Notwithstanding the never-ending stream of all those based-on-reliable-intelligence-sources analyses, it is doubtful whether these same analysts would be willing to bet whatever is left of their 401K retirement accounts on their predictions that Israel will — or will not — attack Iranian nuclear sites this year.

And while research institutions have conducted interesting exercises to try to figure out the military, diplomatic and economic repercussions of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, the dictum that no military plan survives the contact with the enemy applies also here — in addition to the unintended consequences, blowbacks and the proverbial ‘black swans’ that are bound to show up even in the unlikely scenario under which Israel achieves all or most of its military goals.

If I can put my ten cents worth of strategic thinking, it seems to me that the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the American fiasco in Iraq helped tip the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the Levant in the direction of Iran and its allies. And that made it more likely that Israel and other Sunni Arab players that regard the Islamic Republic as a threat to their core national interests would use all their available resources to deprive Iran from having access to a military instrument that would allow it to formalize the new regional balance of power.

In his magisterial study of the 1812-1814 military campaigns in Europe, Russia Against Napoleon, historian Dominic Lieven suggests that while Tsar Alexander recognized that France would never be able to control Europe, he also concluded that the price of adhering to Napoleon’s Continental System would have undermined Russia’s position as a great power and that the Russians had no choice but to use the full power of their military to prevent that from happening.

My guess is that Israel, as well the Saudis and their Arab-Sunni allies, know that it would be possible to contain a nuclear Iran — in the same way that Russia could have embraced a cost-effective strategy to contain Napoleon’s France. But as long as Israeli leaders believe that they have a realistic option of blocking Iran’s nuclear program — and by extension, of setting major constraints on its ability to assert its position as a regional power — they will probably use their military capacity. The Saudis and their Gulf partners would probably cheer them behind close doors while publicly condemning them.

But as quite a few Israeli and American military experts have warned, a military strike on Iranian facilities would not achieve the declared Israeli goal of ending Iran’s alleged nuclear military program and the expected costs in terms of Israeli casualties could be very high.
Moreover, if Iran gives the green light to its Shiite Hezbollah allies in Lebanon to attack Israel and mobilize the Shiites in Iraq and the Persian Gulf to retaliate against American and Saudi targets, Tehran would be in a position to strengthen its regional power. The ayatollahs would also be able to exploit an Israeli attack to ignite Iranian nationalism and win support even from those Iranians who actually oppose the ruling clerics and would like to see them removed from power.

And while the Obama administration insists that it wants to apply peaceful means to get Iran to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, it is not clear that Washington and its Europeans allies would succeed in coming up with a diplomatic formula that would be acceptable to Iran and to Israel (and its supporters in Washington) or that the Americans would be able to prevent Israel from taking military action against Iran. Those of us who believe that an Israeli military attack would not serve American and Israeli interests and may actually help consolidate the power of Iran in the Middle East and that of the clerics in Teheran should also recognize that President Barack Obama — who probably agrees with these assumptions — is not in a position for a diplomatic confrontation with Israel during a presidential election year.

In fact, even in a non-election year, there will be very little incentive for Mr Obama to launch a creative diplomatic opening to Iran at a time when the Iranian leadership does not have the power to make a deal with Washington and is facing strong opposition at home from liberal and conservative forces alike (who, despite their differences, want Iran to acquire nuclear military capacity).

And at a time when the Middle East is going through the political turmoil of the Arab Spring and the US is engaged in a steady drawdown from its military occupation of Iraq, the shaky balance of power in the region would make it difficult for Washington to try to reach a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran. Such a move, coming in the aftermath of the collapse of the pro-American regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, would be perceived by the Saudis and other Arab-Sunni governments as another sign of US weakness.

If Israel decides to attack Iran, expect the Obama administration to provide it with logistical and other support, including by vetoing a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (unlike the Reagan administration which did join the Security Council’s censure of the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in Osirak in 1981).

Leaf from History

Yet, in the same way that the outcome of the 1973 Middle East War provided the then Nixon administration with an opportunity to protect and even strengthen its position in the Middle East, by renewing diplomatic relations with Egypt and working to bring peace between the Egyptians and the Israelis, the Obama administration could find itself in a position to advance its interests in the aftermath of an Israel-Iran military confrontation and an ensuing Middle Eastern war. A potential leading player in such a post-war scenario would be Turkey which until now has played a clever diplomatic game vis-a-vis Iran. In the most significant act of military cooperation between Washington and Ankara since 2003, Turkey agreed last year to station sophisticated American radars, part of a US-led system to defend Europe against a potential Iranian missile attack, and has expressed strong opposition against any move by Iran to acquire nuclear military weapons.

