By Marshall Fitz

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s vicious reaction to the democratic uprising in Syria has triggered a severe humanitarian crisis. Nearly everyone agrees that the escalating violence and the brutality of the Assad regime require an international response. The question, as always, is what type and level of response can the international community agree on that will achieve the goal of stemming the violence.

The United States, consistent with the president’s foreign policy principles, has worked with countries in the region to build pressure on Assad to end the violence. The Administration has also condemned the regime’s actions and urged the United Nations to impose harsh sanctions. To date, however, Russia and China, which have close economic ties to Syria, have blocked the full weight of the United Nations and the international diplomatic community from bearing down on Assad. And efforts to broker a ceasefire have failed as well.

Within the United States, the crisis has engendered disparate reactions by elected officials, signaling clear fault lines between Republicans and Democrats over the issue. House and Senate Democrats have focused on supporting the Obama administration’s efforts to squeeze the Assad regime using the weapons in our diplomatic arsenal.

But beyond what America does abroad, Democrats have called on the administration to protect Syrian nationals in the U.S. from being forced back into Assad’s reign of terror. Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Patrick Leahy (VT), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Robert Menendez (NJ), Ben Cardin (MD), and Bob Casey (PA) wrote to the President requesting that the administration “take all necessary steps to ensure that Syrian nationals present in the United States are not forced to return to Syria, including the designation of Syria for temporary protected status (TPS).” TPS allows the government to designate that people from certain countries facing conflict or disaster can apply for, as its name implies, a temporary legal status within the United States. This status allows residents who otherwise cannot return to their home country the freedom to know that they will not have to violate U.S. immigration laws to stay out of harm’s way.

What is inexplicable, however, is that not one Republican in Congress has agreed to sign onto the letter, or has come out in favor of granting TPS to Syrians in the U.S. So while they push for armed intervention abroad, they refuse to stand up for preventing unnecessary and unacceptable “collateral damage” at home. Joining their Democratic counterparts and the numerous other groups who have called for the protection of Syrian nationals presently in the United States should be a no-brainer.

We can debate whether or not military intervention is an appropriate strategy for our nation’s leaders. But whether to send foreign nationals directly back in to a violent conflict should not be up for debate at all. Requiring Syrian nationals to return to Assad’s murderous ambit from the United States is to throw their fates to the wind. It is not only unwise but immoral.
Granting those Syrian nationals TPS is the only sensible option. TPS would ensure that they are not forced into a Hobson’s choice between a return to terror or a violation of U.S. immigration laws. Republicans should halt their call to arms for long enough to embrace a policy that keeps innocent civilians out of harm’s way.

U.S. policy towards Iran has emerged as the most discussed foreign policy topic of the GOP presidential candidates and most of them have routinely engaged in — as President Obama put it recently — “loose talk of war” with the Islamic Republic. Indeed, polling released last night by CBS News and the New York Times suggests that Americans support a more militaristic approach in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. However, the poll makes assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program that are not supported by available evidence, assumes military action will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and overall, it fails to provide, as other polls have shown, the breadth of views that Americans have on this issue, particularly their support for diplomacy.

The poll found that 47 percent of respondents think the U.S. should support Israel launching “an attack on Iran to try to stop its nuclear weapons program” while 42 percent think the U.S. should “not get involved.”

But there is a problem with the question’s premise. It is currently unknown whether Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” for Israel to stop. The IAEA has warned about a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program but neither the IAEA nor reports from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense have said that Iran has made the decision to build a bomb. Much like the Quinnipiac poll last November, the pollsters casually refer to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” when no conclusive proof of a weapons program has been produced.

The new CBS/NYT poll also found that 51 percent favor “U.S. military action against Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon” while 36 percent opposed such action.

The question implicitly asks respondents to assume that military action against Iran would prevent the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon. But Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials are far from sharing that assumption. In a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan explained that a military strike could, at best, only delay Iran’s nuclear program. And Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, speaking at a press conference last year, agreed that “bombing would at most delay that program or derail it up to two or three years at most.”

