Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.

"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines," he said.

The proposal would mark a significant shift from Barack Obama's administration's policy of trying to keep the conflict a low-intensity one amid fears it might turn into a regional war. Obama is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of the rebels, to restrict the supply of weapons to small arms.

The Republican presidential candidate has made several attempts at establishing his credentials to be commander-in-chief but those speeches made little impact. Against the background of his win over Obama in last week's debate, the Romney campaign team is hoping this speech will be better received.

The speech is aimed at countering critics who say he has not had much to say so far about foreign policy and given little indication of the lines he would pursue as president.

He has a large team of foreign policy advisers – more than 30 – a mixture of realists and neo-conservatives. The aggressive language in the extracts of his speech released indicate he is leaning towards the neo-conservatives.

Romney's comments that will have the most bearing on the election campaign are his return to criticism of the Obama adminstration over its handling of the killings of the US ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans at the consultate in Benghazi, Libya.

"The attack on our consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long," Romney said.

"No, as the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the west."

Romney, after mishandling his initial response to the killings, is seeking to tap into widespread resentment and anger in the US, especially among conservatives, at what they regard as lack of gratitude among Libyans for American help during the Arab spring."

He accused Obama of failing to provide unequivocal support for the rebels in Syria. "I will work with our partners to identify and organise those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets."

He anticipated that the rebels will one day lead the country and the US should align itself with them, given the country's position at the heart of the Middle East.

He said he and Obama share a desire for a safer, freer and more prosperous Middle East.

"I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds," he said.

He warned Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapon capability and said the US had to back this up "through actions, not just words", and urged an expansion of the aircraft carrier presence in the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf.

On Afghanistan, over which Romney faced a lot of criticism for failing to mention during his Republican convention speech, he said he would not be tied to the deadline set by Obama for withdrawal by the end of 2014 and hinted he might delay it.

"The route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11," he said.

He expressed support for the US-proclaimed objective of creation of a Palestinian state.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Turkey and Syria have now been exchanging mortar fire for six consecutive days as Syria's civil war spills over the 550-mile long border it shares with Turkey. 

The Turkish military has been preparing for this.

In June, after Syria shot down a Turkish fighter jet, Turkey sent a convoy of more than 30 military vehicles carrying missile batteries, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft artillery, anti-aircraft guns, military ambulances as well as troops to the Syrian border. It's unclear what variety of weapons the Turks are using, but those links offer examples of each.

In late September Turkey's private Dogan news agency reported that a six-vehicle convoy moved three Howitzers and an anti-aircraft gun to the border as shells from Syria began landing in Turkish towns near the border.

A Howitzer is a large gun that fires heavy shells, relatively short distances, at pretty steep angles. Howitzer shells come in many different varieties, but are most commonly high explosive.

Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency reports that the military deployed additional tanks and missile defense systems to the Syrian border on Sunday. Last week Turkey's parliament authorized sending troops across the border. 

Bloomberg reports that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told state-run television on Oct. 6 that the five civilian deaths in a Turkish border town on Oct. 3 were caused by a D30 type, 122mm artillery shell, which is used by the Syrian army.

To give you an idea of what goes into firing these things, here's the Afghan National Army firing a 122mm Howitzer.

And to provide an idea of what this type of shell can do, here's a video of U.S. combat engineers destroying a 122 mm artillery round in Iraq—the shrapnel actually hits their Humvee:

A Turkish newspaper Milliyet speculated that Turkish F-16 warplanes may strike Syrian artillery batteries with if Syrian shells cause new casualties, according to Bloomberg.

SEE ALSO: These Are The Weapons Facing Any Country That Intervenes In Syria >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Last week we talked to Ross Wilson, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 2005 to 2008, who told us that there needs to be a stronger response from NATO as the chaos in Syria increasingly threatens regional peace and stability.

Wilson noted that world leaders have been wise to resist direct military intervention in Syria, but said that individual NATO members need to "make clear that [Turkey's] security is an alliance concern" and prepare for a situation in which "operation on the edges of Syria or along its borders becomes necessary."

That puts Russia, which has been telling NATO to stay away from Syria, in a tricky spot. Leaked Syrian intelligence revealed that a top Russian general was killed by opposition forces while advising Assad and that in June Russia ordered Syria to shoot down a Turkish jet.