At the same time, the Turks have also been in the forefront of the diplomatic opposition against a military strike against Iran and, working with Brazil, it proposed a diplomatic deal to freeze Iranian uranium enrichment in exchange for ending the US-led sanctions against Iran.
And while Turkey is a member of NATO and remains a close military ally of Washington, its recent diplomatic assertiveness and its tensions with Israel coupled with its strong support for democratic activists in the Arab World, has strengthened its status in the Middle East and could allow it to play the role of grand mediator between the US and Iran in a post-war scenario.

Indeed, working with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, as well with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union, the Obama administration could propose the convening of a Middle East Conference chaired by Turkey that would bring together all the Arab states, Iran and Israel and that would set the stage for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the region (which would apply also to Iran as well as to Israel’s nuclear arsenal) and to a series of diplomatic initiatives to help stabilize Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and revitalize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process along the lines of the old Arab League proposal.

In that context, the US and Iran could also start repairing their diplomatic ties and Teheran would be encouraged to support any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is agreed on both sides. Not for the first time in history, the end of a war could help create the conditions for stability, cooperation and peace. It could be worth the try.

The remaining advocates of Bashar Assad are working overtime to portray a vision of a completely chaotic Middle East if and when the Alawite regime finally collapses. To predict chaos in the Middle East is a safe bet, so what’s really new in this case? The threat of chaos is almost automatically linked to another round of Arab-Israeli war, this time a Shi’ite-led Iranian-Hezbollah-Alawite desperate attack on Israel. Well, while the Israelis may naturally take the proper precautionary steps to deal with the day after Assad, they are far from showing any sign of undue worry or panic.

There is concern about the arsenal of chemical warheads that is in Syrian hands, some of it was transferred to Syria from Iraq on the eve of the American invasion of March 2003. The fear is that these warheads may find their way to Hezbollah and Iran. Surely not a pleasant prospect, but not one that cannot be dealt with. Even Hezbollah and the Iranians know that any attempt to use these weapons against Israel will be calamitous to them. The thought that either of the two will risk their very existence [in the case of Hezbollah], or most vital national interests [in the case of Iran], in support of the Alawite dictatorship is good for psychological warfare, but not in the real world. The same applies to the possibility of Iranian closure of the straits of Hormuz in support of Assad. Really? Not really…

They will not do that. All this is relevant to the Syrian situation and its implications, not to the much talked-about scenario of an Israeli or American attack against the Iranian nuclear program. This is clearly a totally different opera. The connection between a final collapse of the Assad regime and the Israeli and/or American calculus regarding Iran is possible but not inevitable. Sure, a Syrian participation in an Iranian retaliation against a strike is not something cherished by Israeli and American planners and policy makers, but this is becoming a remote possibility since the Syrian Army is in a stage of disintegration. General Mustafa Al-Sheikh, the highest ranking Syrian defector, predicted some days ago that the Syrian Army will disintegrate until the end of February. This may be wishful thinking in terms of the timing, but not the process, which is very obvious, leading in the not distant future to that exact outcome. So, if we move away from the Israeli angle of the situation, what else can happen affecting neighboring countries and overall regional stability? First, we can expect a massive refugee problem, Alawites trying to cross to Lebanon and Turkey. Also, possible mass flight out of Ba’athi functionaries, not just Alawites. Chaos in Syria will inevitably take its toll of neighboring Lebanon.

Tripoli, a Sunni city with a sizable Alawite minority, is likely to explode, and that will be part of a bigger issue in Lebanon, as the traditional anti-Assad forces there, mainly the Sunnis and some Christian Maronite factions, will find the new circumstances conducive to put pressure on Hezbollah, demanding it dismantle its arms. The not so old wounds created by the assassination of former PM Rafiq Hariri will reopen with ferocity. Whether all that will lead Lebanon towards chaos is not clear, though it’s likely. Sheikh Nasrallah, however, will find himself and Hezbollah engaged in a conflict with the majority of the Lebanese people. So, under these circumstances, a war initiated by him against Israel may seem a good diversionary exercise, but still is highly unlikely. The Sheikh will fight for his own survival inside Lebanon as his first priority.

