Chemical Industry Institution, or MKEK, a leading provider of defense equipment to the Turkish military.

“Upon the intelligence received, research there was conducted and it was unfortunately seen that there was such equipment inside,” Mr. Erdogan said.

Since the Turks have been exchanging intermittent artillery fire with Syrian forces, they might just be a little put out by anyone supplying more ammunition to the Syrian regime.

The Turkish Hurryiet Daily News has more, with a Turkish Foreign Ministry official sounding a little like Captain Renault from the movie Casablanca (bolded below and I mean that movie reference in a good way):

A civilian Syrian passenger airplane flying from Moscow to Damascus was forced to land at Ankara’s Esenboğa Airport late on Oct. 10, and some of the cargo aboard was seized due to intelligence that it included material in violation of international civil aviation rules. Turkey allowed the aircraft to take off and continue on its route after seizing its cargo and grounding it for nine hours.

Turkish F-16

Ankara issued a diplomatic note to the Syrian Consulate in Istanbul yesterday. “The plane’s cargo was inconsistent with its bills of lading, and the cargo may have had a military purpose. The receiver [of the cargo] was listed as the Syrian Defense Ministry,” a Turkish Foreign Ministry official told Hürriyet Daily News yesterday. The cargo has been seized, not confiscated as yet, but probably will be confiscated, he said. “We are not prepared to comment on the description of the cargo. We will discuss it after we finish examining it,” he said.

“We are determined not to allow arms supply via Turkish airspace to a regime that is resorting to cruelty against its own people. Trying to do so by using our airspace is unacceptable,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said, a few hours after the plane landed, escorted by two Turkish F-16 jets. Turkish planes do not use Syrian airspace any longer because Syrian air space is not secure for Turkish planes, he said.

UPDATE: Syria call the Turks liars, according to the BBC:

Syria has accused Turkey of lying over its claim that a Syria-bound plane forced to land in Ankara was carrying Russian-made defence equipment.

Syria's foreign ministry challenged Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who made the claim, to show publicly the "ammunition" that had been seized.

Now, that's an interesting "good neighbor" approach taken by the Syrians. ... and the Russians who have joined in the name calling.

Syria: Turkey Get Fired On, Shoots Back and NATO Gets a Call

WaPo reports, "Turkey PM’s office says Turkish artillery fired on Syria after shelling of Turkish town" :

Turkish artillery fired on Syrian targets after deadly shelling from Syria hit a Turkish border town on Wednesday, sharply raising tensions on a volatile border that has been crossed by tens of thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing violence in their country.

More from Hurriyet:

Targets in Syria has been bombed in return to a deadly attack which killed 5 people in southeeastern Turkey, Turkish Prime Ministry has said.

"These provacations against the safety of Turkey will not remain unanswered," the Prime Ministry said. "We have responded to the attack, and bombed targets in Syria."
***
An emergency NATO meeting had been summoned, and will take place in the upcoming hours.

The Prime Minister said Turkey's response abided with the international law, and came as self-defense.

NATO. Hmmmm. This could get nasty.

UPDATE: The Turkish parliament has authorized cross border operations for its military, as set out here:

The Turkish Parliament has passed a motion allowing the military to conduct cross-border raids into Syria.

Some 320 deputies cast votes in favor of the motion, while 129 voted against it.
***
“All military targets have been hit by the shells. After this point, the process is down to the reaction of the opposite side [Syria]. They have now taken the lessons that they should have taken,” AKP Ankara Deputy Yalçın Akdoğan said.

Regarding opposition criticism of the mandate text, Akdoğan said: “There is nothing saying we have to go to a war in the text. The criticism of the opposition is political. Everything is clear in the text."

AKP Deputy Group Chairman Nurettin Canikli said there was an armed attack toward Turkey undetaken by the Syrian goverment. “Everybody needs to define their side. Are you on Turkey’s side or on the side of cruel al-Assad? Are you on the side of al-Assad, who has been shelling his own people including children? You need to make a decision on this.

Nobody in the Turkish Grand Assembly can defend the policy of a country who attacked this country [Turkey]. Our duty is to defend our country,” Canikli said.

UPDATE2: A WSJ report with a discussion of the NATO duty to come to the aid of an attacked NATO member, which Turkey is:

Oh,yes, and the Syrian chemical weapons threat.

A Shippping Container Full of Explosives

I wonder if anyone will come forward and claim the contents of a shipping container of explosives now being held by the Italian police?:

Italian police have seized seven tons of the powerful RDX explosive which they found in a shipping container they believe were likely destined for a terrorist organization.

While the origin and destination of the contraband is still being investigated, police are convinced the huge amount of explosive was in transit, possibly from Iran to Syria.

Probably not.

Syria to Get Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles from Russia

Not good news Syria to Get Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles from Russia:

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has announced that his country will sell advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to Syria, as agreed in a 2007 contract. Israel has expressed concern that the deal will endanger Israeli ships in the Mediterranean. The United States had also objected to the deal.
***
The missiles that will be sold to Damascus are P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles. They can carry a warhead weighing up to 200 kilograms, have a range of 300 kilometers, and are difficult to detect due to their ability to cruise near the water's surface.

Silliest quote:

Serdyukov said Russia sees “no cause for the concern” expressed by the U.S. and Israel. Russia does not believe that the weapons will make it into terrorist hands, he said.

Right.

About the P-800 here.

Maritime Security: Syria on watchlist

Ships making port calls in Syria will get extra scrutiny, as reported here:

Syria was placed on a so-called "Port Security Advisory List" amid "concerns about the connections between Syria and international terrorist organizations," the State Department's deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

The move allows the Coast Guard "to impose some additional port security measures to ships traveling to or arriving in US ports that have previously been either departing from Syria or have called on Syrian ports," he said.

Casey added he understood the measures would affect any ship that has visited Syria during its last five ports of call...
***
The development marked yet another turn for the worse in a relationship that clearly started to sour again at the end of January when Casey said it was time for Syria to stop its alleged abuses of human rights and support for terrorism.

Washington had long complained of Syria's support for opponents of the Middle East peace talks, such as the radical Hamas movement in the Palestinian territories and the pro-Iranian Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah in Lebanon.
***
A US Navy official said Wednesday that the warships USS Ross and the USS Philippine Sea have relieved the USS Cole to take up positions in the eastern Mediterranean off Lebanon, which is just south of Syria's own coastline.

"It's a sign of our commitment to stability in the region," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

The Cole was deployed to waters off Lebanon to signal US concern over a protracted political crisis in Lebanon.

I expect wacky Bush haters to see a conspiracy to use trouble with Syria as a stepping stone to Mr. Bush declaring himself "president for life."