We asked Wilson—who served as U.S. Consul General at the American embassy in Moscow, USSR from 1980 to 1982 as well as from 1987 to 1990—about the Russian element to the Syria conflict. Although he didn't "really have much to say" about the reports of Maj. Gen. Vladimir Kojève's death, he did offer some insight on what can be done in regards to Russia.

"Russia and the Soviet Union before it have long had a close association with Assad," Wilson told us. "In international affairs, you don't necessarily break with your friends lightly."

Wilson said that although Russia diplomats make accurate observations about the conflict – "the risks of intervention, the extremely complicated nature of Syrian society, the possibility of setting off even more problems than you were trying to fix" – they are making them from a perspective that "ignores where Syria is clearly headed."

Turkey has also had strong ties to Syria until relatively recently, Wilson noted, explaining that their relationship only began to deteriorate last spring and summer "in the context of rising violence and rising suppression of the Syrian people" after they felt that Assad gave them false assurances about steps that he would take to end the violence.

Russia has stuck with Assad, but Wilson notes that the Turks are "quite well-placed ... to persuade the Russians to support or at least go along with more robust measures to contain the instability coming out of Syria." 

Vladimir Putin is scheduled to travel to Turkey next week. Wilson called them "important talks," adding that they "represent the kind of engagement of Russians on the Syria problem that's necessary."

SEE ALSO: FORMER AMBASSADOR: NATO Needs To Help To 'Contain And Isolate' The Chaos In Syria >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Turkey's Yurt Newspaper is reporting that the mortar used in a deadly bombing of a Turkish border town was specific to NATO and given to Syrian rebels by Turkey, according to RT.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told state-run television on Oct. 6 that the five civilian deaths in a Turkish border town on Oct. 3 were caused by a D30 type, 122mm artillery shell, which is used by the Syrian army. 

But Yurt's Editor-in-Chief, Merdan Yanardag, cited "information from a reliable source" who claimed that the mortar was given to Turkey by NATO and subsequently passed along to rebels fighting to topple Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The incident has led to seven consecutive days of mortar exchanges between the former allies. 

Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African news wire, told RT that given Turkey's longtime relationship with NATO, it would be "unsurprising that this has happened."

“Ankara isn’t taking any military actions or contemplating any type of military strategy without being in full cooperation with NATO forces,” Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African news wire, told RT.

On Tuesday NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that NATO has "all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary," according to AP.

Also on Tuesday Turkey's Dogan news agency reported that at least 25 additional F-16 fighter jets were deployed to its southeast border late Monday.

On Sunday RT speculated that since the borders are under rebel control, Wednesday's shelling could be a deliberate effort to legitimize military intervention.

SEE ALSO: Professor Explains Why Aleppo And Damascus Are Doomed >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syrian President Assad has assumed personal command of Syrian forces and remains convinced his regime will prevail militarily, Samia Nakhoul of Reuters reports. 

After waves of defections and a rebel bombing in July that killed members of his inner circle and cost his brother a leg, Assad's supporters are now saying the 47-year-old president is self-confident and combative after taking over day-to-day leadership.

"He is no longer a president who depends on his team and directs through his aides," a pro-Syrian Lebanese politician with close ties to Assad told Reuters. "This is a fundamental change in Assad's thinking. Now he is involved in directing the battle."

The politician added the Iranians and the Russians may have helped the steady the daily operations and fighting nerve of Syrian forces, who are now focusing their superior firepower on essential areas—the capital Damascus, the commercial hub of Aleppo and the main roads.

It may not be going as well as Assad's supporters claim as Al-Jazeera reports that opposition fighters have taken control of Maarat al-Numan, a key town on the highway linking Damascus with Aleppo that serves as a pipeline for regime reinforcements headed to Aleppo.

An Arab official told Reuters that Assad's fate is almost irrelevant as the 18-month civil war has destroyed the fabric, as well as the infrastructure, of Syrian society. 

"Everybody is kind of hypnotized by the issue of whether Bashar is president or not, whether he is leaving or not," the Arab official said. "I fear the problem is much bigger than that. The problem is to see how Syria is going to survive, how the new Syria is going to be born."

The Lebanese politician said that "the following or six months will be essential in the battle and not like the past four or five months that have passed" because the U.S. election will be over while Iran and Russia will double down on their support for Assad to maintain their power roles in the region.