Another country that will feel the brunt of the Assad collapse will be Iraq, where the current Sunni-Shi’i tension may be greatly exacerbated, as the former will be much encouraged by the rise of a new regime in Syria, most likely Sunni-dominated. Not for nothing, the Maliki government in Iraq is the most pro-Assad Arab government. They know why.

Then there is Turkey. But for the expected Alawite flight across the northwestern border, the Turks should be greatly preoccupied by the fallout of a collapse in Damascus on the northeast border, where over 2 million Syrian Kurds live, just waiting to rid themselves of the Assad yoke. An unruly Kurdish population on the Syrian side of the border will not be good news to the Turkish government and military having to deal with their own unruly Kurdish population.

The Turks may gain, however, many political dividends from their support to the Sunni Syrian rebels. A Sunni-dominated regime in Damascus is likely to be friendly to Ankara, and so Turkey’s overall regional standing may be significantly enhanced. Such a regime in Damascus will also be friendly to the Saudis, and a Turkish-Saudi rivalry over influence in Damascus of the future is highly likely. The big losers will be Iranians. They cannot expect a friendly Syrian government in the near future. The overall regional Sunni-Shi’i schism will be in display in the most dramatic way. But even that is not really new, as this schism has been a feature of Middle East Islamic reality since the killing of Imam Hussein in 680 A.D.

The downfall of Bashar Assad is behind the door. No Armageddon, but still a significant challenge to regional stability.

*Adjunct Professor, University of South Carolina
Huffington Post

The video showed travel documents of the captives, some of whom appeared to be speaking Farsi.

“I am Sajjad Amirian, a member the Revolutionary Guards of the Iranian armed forces. I am a member of the team in charge of cracking down on protesters in Syria and we receive our orders directly from the security division of the Syrian air force in Homs,” one of the captives said.

“I urge Mr. Khamenei to work on securing our release and return to our homes,” he added.

The armed Syrian opposition group, which called itself the “al-Farouq brigade of the Free Syrian Army,” also released a statement calling for Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamanei to “acknowledge in explicit and unambiguous words the existence of elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Syria in order to help the Assad’s regime in its crackdown on the Syrian people.”

The group also urged Khamanei to withdraw all Revolutionary Guard fighters from Syria, pledging that that it would then release all captive Iranian fighters.

The group said five of those abducted were military men working with the Syrian air force intelligence and two showed “civilian status” as employees in a power plant in Homs.

It added that all the seven captives entered Syria during the uprising and passports of the five military men did not contain visas, adding that it would soon release the two Iranians with civilian status.

Syrian opposition groups have previously accused Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah group of assisting forces of President Bashar al-Assad in their bloody crackdown on protesters.

The Syrian Revolutionary Coordination Union reported on Jan. 17 that a group of Hezbollah fighters had hit civilian protesters near Damascus with Russian-origin BM-21Grad rockets.

“The attack was coordinated with the forces of President Bashar Assad,” the Syrian opposition group said.

A source from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) told Al Arabiya on Jan. 16 that the “Iranian government has not yet interfered in situation in Syria,” but stressed that Tehran was committed to a joint defense treaty with Damascus.

“We and our brethren in Iraq and Lebanon are protecting Syria,” the source explained in a clear reference to Nouri al-Malikil’s government and Hezbollah, both allies of Iran.

Despite reports stating that so far the situation in Syria is “stable,” the IRGC, the source pointed out, is still worried of a division or a coup in the Syrian army.

According to American officials who believe the IRGC is taking part in the fight against Syrian opposition, Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of IRGC al-Quds Force, which specializes in operations outside Iran, was in Damascus this month.

Gen. Suleimani’s visit, they argued proved that Iran’s support for the Syrian regime includes the provision of arms and military equipment.

They added that they are sure Suleimani met with the most senior officials in the Syrian regime, including president Bashar al-Assad.

The joint defense treaty between Syria and Iran was signed in June 2006 by a former Syrian defense minister, Hassan Turkmani, and his Iranian counterpart, Mustafa Mohamed Najjar, in Tehran.

Al Arabiya

Photo: video grab from the internet shows alleged Iranian fighters abducted by a branch of the Free Syrian Army

For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of Al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home….

We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. …

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal — ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. …

We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration — and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. … Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. …

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the Al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America. From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan.… This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Kadafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators — a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings — men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty. …

Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs — and as long as I’m president, I intend to keep it that way.

