Síria, os riscos de um acordo. Iran's Rouhani may meet Obama at UN after American president reaches out/ Guardian. Syria: the deal that only goes so far / Editorial / Guardian.

Síria, os riscos de um acordo

Editorial / Público
Washington e Moscovo têm um objectivo em comum, mas não estão na mesma trincheira

Há razões suficientes para o mundo estar satisfeito com o acordo entre Estados Unidos e Rússia visando a destruição do arsenal químico sírio. O acordo afastou, para já, o risco de uma intervenção militar ocidental. E, pela primeira vez desde o início da guerra civil síria, Washington e Moscovo têm um objectivo em comum, o que não significa que estejam na mesma trincheira. A Rússia diz que o regime sírio não é responsável pelo ataque químico de 21 de Agosto e os EUA mantêm a ameaça militar, que Moscovo não aceita. Ao mesmo tempo, sabe-se que os sírios estarão a esconder armas químicas e poderão mesmo retirá-las do seu território. Por outras palavras, a aplicação do acordo no terreno poderá dividir americanos e russos e conduzir a um novo impasse. É um primeiro risco. O outro decorre da forma como o acordo irá repercutir-se na região. A guerra na Síria não é só sobre armas químicas e, paradoxalmente, o acordo de sábado reforçou as hipóteses de o regime de Assad sobreviver. Mas além de ser uma guerra civil, a guerra na Síria envolve toda a região. Ao revelar hoje ter trocado cartas com o novo Presidente iraniano, Obama quis mostrar força e dizer que tinha deixado um aviso claro a Teerão quanto ao programa nuclear iraniano. Mas a divulgação de uma troca de cartas, um acontecimento raro, também indicia que a porta para o diálogo, pensável com a eleição do Presidente Rohani, poderá estar a abrir-se. Kerry e Lavrov negociaram um acordo sobre a Síria, mas o Irão não pode ter deixado de estar presente nessa conversa. Dois caminhos estão portanto abertos. Ou o acordo entre Kerry e Lavrov abre a possibilidade de uma resolução diplomática da crise síria, eventualmente extensível ao nuclear iraniano, ou Washington estará a ser atraída para uma emboscada em que Moscovo, Teerão e Damasco darão as cartas no terreno. Há muito mais do que armas químicas sob o sol do Médio Oriente. 

Iran's Rouhani may meet Obama at UN after American president reaches out

First meeting of US and Iranian leaders since 1979 revolution could open way to diplomatic end to Iranian nuclear standoff

Julian Borger, Diplomatic editor

The Guardian, Sunday 15 September 2013 / http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/15/obama-rouhani-united-nations-meeting

An exchange of letters between Barack Obama and the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has set the stage for a possible meeting between the two men at the UN next week in what would be the first face-to-face encounter between a US and Iranian leader since Iran's 1979 revolution.

Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, is also due to meet his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the UN general assembly meeting in New York, adding to guarded optimism that the June election of Rouhani, a Glasgow-educated moderate, and his appointment of a largely pragmatic cabinet, has opened the door to a diplomatic solution to the 11-year international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.

Tehran took the Foreign Office by surprise, tweeting on Rouhani's English-language feed that the president would also be prepared to meet Hague, something the UK had not even requested.

"Tehran has responded positively to UK's request. President Rouhani's meeting w/WilliamJHague on the sidelines of UNGA has been confirmed," the tweet said.

"We would be happy to meet," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said, "but we have had nothing formal from Tehran about it."

Diplomats said that the tweet reflected the new Iranian government's eagerness to make diplomatic headway on the nuclear issue, which has been at an impasse for several years. A Hague meeting with either Rouhani or Zarif could clear the way to restoring full diplomatic ties, which have not existed since the British embassy in Tehran was ransacked by a mob in November 2011.

In a television interview aired on Sunday, Obama made clear that there was a diplomatic opening with Iran, not only over the nuclear question but also over Syria. He confirmed earlier reports that he and Rouhani had "reached out" to each other, exchanging letters.

US officials were sceptical about a Rouhani meeting, but some observers said the Geneva deal on Syria's chemical weapons has opened new space for global diplomacy.

Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council and an expert on US-Iran diplomacy, said "I think there is a chance [of a meeting]. It would be a strong political push for movement. If Obama got involved, it would be the infusion of political will needed to reach an agreement.

"Tehran is already claiming some of the credit for the Syria deal. Rouhani needs to show that through his diplomatic efforts he has already avoided a war. He is desperate in his first six months to show his approach has paid more dividends than the hardline approach of his predecessor."

Parsi added that if Obama was to meet Rouhani it was likely to be an orchestrated encounter in a corridor, rather than a sit-down talk, "to give both sides deniability". The last encounter between an American and Iranian leader was when Jimmy Carter met the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in 1977.

Speaking on ABC's This Week, Obama raised the prospect of Iran getting involved in broader talks on Syria if Tehran recognised "that what's happening there is a train wreck that hurts not just Syrians but is destabilising the entire region". He said the Geneva deal could pave the way for more general talks involving Russia and Iran aimed at "some sort of political settlement that would deal with the underlying terrible conflict".