Despite Assad's newfound bravado, a Western diplomat told Reuters that something will happen "which causes the regime to fall. The fall of Damascus, a regime coup, or something else. I can't predict what the trigger will be but the regime will fall."

Meanwhile Turkey's Chief of Staff, General Necdet Ozel, said that the Turks "will respond with greater force" if Syria continues to send shells into Turkish territory, according to Jonathon Burch of Reuters.

On Tuesday NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that NATO has "all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary," according to the Associated Press.

SEE ALSO: Syria Is Looking At A Complete Free-For-All If The Assad Regime Falls >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Powerful Syrian Islamist brigades, frustrated by the increasingly fractured Free Syrian Army (FSA), are joining forces in an attempt to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Reuters reports. 

A citizen Deir Ezzor, a city in eastern Syria, told The Guardian that Islamist organizations "are the real fighters on the ground" while the FSA there  "are only issuing statements" and "stockpiling weapons in the countryside for reasons we don't understand."

The man added that there is little coordination among FSA groups because there is "big conflict between the defected officers about who should be the commanders." Consequently, people are now "more supportive of the jihadi organizations than the FSA."

The jihadists brigades have decided to come together to form the "Front to Liberate Syria" and one jihadist leader told Reuters they have "more than 40,000 fighters now and the numbers are growing."

Reuters estimates that a force of that size would represent roughly half of Assad's armed opponents. That is, the organized half.

This does not bode well for the Western and Gulf nations backing the opposition, which have been hedging their desire to see Assad fall with the prospect of funneling guns and heavy weapons directly into the hands of radical groups like al-Qaeda.

According to a March article from the Brookings Institution (h/t @Anon_Central), the way to oust Assad relies on a functional FSA:

A U.S. or allied-armed opposition could gain victory in two ways: the FSA could defeat Syria's armed forces and conquer the country, or it could continue to gain strength and dishearten regime stalwarts, leading to mass defections or even a coup that causes the regime to collapse. The FSA would then become the new Syrian army, subordinate to an elected Syrian government, with the mission of ensuring the country remains stable and has protected borders.

That is the hope. The current reality is that the Syrian opposition forces are weak and despite a year of violence are finding it difficult to unite. Sect, ethnicity, region, strategy, and leadership all divide the opposition. ... The FSA, for its part, is currently poorly armed, disorganized, and divided from the broader political opposition movement. ... Thus, if the United States were to embrace the policy of arming the opposition, a key initial step would be to make the opposition more coherent.

It seems that the U.S. has chosen to provide arms (via the CIA) and ground support (via Blackwater veterans) to the rebels, no matter how dysfunctional the FSA is or how chaotic the country becomes.

So at this point, success may lead to armed and organized brigades of jihadist rebels competing for influence in the power vacuum that Syria would become.

SEE ALSO:  Syria Is Looking At A Complete Free-For-All If The Assad Regime Falls >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia and Syria have condemned Turkey for forcing a civilian Syrian plane traveling from Moscow to Damascus to land in the Turkish capital last night on suspicions it was carrying military equipment.

Today Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the grounded Syrian plane was carrying Russian-made "military equipment and ammunition" destined for the Syrian defense ministry, Reuters reports. Erdogan then said Turkey was still examining the equipment and that "the necessary will follow," according to the Associated Press.

"Now the situation has changed. This is linked to the fact that Turkey has become too deeply involved in Syrian domestic affairs," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said in a statement reported by The New York Times. "I think tension will now develop in the relationship between Russia and Turkey.” 

Turkey scrambled two F-16s to intercept the Syrian Air jetliner and force it to land in Ankara.

Turkish media reported that authorities confiscated radio receivers, jammers, antennas and “equipment that are thought to be missile parts,” according to The AP.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry released a statement saying that the plane was not carrying any kind of weapons or prohibited goods and all contents on the plane were listed on the plane's manifest, Reuters reports.

Syrian Transport Minister Mahmoud Said was quoted by Lebanese media as saying the move amounted to "air piracy which contradicts civil aviation treaties."

An official at the Russian Embassy in Ankara said the cargo “was not of Russian origin," and a Russian arms exporter told Reuters that if they needed "to send any kind of military-technical equipment or arms it would have been carried out properly and not through any illegal means."

Moscow then accused Turkey of endangering the lives of Russian passengers and Syria added that the passengers were in a "very bad psychological state," according to The Guardian. 

