Geneva II

The Geneva II peace talks on Syria begin in three weeks and a lot is in play in the Middle East. Majid bin Muhammad al-Majid, head of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Azzam Brigades and a Saudi, has been taken into custody. The Adbullah Azzam Brigades had claimed responsibility for the November suicide bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, and they were suspected of firing a missile into northern Israel on Sunday. Anne Barnard has the story, "Lebanon Arrests Leader of Qaeda-Linked Group, Reports Say":

An Iranian national security official, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, on Wednesday praised the Lebanese security forces for apprehending Mr. Majid, and blamed him for the embassy bombing. He also urged the Lebanese government to consider the fact that “the main element in the operation is of Saudi nationality,” Iran’s semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.

*** 

The Iranian official, Mr. Boroujerdi, said that Lebanese security forces had arrested two people, including someone involved in “the assassination of the Hezbollah leader in Lebanon,” an apparent reference to the shooting death in December of Hassane Laqees, a senior Hezbollah militant. It was unclear whether he was blaming the Abdullah Azzam Brigades or Saudi Arabia for killing Mr. Laqees. Citing the killers’ professionalism, Hezbollah had blamed the hit on Israel rather than Sunni jihadist groups. 

Mr. Majid’s detention was potentially sensitive in a divided Lebanon, especially under a caretaker government that has been in place for months because of political stalemate. The army has tried to maintain its reputation as the only largely neutral security agency, even as it remains too weak to challenge Hezbollah’s independent militia, and Lebanese Sunnis increasingly see it as leaning toward the Shiite party.

The Iranians are still barred from attending Geneva II, ostensibly because they won't sign off on Geneva I and the concept of a Baathist-opposition transitional government with full executive powers, even though it is broadly accepted that no deal is possible without Iranian participation. Aron Lund breaks it down in "Can Iran Go to Geneva II Without Endorsing Geneva I?" on his Syria in Crisis blog. Lund seems to think that endorsing Geneva I is meaningless and that Iran could do so at anytime without compromising its bargaining position. He seems to think that Iran is holding out for further concessions by the United States.

One thing that jumped out at me from Lund's piece is the large number of nations attending Geneva II:

Apart from Syria’s government and opposition, the Geneva II guest list includes representatives of the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, Algeria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

The more countries attending, the more likely it is the event will be nothing but ceremonial, a performance for the cameras. This does not preclude that possibility that a substantive agreement can be reached at a meeting that is not part of the formally recognized mega-gathering and then brought to the larger group for a sign-off. It just seems like a long shot to me.

Hold the Pivot to Asia: Al Qaeda and the House of Saud

What is interesting about today's frontpage story, "Jihadist Groups Gain in Turmoil Across Middle East," by Robert Worth and Eric Schmitt, a decent sketch of the growing Al Qaeda hot spots in Yemen, southern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula and Syria, is the almost total absence of any explanation of the role of Saudi Arabia. Worth and Schmitt frame the Qaeda renascence in terms of a realignment of the Obama administration's relationship with the Baathist government of Bashar al-Assad:

“We need to start talking to the Assad regime again” about counterterrorism and other issues of shared concern, said Ryan C. Crocker, a veteran diplomat who has served in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. “It will have to be done very, very quietly. But bad as Assad is, he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence.” 

It is not clear whether or when the White House would be willing to make such an abrupt shift in approach after years of supporting the Syrian opposition and calling for Mr. Assad’s ouster. It would certainly require delicate negotiations with Middle Eastern allies who were early and eager supporters of Syrian rebel groups, notably Saudi Arabia.

The role of the House of Saud in the explosive turmoil in the Middle East is given greater mention in a story this morning by Rick Gladstone, "Syria Crisis Is Worsening, U.N. Relief Official Says":

Mr. Jaafari [Syrian ambassador to the United Nations] also had harsh words for Saudi Arabia, long accused by his government of financing, recruiting and arming Sunni jihadist militants linked to Al Qaeda that are waging war in Syria. He said “thousands of Saudi fighters” had been killed in Syria and that the government had taken 300 Saudis prisoner. Saudi diplomats did not return telephone calls for comment. 

“Somebody should hold the Saudis responsible for what they are doing,” Mr. Jaafari said. 

In Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that is fighting on Mr. Assad’s side in Syria, accused Saudi Arabia directly for the first time on Tuesday of involvement in the deadly double bombing at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut last month. Mr. Nasrallah, on the Lebanese television channel OTV, said Saudi intelligence had collaborated with Qaeda-linked militants to carry out the attack, which was a direct challenge to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival for power. 

But Mr. Nasrallah also pushed with new vigor for a political solution in Syria. He praised the signs of reconciliation between Iran and the United States as having averted regional war.

The assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Hassan Laqees is more proof (though Hezbollah is blaming Israel) of Saudi-fueled escalation of sectarian conflict.

The end game? Region-wide destabilization that keeps U.S. military forces fully engaged in the Middle East and the ballyhooed "pivot to Asia" on the drawing board for the foreseeable future.

Here's the last paragraph of the Worth and Schmitt story on the flowering of Al Qaeda groups:

“Whether they are dismayed by the way things played out in Egypt or by the growth of Al Qaeda in Syria, the worm has turned in the Middle East in the minds of American foreign policy makers,” said William McCants, an expert on jihadist movements and a former senior adviser at the State Department. “It seems we are back to counterterrorism as a guiding focus for American policy.”

How successful Obama will be in staying out of the Middle East briar patch is a tough question to answer. His agreement with Russian on Syria's chemical weapons and the nascent deal with Iran on its nuclear program have been spectacular successes given the outsize influence of the Saudis and Israelis on U.S. foreign policy. In our pay-to-play system, Congress is pretty much Saudi and Israeli occupied territory.

That's why keeping on an eye on events in Syria is so important. How Obama treads there -- whether a meaningful Geneva II deal is reached -- will point the way forward in terms of the Greater Middle East.