LAT

March 14 opposition leaders demanded that Hezbollah clarify Suleimani’s statement.

Speaking at a conference on youth and the “Islamic Awakening” in Tehran , Suleimani said: “In reality, in south Lebanon and Iraq, the people are under the effect of the Islamic Republic’s way of practice and thinking.”

March 14 MP Antoine Zahra, a member of the Lebanese Forces bloc , said that he was not surprised by Suleimani’s statement about Iran’s influence in south Lebanon and Iraq. “But we were surprised by this frank declaration which involved embarrassment, especially for Hezbollah, which claims that it is putting Lebanon’s interest above its regional links and its ideological loyalty,” Zahra said in a statement adding Suleimani’s statement confirmed Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran.

March 14 MP Ammar Houri a member of the Future Movement bloc said in an interview with Al-Liwaa newspaper published Saturday that Hezbollah “needs to condemn” statements made by Suleimani, regarding South Lebanon.

Houri also called on the Lebanese government “to demand clarification” from Tehran regarding Suleimani’s remarks.
The MP added that this arrangement plunges Lebanon into “regional confrontations ”

Fares Soueid, coordinator of March 14 General Secretariat said the remarks violated Lebanon’s sovereignty and demanded that Hezbollah clarify them.

“The remarks by the commander of Al-Quds force have unmasked Hezbollah when he said that south Lebanon falls under Iran’s influence, while the party is seeking through its political activity to convince the Lebanese and the world that it is a Lebanese party that is working to achieve Lebanese goals,” Soueid said.

“Suleimani’s remarks are rejected because they clearly violate Lebanon’s sovereignty on the one hand, and put the residents of the south in great danger, turning them into a mailbox ,” Soueid added.

Mustafa Alloush, a former March 14 MP and Future Movement official, said Suleimani’s remarks have confirmed Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran.

Suleimani’s stance “has confirmed what we have been saying over the past years that Hezbollah is part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” Alloush said.

March 14 MP Ziad al-Qadiri , a member of the Future Movement bloc also condemned on Saturday Suleimani’s statement.

“If there is arrogance in the region then it is the Iranian arrogance that has become unbearable,” National News Agency (NNA) quoted Qadiri as saying.

The MP added that “a national stance needs to be taken against Iran’s attempt to [target] Lebanon’s independence… [and this] blatant attack on our sovereignty and national dignity needs to be renounced.”

Qadiri called on President Michel Slueiman and the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati to summon the Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Ghadanfar Roken Abadi to address Suleimani’s remarks.

Syria may let the monitors stay on after their mandate expires on Thursday, but Assad’s foes say the Arab League peace effort has failed and the U.N. Security Council should step in.

Arab foreign ministers, due to consider their next step at the weekend, are split over how to handle Syria, as is the Security Council, which has failed to adopt any position.

U.S. President Barack Obama has again called for a change of government, saying the violence in Syria was unacceptable.

British Prime Minister David Cameron accused Iran and Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hezbollah movement of helping to prop up Assad, whom he described as “a wretched tyrant.”

“Britain needs to lead the way in making sure we tighten the sanctions, the travel bans, the asset freezes, on Syria,” Cameron told parliament in London.

European Union foreign ministers are expected to discuss extra EU sanctions at a meeting on Monday.

Hundreds of killings on both sides have been reported since the Arab League sent observers last month to see whether Damascus was respecting a peace plan it accepted on November 2.

An Arab League source said Damascus would accept a one-month extension of the monitoring mission, but no broadening of its mandate. Critics say the observers have only provided Assad with diplomatic cover and more time to crush his opponents.

The opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said security forces killed a civilian in a village in the northwestern province of Idlib on Wednesday and the body of a youth detained nearly two weeks ago turned up in Homs.

It said a soldier had been killed and five wounded in clashes between troops and army deserters in the Idlib village of Khaf Takharim. Three rebel soldiers were also wounded.

Syria’s state news agency SANA said the strangled body of a veterinarian doctor was found in Homs bearing marks of torture four days after he was kidnapped by an “armed terrorist group.”

The United Nations said on December 13 that Assad’s security forces had killed more than 5,000 people since the unrest erupted in mid-March. Nine days later, the government said “armed terrorist groups” had killed 2,000 security personnel.

FEARS OF CIVIL WAR

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who has distanced himself from Damascus in recent months, said the Arab monitors had failed to staunch the bloodletting and that Syrians wanted freedom, like other Arabs who have revolted in the past year.