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu countered that the cargo was "illegal" and "objectionable" and "should have been reported," BBC reports.  

SEE ALSO: FORMER AMBASSADOR: Russia Is Caught On The Losing Side In The Syrian Civil War >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

On Tuesday, Russia and Iraq agreed on a $4.2 billion arms deal, making Russia the second-largest arms dealer to the Middle Eastern nation behind the United States.

Thirty years ago, the decision would have been seen in the United States as a grave defeat, a Russian move in the zero-sum, ideological battle for spheres of influence that defined the Cold War. Even today, Russia seen by many a major world influence and geopolitical counterweight to the United States, including Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

But what's the modern reality?

The U.S. response to the Iraq deal seems relatively aloof at its most negative, and implicitly encouraging at its most positive. 

Here's what the State Department had to say at Tuesday's press briefing:

QUESTION:  I wonder if you could comment on the military sale deal with – between Iraq and Russia. Because last week I asked about the – what kind of sales are in the pipeline and why they are taking so long. I’m talking about the FMF – the military sales to Iraq program, the American military sale. But it seems that they are taking a step ahead and concluding a deal with Russia.

[State Department Spokesperson Victoria] Nuland: Well, first of all, with regard to U.S.-Iraqi military support, Iraq overall has initiated some 467 foreign military sales cases with the United States. If all of these go forward, it will be worth over $12.3 billion, so obviously our own military support relationship with Iraq is very broad and very deep.

The U.S. embassy in Iraq has thrown its support behind, "efforts to purchase equipment to meet [Iraq's] legitimate defense needs." However, the aforementioned quote was in reference to U.S. arms sales.

When asked about the agreement by Business Insider Deputy Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Matthew Rojansky said he wasn't initially surprised, classifying Russia's strategy towards the Middle East "opportunistic, at best:"

"I think Putin himself is realistic — he’s a businessman, first and foremost. And I regard him much more as a Russian CEO than a soviet-style party leader."

He added (emphasis is ours):

"[Putin's] interest in spheres of influence, if you use that term, is much closer to home — it’s about the near-abroad and the former Soviet countries that are on Russia’s borders. It’s very much not about playing geopolitical chess in the Middle East. He sees that as a losing proposition."

That position appears to extent towards other Middle Eastern nations too. With regards to Syria, Russia's stance towards the Assad regime is not as unwavering as it seems. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted in March:

"We are not defending Assad or his family or his clan or even his regime, which certainly needs to be reformed. Rather we are defending a philosophy of international relations and the Syrian people’s right to solve their own problems. Russia is ready to mediate the peace process. We support national dialogue and a diplomatic solution."

It's not that Russia is standing in the way of the United States — it is that Russia is in some ways more careful about picking sides with the United States.

"What they’ve done with Assad," according to Rojansky, "is they’ve picked a clear red line. But even that line may waver and change as opportunities arise — it’s very opportunistic I think is the key."

And Iran?

Well, Russia has an interest in keeping the quarrel going between the United States and Iran. The Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour notes that the tension between the two states "is expedient for Russia in that it inhibits Iran, which has the second-largest reserves of natural gas after Russia, from competing in European gas markets," even if they privately fear Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

Iranian public opinion of Russia is not as overwhelming as one might think in light of the strategic cooperation between the two states. During the 2009 uprisings in Tehran, Friday prayer leaders were encouraging people to chant "Death to America; death to Israel."

Their response?

"Death to China, death to Russia."

SEE ALSO: This Plane Incident Changes Everything Between Turkey And Russia >

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria banned Turkish passenger flights from its airspace from Sunday in a retaliatory move after Turkey confiscated a cargo of what Russia said was radar equipment en route from Moscow to Damascus last week.

The reprisal, just weeks before the annual hajj when thousands of Turkish pilgrims head to the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia on a route that would normally take them through Syrian airspace, came despite a flurry of diplomacy on Saturday intended to calm soaring tensions between the neighbours.

Syria accuses Turkey of channeling arms from Gulf Arab states to rebels fighting its troops, who have been under mounting pressure across large swathes of the north, including second city Aleppo.

The flight ban went into force from midnight (2100 GMT Saturday) "in accordance with the principle of reciprocity", SANA state news agency said, although Turkey has said its airspace remains open to Syrian civilian flights.