But most importantly, the CBS/NYT poll results on Iran leave a false impression that a majority of Americans favor military action in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. But when other recent polls have presented options, respondents have favored diplomacy over war.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week found that a plurality of 49 percent, when presented with a scenario in which Iran “is close to developing a nuclear weapon,” think the U.S. should either “take no action unless Iran attacks the U.S. or its allies” (17 percent) or “take stronger diplomatic and economic action to put pressure on Iran but should take no military action” (32 percent). Forty-seven percent said take military action or support an Israeli attack. And a CNN poll released last month found that 60 percent of Americans support economic and diplomatic efforts to “get Iran to shut down its nuclear program” while only 17 percent favored military action. CAP recently charted the CNN poll’s results:

President Obama has warned about the dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, including undermining the nonproliferation regime, endangering regional security and risking a bomb falling into the hands of terrorists. But he also stressed just last weekend that “an opportunity still remains for diplomacy — backed by pressure — to succeed.”

The CBS/NYT poll did not ask if respondents supported diplomacy to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, but the poll found that 42 percent support Obama’s “handling of the situation in Iran,” while 39 percent opposed.

News last month that the New York Police Department had engaged in widespread surveillance of Muslims throughout New York City and parts of New Jersey was denounced by politicians and law enforcement professionals. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) said he didn’t know if the NYPD program was “born out of arrogance or paranoia,” Attorney General Eric Holder characterized the reports as “disturbing” and FBI Newark Special Agent in Charge Michael Ward warned that fallout from the surveillance program had made the FBI’s job harder than ever and damaged the Bureau’s relationships with Muslim communities in New Jersey.

But while the NYPD’s spying program has faced criticism, a new poll released today by Quinnipiac University finds that only 29 percent of New York City voters think the police have unfairly targeted Muslims to combat terrorism. Fifty-eight percent think the NYPD’s behavior has been appropriate and 13 percent didn’t know or had no answer. The poll did not ask voters specifically about the Muslim monitoring program.

The NYPD, which has enjoyed broad community support since September 11, 2001, receives high marks for its anti-terrorism work. Eighty-two percent of NYC voters think the police department has been effective in combating terrorism, a 5 percent increase since a February 9 poll conducted days after the scandal was first reported by the Associated Press.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) called for an investigation into the reported use of White House funds by the NYPD for its “religious and racial profiling activities.” But while reports on the NYPD’s spying on Muslim communities in the NYC area got widespread pickup in national and international news media, New York voters appear unlikely to hold public officials responsible.

The poll found that NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly — the city official ultimately responsible for overseeing the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims — has a 64 percent approval rating and 28 percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a mayoral candidate who promises to ask Kelly to continue as police commissioner. Nineteen percent of voters would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who, like Kelly, has refused to apologize for the surveillance program, enjoys a 67 – 27 percent approval rating for the way he is handling crime.

When the Iranian film A Separation won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film at this year’s Oscars, Iranian government media celebrated the win as a victory over Israel, which had a film nominated in the same category. Now, however, the hardliners who exercise control seem to have returned to their standard posture in opposition to Iran’s internationally-celebrated film industry.

According to RFE/RL’s Golnaz Esfandiari, a semi-official Iranian news service reported that a ceremony celebrating Asghar Farhadi’s win for A Separation was cancelled when authorities denied organizers a permit. The Center for Directors of Iranian Cinema and the High Council of Producers of Iranian Cinema planned to put on the event, and the directors group expressed regret in a statement that the ceremony was blocked:

Dear Asghar Farhadi, We intended to have a simple and friendly meeting to say ‘Thank you’ for the great achievement you brought Iran and Iranian cinema ahead of the [Iranian] New Year but the cultural custodians did not let us realize this. We’re sorry. Alas.

After delivering a speech that garnered wide attention at the Oscars, Farhadi returned to Iran, which he reportedly said he had no intention of moving away from.

The Oscar ceremony came in the same month that the Culture Ministry ordered the House of Cinema — an umbrella association of Iran’s film industry — to close its doors. The House of Cinema is a vaunted institution internationally and in Iran, whose films seemingly accrue ever-more-bountiful acclaim with each new release — even as the government strictly censors the industry.

Farhadi reportedly requested that the government reopen the House of Cinema. “That would make me happy more than anything else,” he said.