“I am more and more concerned about the possibility that Syria will plunge into more violence and … maybe civil war,” he told Reuters in an interview.

The Arab plan required Syria to halt the bloodshed, withdraw troops from cities, free detainees, provide access for the monitors and the media and open talks with opposition forces.

A tenuous truce was holding on Wednesday in Zabadani, near the Lebanese border, where troops had been fighting anti-Assad rebels, residents said. But heavy machinegun fire and explosions rocked the troubled city of Homs, an opposition group said.

“As of now there is no shelling and no gunfire. It is quiet. But the army is still surrounding the area,” said one Zabadani resident who gave her name as Rita.

Syrian forces backed by tanks attacked the hill resort on Friday in the biggest military offensive against insurgents since the Arab monitors began work on December 26.

Michel Kilo, a dissident Syrian writer who spent six years in jail, said the struggle in Syria was at an impasse.

“The regime can’t stop people protesting and the people can’t bring the regime down,” he told France’s Le Figaro daily, adding that Assad wanted to “bring in Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq and to threaten Gulf countries with a long war.”

Riad al-Asaad, a leader of the rebel Free Syrian Army, told Reuters on Tuesday the Arab League’s efforts had failed.

“We call on them to turn the issue over to the U.N. Security Council and we ask that the international community intervene because they are more capable of protecting Syrians at this stage than our Arab brothers,” the former army colonel said.

The Arab League source said China and Russia, which have blocked Security Council action so far, had urged President Assad to accept an extension of the monitoring mission to avert an escalation at the international level.

Qatar has proposed sending in Arab troops, an idea rejected by Syria and one likely to be resisted by its Arab allies.

Reuters

The apparent sectarian attack in southern Iraq yesterday cast a pall over the climax of a Shiite pilgrimage that draws hundreds of thousands from around the world.

The attack on Shiite devotees on the outskirts of the port city of Basra, which left 137 wounded, came with Iraq mired in a political row that has pitted the Shiite-led government against the main Sunni-backed bloc and stoked sectarian tensions less than a month after US forces completed their pullout.

The violence was the latest in a spate of attacks against Shiite pilgrims in the two weeks leading to the conclusion of Arbaeen, which marks 40 days after the Ashura anniversary commemorating the slaying of Imam Hussein, one of Shiite Islam’s most revered figures, by the armies of the caliph Yazid in 680 AD.

The bombing killed 53 people and wounded 137, according to Riyadh Abdulamir, head of Basra province’s health department. He said women and children were among the casualties, but did not give further details.

The death toll was the highest since attacks on Shiites in Baghdad and southern Iraq killed 70 people on December 5.

The attacker, who had been distributing cake and other food to pilgrims walking to the Khutwa Imam Ali, a site on the outskirts of Basra venerated by believers for its associations with one of the key figures of their faith, blew himself up near a security checkpoint.

“I saw a soldier take hold of the attacker to take him to the officer in charge,” said Kadhim Nasser, who was in charge of a nearby rest stop for pilgrims.

“As he was pushing him, something happened and the soldier fell to the ground.”

“Immediately, he blew himself up. When he did that, women and children were passing by. I saw dozens of women and children among the wounded,” said Mr Nasser.

Pilgrims in southern Iraq who cannot visit the central shrine city of Karbala to mark Arbaeen typically make the shorter trip to Khutwa Imam Ali, which lies around 12 kilometres west of Basra.

Hundreds of thousands did make it to Karbala yesterday amid massive security in face of the Sunni insurgent threat.

Officials said 15 million pilgrims have passed through the city in the past two weeks leading up to the end of the commemorations, including some 500,000 from outside Iraq.

Waves of mourners swamped Hussein’s shrine, parading their remorse for not defending him by beating their heads and chests in rituals of self-flagellation.

Sad songs blared from loudspeakers throughout the city and black flags fluttered alongside pictures of Hussein and his half-brother Imam Abbas, both of whom are buried in the city.

“Those people who are carrying out their attacks are idiots and stupid if they think they will stop us from walking to Karbala,” said 45-year-old Mehdi Hussein, who was on his way back to Baghdad after completing the rituals.

He said the example of Nazhan Faleh, a Sunni Arab army captain who gave his life to protect Shiite pilgrims from a suicide bomber earlier this month, had “strengthened our unity”.

Karbala governor Amal al-Din al-Har said while services had so far gone smoothly, the province’s power and road networks were overwhelmed by the sheer number of pilgrims.