Since last Wednesday, Turkey had warned its airlines to avoid Syrian airspace for fear of retaliation for that day's interception of the Syrian Air flight by Turkish jets on the allegation it was carrying military equipment.

The United States backed its NATO ally's confiscation of what Russia said was radar spare parts, saying they constituted "serious military equipment".

Russia, traditional ally of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, insisted the cargo broke no international rules.

Turkey has taken an increasingly strident line towards its southern neighbour since a shell fired from the Syrian side of the border killed five of its nationals on October 3.

It has since repeatedly retaliated for cross-border fire, prompting growing UN concern and a flurry of diplomatic contacts.

After talks with his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle on Saturday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reiterated that Ankara would not tolerate any further border incidents.

"We will hit back without hesitation if we believe Turkey's national security is in danger," he said.

Westerwelle renewed Germany's support for its NATO ally while at the same time appealing for restraint. "We are on Turkey's side but we also call on Turkey to show moderation," he said.

Peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, a veteran Algerian diplomat who is the envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League, headed to Iran, the Syria government's closest ally, after holding talks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading backers of the opposition.

Brahimi is on his second tour of the region after taking up his post at the beginning of September, replacing former UN chief Kofi Annan who quit complaining that he had not received sufficient support from the major powers to see through his abortive April peace plan.

On the ground, fierce fighting raged between the army and rebel fighters on the main highway between Damascus and Aleppo.

The rebels' capture of the strategic crossroads town of Maaret al-Numan last Tuesday has threatened the army's ability to reinforce its beleaguered troops in the northern metropolis.

One rebel fighter was killed and 18 wounded as fighting raged for a second day around the nearby Wadi Daif base, which remains in government hands, the Syrian Observatory for Human Right said.

Air strikes targeted the rebels in the village of Marshurin and in Hish in the same region, the Britain-based watchdog added.

The clashes came after fierce fighting in the heart of Aleppo on Saturday which saw rebels attack army positions inside the city's landmark Umayyad Mosque for the second time in a week.

The commercial capital has been the key battleground of the 19-month conflict since mid-July.

Its ancient covered market or souk has also been damaged in the fighting as rebels and troops have exchanged mortar and grenade fire in the UNESCO-listed Old City.

Rebels entered the mosque complex by planting an explosive device at the southern entrance,

Nationwide at least 181 people were killed on Saturday -- 71 civilians, 63 soldiers and 47 rebels, according to the Observatory's figures.

More than 33,000 people have now been killed since the uprising against Assad's rule erupted in March last year, the watchdog says.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian regime stands accused once again of using controversial clusterbombs in its fight against rebel forces.

Cluster bombs are not only effective at devastating troops across a patch of battlefield, they're also handy at rendering land useless to the enemy.

They do this by scattering tiny bombs atop the surface of the earth. Whether targeting people, or equipment, the result can be the same.

In this case, the patch of earth is largely a highway running through Maarat al-Numan, and the people are residents of Taftanaz and Tamane`a along with insurgents using the road.

The highway is a key passage joining conflict-heavy Homs and Aleppo, with Maaret al-Numan nearly smack-dab in the middle.

With no air support, access to that road is critical to the rebels success, but cluster-bombing it seems an interesting choice by the Assad regime.

Cluster munitions work like this:

A plane or helicopter drops a typical bomb shaped object from the air, basically a dispenser, that's filled with up to 2,000 'bomblets' referred to in the sterilizing vernacular of war as — subminitions.

If the video below is accurate, the subminitions dropped into Syria are anti-materiel (AMAT) bomblets designed to take out 'hard' targets like vehicles and equipment. You can tell by the stabilizers at their tails that were buoyed by a small parachute as they fell. 

These cluster bombs are designed to explode on impact when they strike the ground, or whatever target they were intended for.

While they still litter the earth posing danger to residents, particularly curious children, they are not necessarily designed to target people like other models.

Anti-Personnel (APERS) cluster bombs are specifically designed to do just that, and scatter entire areas with small, round bomblets, which act as land mines that will lay fallow until a bit of pressure is applied.

Most subminitions can be rigged with self-destruct fuses that can vary from a couple hours to several days; so it will be a sign of the regime's intentions, if those bomblets on the ground now have disarmed themselves or continue to injure people in the days ahead.