In the same interview, Obama also urged Iran's leadership not to draw the wrong lessons from his decision to draw back from air strikes on Syria in pursuit of a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons crisis. He said it showed that it was possible to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear aspirations peacefully, but insisted it did not indicate a weakening of US resolve to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"I think what the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical weapons issue, that the threat against … Israel that a nuclear Iran poses is much closer to our core interests. That a nuclear arms race in the region is something that would be profoundly destabilising," Obama said in the ABC interview, which was recorded on Friday, before a final Syria deal with Russia was struck in Geneva.

"My suspicion is that the Iranians recognise they shouldn't draw a lesson that [because] we haven't struck to think we won't strike Iran," Obama said, in remarks that may also have been intended as a reassurance to Israel that US deterrence against any Iranian attempt to build nuclear weapons had not been weakened.

After meeting John Kerry, US secretary of state, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, stressed the same point. "The determination the international community shows regarding Syria will have a direct impact on the Syrian regime's patron – Iran," Netanyahu said. "Iran must understand the consequences of its continued defiance of the international community by its pursuit toward nuclear weapons," he added.

However, Obama insisted: "What they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically. You know, negotiations with the Iranians are always difficult. I think this new president is not going to suddenly make it easy. But you know, my view is that … if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact you can strike a deal." In terms of dealing with Syria's chemical stockpile, the agreement in Geneva between the US and Russia on Saturday is probably the best framework solution that anyone could have hoped for in the circumstances. Bashar al-Assad must report what stocks he holds within a week, rather than a month. UN inspectors must be on the ground, checking and verifying, by November, and the stockpiles themselves must be destroyed by the middle of next year. Even if some stocks escape this dragnet, as was the case when Muammar Gaddafi renounced chemical weapons in 2003, nothing remotely similar would have happened in an air strike, which may have temporarily degraded Mr Assad's command and control structure, but kept the stocks themselves intact. This solution keeps the international ban on the use of these horrendous weapons in place. The chemical weapons convention has just been strengthened.

Syria: the deal that only goes so far

Taking chemical weapons off the battlefield will be little relief to civilians and no help to the Free Syrian Army

Editorial

The Guardian, Sunday 15 September 2013 /http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/syria-deal-only-goes-so-far

In terms of dealing with Syria's chemical stockpile, the agreement in Geneva between the US and Russia on Saturday is probably the best framework solution that anyone could have hoped for in the circumstances. Bashar al-Assad must report what stocks he holds within a week, rather than a month. UN inspectors must be on the ground, checking and verifying, by November, and the stockpiles themselves must be destroyed by the middle of next year. Even if some stocks escape this dragnet, as was the case when Muammar Gaddafi renounced chemical weapons in 2003, nothing remotely similar would have happened in an air strike, which may have temporarily degraded Mr Assad's command and control structure, but kept the stocks themselves intact. This solution keeps the international ban on the use of these horrendous weapons in place. The chemical weapons convention has just been strengthened.

But in terms of dealing with the Syrian civil war itself, we are today little closer to a second Geneva peace conference than we were last week. True, this agreement should be built on. And true, if Russia can be used as a moderating lever on Mr Assad, so too can Iran. This deal, if it goes ahead, will allow, or at least not hinder, diplomatic re-engagement with Tehran. Starting a substantive dialogue with the moderate conservative president, Hassan Rouhani, is indeed made more urgent than ever, because there is now more doubt in Israel that Barack Obama would ever authorise strikes against Iran's nuclear installations. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, may be about to talk himself into launching the attack he has already postponed on at least one occasion. Which is probably why John Kerry's first stop on Sunday was Jerusalem.

A bleaker view is to be had on the ground in rebel-held Syria. The rebels see Mr Assad as strengthened by the deal. Giving up weapons which were anyway becoming a liability is a small sacrifice for the implied protection from an air strike which he will secure for at least one year. His chemical weapons stocks were never the crown jewels they were described as being. He has allegedly used them on 14 different occasions before, but always on a small scale – enough to terrify the civilian population, but in small enough quantities to escape verification. It is no exoneration of Mr Assad to say that the most likely explanation for the massacre in Ghouta in Damascus was that it may have been the work of an overzealous local commander. Taking these weapons off the battlefield will be little relief to civilians, who are coming under fire from all manner of conventional high explosive, and no help to the Free Syrian Army. It has yet to see the arms the US promised it, and views the failure to come good on the threat of air strikes as nothing short of a betrayal. It is giving up any hope that America wants to help it. With clashes between its units and jihadis in the north growing in intensity, the FSA is engaged in a three-sided battle to stay relevant. The stronger the jihadi brigades get, the easier it will be for Mr Assad and Russia to present this as a conflict with terrorists. None of this presages a swift return to the negotiating table. On the contrary, it is more likely that the fighting will intensify, with the strategic calculus weighted heavily in favour of the person with the aircraft, missiles and tanks.

Last week Russian diplomacy was at its opportunistic peak. But its arguments that Mr Assad had not used chemical weapons were specious. The Russians had only jumped into the vacuum created by the vacillations of a war-weary US. Mr Obama has to devise a credible strategy for stopping this war – at least something more substantial than wish fulfilment. With the numbers of refugees growing daily, containment is a dream. So too is an intervention-lite policy, as there is no sign of the balance of power on the battlefield being tipped. All efforts must now go into persuading Tehran that Mr Assad has become to Iran what chemical weapons became for him – a liability, and a roadblock to a sanctions-free future.