Some 35,000 police and troops were deployed to provide security throughout the rituals, with a further two brigades added to protect pilgrims heading home, said Lieutenant General Othman al-Ghanimi, who commands forces across central Iraq.

Among them were 500 policewomen charging with assisting in checkpoint searches, as well as sonar detectors and sniffer dogs.

Lieutenant General Ghanimi said no incidents had been reported in Karbala.

Provincial health department spokesman Jamal Mehdi said that hospitals in the shrine city had treated 20,000 pilgrims but that there had been no deaths.

This year is the first time Iraqi troops have been solely charged with security for Arbaeen since the US-led invasion of 2003. American troops, who previously helped with surveillance and reconnaissance, completed their withdrawal from Iraq last month.

The seventh century battle near Karbala is at the heart of the historical division between Islam’s Sunni and Shiite sects.

Now-executed dictator Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime barred the vast majority of Ashura and Arbaeen commemorations.

Shiites make up around 15 per cent of Muslims worldwide. They represent the majority populations in Iraq, Iran and Bahrain and form significant communities in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia.

Couriermail

The coordinated attacks targeting Shias bore the hallmarks of Sunni insurgents linked to al-Qaida, although there was no immediate claim of responsibility.

The bombings began early in the morning when explosions struck two Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad, killing at least 27 people.

A few hours later, a suicide attack hit Shia pilgrims heading to the holy Shia city of Karbala, killing 45, said provincial official Quosay al-Abadi.

The explosions took place near Nasiriyah, about 320 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Hospital officials confirmed the causalities.

The blasts occurred in the run-up to Arbaeen, a Shia holy day which marks the end of 40 days of mourning that follow the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, a revered Shia figure.

Baghdad military spokesman Maj Gen Qassim al-Moussawi said the aim is “to create turmoil among the Iraqi people.”

IT

Mahmud Suleiman Haj Hamad, the former inspector of the Central Office of Financial Control in Syria, made the allegations during a press conference in Cairo after announcing his defection from the regime, according to the satellite network’s Arabic-language website.

“The Syrian regime receives financial support from Iraq and Iran,” said Hamad, without elaborating on details.

Damascus has spent some two billion Syrian pounds ($40 million, 31 million euros) on payments to local militias to suppress the anti-government protests that the UN says has left more than 5,000 people dead since March, he added.

In a separate statement to the Al-Arabiya satellite channel, Hamad said many Syrian officials want to defect but “they are too afraid.”

“Everyone wants to defect but they’re too worried about their families,” he said.

“Syrian government officials live in a kind of prison … No one can go anywhere without being accompanied by a member of the security services,” he added.
AFP, Agencies

At a televised celebration in Baghdad on Saturday, Nouri al-Maliki declared Dec. 31 a national holiday marking “a new dawn” in which Iraq would focus on rebuilding a nation shattered by nearly nine years of war.

“Your country has become free,” he said. “The faithful sons of Iraq have to preserve its sovereignty, unity and independence.”

The prime minister sought to credit Iraqis with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and made no mention of the role played by U.S. forces that invaded in March of 2003.

He said the U.S. withdrawal that was completed Dec. 18 was proof of the government’s ability to protect the country’s sovereignty.

“This success is for all Iraqis and not to a party, an ethnic group or a sect, but all Iraqis are partners in this splendid success,” he said.

The prime minister noted the huge losses suffered in a war that killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.

Al-Maliki acknowledged the security threats Iraq still faces and said he was determined to speed up the arming and training of Iraqi security forces.

The battle against terrorism and “the dark forces” is not over, the prime minister said, while adding: “We are confident of victory.”

Al-Maliki called on the Iraqi political leaders to work together but he made no mention of the political crisis gripping the country.

Sectarian tensions have surged in recent weeks after al-Maliki’s government issued an arrest warrant for the country’s top Sunni politician. Al-Maliki is also trying to get rid of his deputy prime minister, also a Sunni, leaving many Sunnis worried that they are being sidelined from power.

There have been other celebrations to mark the end of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Hundreds of Sunni Muslims rallied on Friday near the Abu Hanifa mosque, the main house of worship in the primarily Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah in northern Baghdad.

In Basra, the Badr organization, which is part of a key Iraqi Shiite political faction that was founded in Iran, celebrated the occasion by putting posters of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on the walls of government institutions and buildings.
USA today, AP