If the design was to keep the north-south highway unusable, Assad may be essentially trying to take out chunks of the thoroughfare, while littering it with bomblets that will likely detonate beneath the pressure of a vehicle tire.

Either way, this most recent clusterbomb attack seems to imply the loss of Maarat al-Numan was felt closely by the regime, and it has little intention of backing down any time soon.

For additional kicks and giggles, Ha'aretz reports:

[Human Rights Watch] HRW previously reported Syrian use of cluster bombs, which have been banned by most countries, in July and August but the renewed strikes indicate the government's determination to regain strategic control in the northwest.

Towns targeted included Maarat, Tamanea, Taftanaz and al-Tah. Cluster bombs were also used in other areas in Homs, Aleppo and Lattakia provinces as well as near Damascus, the rights group said.

Below is a video of the dropped clusterbombs , posted by HRW:

Now: Check out the rest of Syria's massive arsenal >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Most of the weapons being sent from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Syrian rebels are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists as opposed to secular opposition groups that the West wants to strengthen, American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats told David Sanger of the New York Times.   

In 2011 the U.S. sold $33.4 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and $1.7 billion to Qatar as sales tripled to a record high and accounted for nearly 78 percent of all global arms sales.

So although the U.S. is not sending arms directly to rebels, most of the weapons being sent by Saudi Arabia and Qatar were purchased from the U.S. and are being funneled to the opposition by the CIA.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” one American official familiar with the situation told the New York Times.

But if the U.S. may not have much of a choice if it wants to see Assad fall because a pro-opposition Middle Eastern diplomat told Senger that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has "failed to assemble a clear military plan, [lacks] a coherent blueprint for governing Syria afterward if the Assad government fell, and [quarrels] too often among themselves" while the Islamist rebel brigades are the best rebel fighters and recently decided to join forces.

A March article by the Brookings Institution noted that "a key step" for U.S. or allied-armed opposition victory would be to make the opposition "more coherent" before arming them.

Without that initial coherence, arming the opposition has led to reports of "Islamist rebels buying weapons in large quantities and then burying them in caches, to be used after the collapse of the Assad government," as Sanger notes.

Consequently, as we noted last week and American officials now acknowledge, the successful toppling of Assad may lead to armed and organized brigades of jihadist rebels competing for influence in the power vacuum that Syria would become.

SEE ALSO: Syria Is Looking At A Complete Free-For-All If The Assad Regime Falls >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Greg Scoblete at RCW takes us to task for advocating arming a faction among the Syrian militia as an advisable course of action.

This is a common lament, both among pro-interventionist Western commentators and among Syrian rebel forces themselves.

But how true is it? Let’s presume the U.S. arms the rebels – but only the Good Ones Who Share Our Values – and they’re able to fight more effectively against Assad’s forces.

Will the jihadists decide to quit the battlefield? Why would they do that?

Are we supposed to assume that the Syrian forces fighting the Assad regime will instantly turn their guns on the jihadists in their midst if and when they succeed in overthrowing Assad? Won’t they have bigger fish to fry at that point?

These are valid concerns. U.S. support for rebels in Syria is very unlikely to produce a post-war Syrian government that we like. In fact, what we need to understand in all of this that we aren’t going to like the new Syrian government very much. It’s probably going to be less free, more anti-Israel, and significantly more Islamist than we would want. It’s likely that there will be revenge killings and even bloodbaths along the way.

Syria is a lot like Lebanon’s bigger, uglier, and meaner brother. The ethnic and religious tensions that produced decades of civil war in Lebanon are also present in Syria. The Assad dictatorship imposed a rigid order on Syria, but as the dictatorship crumbles the divisions are coming back into public view. Unless we were willing to put tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of troops in Syria and keep them there for a long time, often fighting bad guys and getting attacked by suicide bombers, we don’t stand much chance of building and orderly and stable society there, much less an open and free one.

I don’t think the United States has the will to do this right now, and beyond pure humanitarian grounds it is hard to see that such a course would serve the national interest. However, even if our Syria policy isn’t about achieving something good, we should still be thinking about what we can do that reduces the chances of things getting catastrophically worse.

