By Sarah Margon

The news from Syria is bad and doesn’t seem to be getting any better. Most recently, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan left Damascus without making any progress on the political front, U.N. Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos was unable to secure more than an agreement for a “limited [humanitarian] assessment by U.N. agencies and the Syrian authorities” and Paulo Pinheiro, chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council panel of experts, noted earlier today that the Syrian regime had subjected its people to “collective punishment.” In addition, pro-regime forces may be undertaking reprisal attacks in the recaptured city of Homs, where they appear to have killed at least 16 people — including a number of children.

Here in Washington, pundits, politicians and lawmakers continue to promote divergent recommendations for President Obama on what to do in Syria. But still, while the administration has been long on strong rhetoric and efforts to galvanize the international community, it has been short on action. Unsurprisingly, there is no international consensus on how best to proceed. Russia and China stonewall on a unifying plan in the U.N. in favor of quick bilateral negotiations. But their efforts have yielded nothing and the continued delay means governments in the region — and beyond — can change facts on the ground with weapons shipments to both sides.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation is devolving quickly, with access to food, medical supplies, and other basic services worsening dramatically. More than 7,500 Syrians have already died — a number only expected to increase in the near term. Tracking displaced Syrians is very difficult but reports indicate approximately 500,000 have been directly affected by the conflict — with at least 25,000 having fled to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. The International Committee for the Red Cross has ostensibly reached an agreement with the regime for a daily 2-hour ceasefire but unfortunately in practice that has yet to bear fruit.

The U.N. Security Council seems to be losing steam on a potential draft resolution that would call for immediate humanitarian access. Public pleas from high level officials and backroom negotiations continue but concrete proposals seem few and far between. Worryingly, if the international community is unable to find common ground on Syria, the potential for ad-hoc, irresponsible, and even unhelpful policies mounts. In these situations, the government officials tend to shift their focus on efforts to end a humanitarian crisis — instead of the broader political situation — if only because it seems easier.

Read more

The number of anti-Muslim groups in the U.S. tripled in 2011 according to a new report released last week by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The dramatic increase in anti-Muslim groups, according to SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok, occured as part of a rapid growth in “radical right” groups, “fueled by superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.”

Anti-Muslim groups, which jumped from 10 groups in 2010 to 30 in 2011, resulted from an growing political space for Islamophobia as politicians and anti-Muslim activists stirred up controversy over a planned Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan.

While the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy pushed fringe anti-Muslim activists like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer into the spotlight, the nationwide anti-Muslim movement gained more momentum with the “anti-Shariah” campaigns in various state legislatures. Anti-Shariah bills, which would forbid the use of Islamic Shariah law in state courts — “a completely unnecessary change, given that the U.S. constitution already rules that out,” writes Potok — have now been introduced in over twenty states.

Indeed, the SPLC is correct to point out the growth of anti-Muslim groups across the country. But, as discussed in the Center for American Progress’ report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, many of the anti-Shariah initiatives are styled on model legislation drafted by anti-Muslim attorney and right-wing activist David Yerushalmi.

Potok also credits Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) March 2011 hearings on the radicalization of U.S. Muslims and a “swelling of truly vicious propaganda” as demonizing American Muslims.

The SPLC also found sizable growth in anti-gay, black-separatist, Christian Identity, Klu Klux Klan, nativist extremist, neo-confederate, racist skinhead, and white nationalist groups.

Last month, amid escalating violence over the burning of Qurans on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich said it was time for the United States military to end its mission there. “We are not going to fix Afghanistan. It is not possible,” he said.

The former House Speaker reiterated that sentiment after news broke this weekend that an American soldier had allegedly murdered 16 civilians in Afghanistan, including 9 children. And this morning on NBC, fellow GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum indicated that he’s leaning toward Gingrich’s view. “Given all of these additional problems,” he said, “we have to either make the decision to make a full commitment…or we have to decide to get out and probably get out sooner given the president’s decision to get out in 2014.”

But Afghan war weariness isn’t just limited to the campaign trail. Today on Frank Gaffney’s radio show, House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) — who last year called for a counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan — said the recent violence provides an opportunity for the U.S. to start “reducing the number” of troops there:

HUNTER: I think we’re getting into an untenable situation. I think we’re at the point — I don’t want to — ya know you look back at these things through history, through a matter of years and they’ll look different than they look right now with us being here.

