U.N. envoy Kofi Annan in Iran for Syria talks

[Class-Punk]

U.N. envoy Kofi Annan in Iran for Syria talks

By Ramin Mostaghim and Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times

July 9, 2012, 11:41 p.m.

TEHRAN — United Nations special envoy Kofi Annan was expected to meet with top Iranian officials Tuesday in the latest diplomatic offensive aimed at salvaging his faltering six-point peace plan to avert all-out civil war in Syria.

It was unclear whether Annan's visit here — immediately after his talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus — was a pro forma diplomatic gesture or signaled some new role for Iran in resolving the Syrian crisis.

Iran has been a staunch ally of Assad and has forcefully supported the Syrian president's assertions that the rebellion is a terrorist conspiracy hatched by the West and its Arab allies.

In a statement, Annan said he had come to Iran "to see how we can work together to help settle the situation in Syria."

The trip suggests that Annan is eager to have Tehran on board for any possible peace deal or transitional governing plan that may emerge for Syria. He has said repeatedly that Iran is an important regional power and should be involved in a resolution of the Syrian crisis.

But the Iranian leadership has given no public sign of being willing to jettison Assad. Syria is part of what Iran lauds as the "axis of resistance" against the United States and its allies. The Syrian government is widely reported to have helped facilitate weapons transfers to Iran's strategic ally, Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based militant group.

Syrian opposition groups have voiced considerable hostility toward both Iran and Hezbollah as supporters of Assad. And U.S. officials have looked askance at any Iranian involvement in international efforts to resolve the situation in Syria.

At the insistence of the U.S., Iran was left off the guest list of Annan's multinational "action group" meeting on Syria in Geneva late last month.

Participating nations in the Geneva session approved a communique outlining broad parameters for a "transitional" government that would, in theory, lead to greater democracy in Syria, where the Assad family has ruled for more than four decades.

Washington and its allies insist that Assad must go as part of any U.N.-approved transition governing plan for Syria. But Russia and China, which wield veto power in the U.N. Security Council, have refused to make Assad's departure a condition of any deal. Iran has publicly hewed to that position as well.

Russia asserts that it is not tied to Assad's continued rule but that the decision lies with the "Syrian people." Moscow this week is hosting meetings with various groups fighting Assad, including members of the Syrian National Council, the best-known opposition coalition.

In Iran, Annan is expected to hold talks Tuesday with Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi. It was not known whether he would also meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The former U.N. chief arrived here Monday after what he termed "a very candid and constructive" discussion with Assad in the Syrian capital.

In a statement, Annan said he and Assad "agreed on an approach" to help end the violence in Syria. The veteran diplomat did not elaborate, and it was unclear whether he regarded the meeting as some kind of a breakthrough in long-stalled peace efforts.

Annan did say he planned to share details with the "armed opposition," a reference to the many rebel militias fighting to oust Assad.

Annan said he "stressed the importance of moving ahead with a political dialogue, which the president accepts." It was unclear what type of dialogue he referred to. Assad refers to the rebels as "terrorists." And the rebels generally condemn Assad as a murderer.

The mutual animosity has made the prospects for meaningful dialogue very difficult after nearly 16 months of bloodshed.

Annan's stop in Damascus marked his third visit to strife-torn Syria. His peace plan calls for a truce, a withdrawal of troops from populated areas and a start toward some kind of a political resolution. Both sides have violated the terms of the cease-fire, which never took hold after being declared almost three months ago.

Violence has escalated in recent weeks and human rights monitors have voiced fears that the bloodshed is becoming increasingly sectarian in nature. The U.N. says the Syrian conflict has cost more than 10,000 lives since it began in March 2011.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm not seeing a peaceful solution, since as far as I can tell Assad isn't going to go anywhere, and the rebels aren't going to decide to stop fighting because the U.N says "hey stop fighting". The impression I have is that the rebels are pretty disorganized , which makes for a difficult negotiation. The only unifying thing between them seems to be that the all hate Assad's guts. Not that I am an expert on the subject, just reading the articles in Time and what I hear on the radio.

Man welcome to the middle east. People have no clue how good they have it in the west. Just cut this shit out already, damn. Unfortunately that's not gonna happen, the fighting started over there sometime around "there was a man named Abraham and he had two sons..." and hasn't stopped since. (joking to make a sardonic point)

this here is cute:

Annan said Assad proposed "building an approach from the ground up in some of the districts where we have extreme violence to try and contain the violence in those districts and, step by step, build up and end the violence across the country".

"yeah right guy":

Opposition leaders say there can be no peaceful transition unless Assad, who crushed popular protests from the moment they began, relinquishes power first. Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for 42 years, has ruled out leaving office in such a way.

[Class-Punk]

On top of what I read on Wikipedia about people being tortured, and soldiers being executed for not firing on civilians, I don't understand why the press considers 10,000+ dead people to not be a civil war.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Coffeenated

[Troy Spiral (13)]

On top of what I read on Wikipedia about people being tortured, and soldiers being executed for not firing on civilians, I don't understand why the press considers 10,000+ dead people to not be a civil war.

I think its a conflicted opinion. Time called this a civil war over a month ago, and keeps calling it that. But I read terms like "sectarian conflict" or "a regime at war with its people" which, I'm a little confused to.

I guess the traditional idea of civil war is at least one "large group" vs another "large group" but the "rebels" are so disorganized and localized all over the place, and (apparently) a large percentage of them are civil protesters not armed combatants. So that they don't really constitute a true threat to Assad with a direct armed conflict. So its being characterized more along the lines of China crushing small dissenting groups than a "war" I guess.