But I will say this, if there is a time to possibly think about accelerating turning this into a counterterrorism mission, i’m not talking about leaving Afghanistan, but really reducing the number so that what we’re doing is killing the bad guys, this might be a time to look at that because…what you can’t do is be scared that the Afghan counterpart that you’re training, the Afghan major, is going to shoot you in the back the next time you turn around. That makes a counterinsurgency mission, with the number one goal of training the Afghans, our Afghan counterparts, the Afghan Army, if we can’t trust them to not shoot us in the back, that makes it pretty hard to train them.

Listen to the clip:

While Afghans also called on the U.S. to accelerate its withdrawal, the Obama administration said the massacre would not alter U.S. war plans.

A new Washington Post poll found public support for the war, even among Republicans, to be at at all time lows.

Turkish authorities today released four journalists imprisoned for alleged roles in anti-government plotting with a shadowy group of alleged conspirators known as Ergenekon.

Two of the four journalists, Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener, were held for 375 days, the Turkish daily Hurriyet reported. The release represents a reversal in the case:

The court stated the reason for release as “the probability of the crime’s qualification being subject to change” and “the time suspects spent under arrest.” [...]

The court had previously ruled against the release of prominent Şener and Şık, who have both remained behind bars since their arrest in March 2011 in connection with their alleged links to the Ergenekon clique.

The struggle between the government and the Ergenekon group, covered in depth last week by the New Yorker, pits a secular underground movement against the powerful government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his A.K. Party, known for Islamic piety and rejecting the strict secularism of Kemalism that bans public displays of religion. However, some claim that the imprisoned journalists had little to do with the alleged plots to topple the government. (A government spokesman denied improprieties to the New Yorker and said the judiciary was acting independently.)

Six journalists involved in the same case as the four released today remain in jail.

Turkey’s treatment of the press has drawn the ire of rights groups and Turkish allies like the U.S. — as well as some Turks. On December 20, 2011, Turkish authorities rounded up journalists in a crackdown on those allegedly tied to Kurdish separatist movements. The arrests came amid a larger pattern of going after journalists, detailed by writer Alia Malek that month in Foreign Policy magazine.

A large rally in Istanbul in January lamented that the verdict in the trial of an Armenian journalist’s death did not delve into organizations and powerful individuals suspected of involvement.

Just this month, the advocacy group the Committee to Protect Journalists complained that Erdoğan had mischaracterized their statistics to imply that Turkey had ample press freedom, noting: “Turkey is among the democratic countries with the highest number of journalists in prison.” Another group, Reporters Without Borders, complained that Şık and Şener had spent more than a year behind bars “for no reason.”

“According to the Journalists Union of Turkey, ninety-four reporters are currently imprisoned for doing their jobs,” wrote the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins, in a blog post accompanying his long magazine article. “Remember, too, that when you start arresting journalists, the freedom for those not in jail shrinks, too.”

On the CBS news magazine show 60 Minutes, former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan expanded on excerpts of his interview aired earlier this week and declared that an Israeli attack on Iran could spark a “regional war” and would only delay Iran’s nuclear program — with the latter assessment being shared by U.S.-based military analysts and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

In excerpts from the interview reported last week, Dagan called the Iranian regime “rational” and added that “an attack on Iran before you’re exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.” Last night, the full exchange revealed the thinking behind Dagan’s comments.

He expounded on the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran: that it could embolden the Islamic Republic to foment instability, and that some of Iran’s leaders “have said they want to destroy Israel.” But he added that the issue was “an international problem.” Citing President Obama’s stating “openly that the military option is on the table,” Dagan said he would “prefer that Americans will do it” — but only if it comes down to that. Dagan, whom CBS reporter Leslie Stahl said had a “44-year resume as an effective killing machine,” instead urged restraint and said there was “more time” to run the pressure and engagement tracks.

Dagan outlined the some of the costs and limited benefits of launching an attack now on Iran’s nuclear program:

DAGAN: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it…

It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.

[...]

STAHL: You said, “There’s no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it.”

DAGAN: Yes, I agree.

Watch a video of the exchange:

Dagan said that Iran is “maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western thinking, but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their action.” That assertion tracks with what the top U.S. military officer, top U.S. intelligence officer, and President Obama have said about the Iranian regime: that it operates on a cost-benefit analysis based on its interests, and can therefore be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Top U.S. intelligence and defense officials don’t think Iran has made a decision to pursue a bomb. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not conclude that Iran was building a bomb in its latest report on the program last month, despite warning about “serious concerns” that it is on a nuclear weapons track.

Last month, delivering a speech to the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama ruled out containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, warning that an Iranian bomb posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies, as well as the international non-proliferation regime. But his administration thinks a negotiated, diplomatic end to the crisis was the “best and most permanent way” to end the standoff.