The worst case for the United States in a post-Assad Syria would be that groups linked to al-Qaeda become dominant players either in the country’s government as a whole or in control of significant regions in a country that fragments. Such groups would be nests of terrorists acting to destabilize not only Syria itself but Iraq, Lebanon, and the wider Middle East. They would certainly be active in Russia and, through extensive ties with the Arab diaspora in Europe, add considerably to the security headaches the West faces. They would be actively working to destabilize governments across the Arab world as well and providing shelter, training, and arms to terrorists from all over. In a worst, worst case scenario, they get hold of Assad’s WMD stockpiles and start passing them out to their friends.

The United States does not want any of this to happen. We could not long stand idly by if it did.

Aiding the less ugly, less bad guys in the Syrian resistance, and even finding a few actual good guys to support, isn’t about installing a pro-American government in post civil war Syria. It’s about minimizing the prospects for a worst-case scenario—by shortening the era of conflict and so, hopefully, reducing the radicalization of the population and limiting the prospects that Syrian society as a whole will descend into all-out chaotic massacres and civil conflict. And it’s about making sure that other people in Syria, unsavory on other grounds as they may be, who don’t like al-Qaeda type groups and don’t want them to establish a permanent presence in the country, have enough guns and ammunition to get their way.

This is not a plan to edge the United States toward military engagement in Syria; it is aimed at reducing the chance that American forces will need to get involved. And, by accelerating the overthrow of Assad, it’s also a strategy for putting more pressure on Iran, pressure that represents our best hope of avoiding war with the mullahs as well. The whole point here is to keep our troops at home.

If the United States hadn’t gotten itself distracted by the ill-considered intervention in Libya, we might have acted in Syria at an earlier stage, when there were some better options on the table. But we are past that now; the White House humanitarians did what humanitarians often do—inadvertently promoting a worse disaster in one place (in this case, Syria) by failing to integrate their humanitarian impulses (in Libya) with strategic reflection. This kind of strategic incompetence is the greatest single flaw in the humanitarian approach to foreign policy. It has led to untold misery in the past and will likely lead to many more bloodbaths in the future. Unfortunately, warm hearted fuzzy brained humanitarianism is one of the world’s greatest killers.

The situation in Syria now isn’t about doing good or preventing bloodbaths. The bloodbath is here and there is not a lot of good that can be done within the range of our capacity and will. This is now all about trying to prevent the worst rather than promoting the best. It means arming people, many of whom we don’t like and who don’t like us, to reduce the likelihood of a dangerous increase in the power of people who consider themselves at war with us and our friends.

One option people are talking about is to assist defected Syrian officers in a military council to oversee the rebels. Manaf Tlass and his colleagues might be able to establish some kind of unified command that could funnel weapons from the Gulf to certain rebel brigades, marginalize the terrorists, and, if Assad falls, maintain some semblance of order to prevent even worse chaos and bloodbath from erupting across the country. We don’t have the intel here at Via Meadia that would let us judge whether Tlass and company are our best bet—but something like this may need to be tried.

There is nothing nice or pretty about this, and we don’t expect much good to come out of it. But bad policy decisions in the past combine with the increasingly dangerous situation on the ground to paint us in a corner where we don’t have much choice.

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria's rebellion may have just put themselves in the best possible to topple President Bashar al-Assad to date.

Reuters reports that the increasingly divided and disparate rebel groups have agreed upon joint leadership in order to overthrow Assad. 

"The agreement has been reached, they only need to sign it now," according to one rebel source.

If true (the rebels do have a history of publishing false reports), the alliance is a huge milestone for the opposition. For months, the international community backing the rebels have urged them and overlook the myriad of political and religious beliefs they hold in order to concentrate on overthrowing Assad.

In July, the Financial Times published an article entitled "Rebel forces must unite for Syria's sake," in which it claimed:

The Syrian insurgents are becoming an effective force, setting up councils in various provinces and co-ordinating with political activists on the ground. But there are also rivalries and friction among them, especially as some of the more radical groups are said to receive more regular funding.

FT also cited the US-based Institute for the Study of War, which added: “If these disparate sources of support do not become organized more responsibly, they may help defeat Assad but destroy Syria in the process."

The rivalries between the various rebel groups have significantly stymied the fight against the current regime. In September a senior member of the Syrian opposition who lives in Europe told Haaretz in September that "the rivalry between the array of anti-Assad groups is preventing the opposition from bringing about the president's fall more quickly."

By coming together, the rebels may be able to pool what resources they have left and inspire much of the international community that has lost faith in the opposition.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Two members of the Assad family exchanged gunfire in a cafe in the mountainous town where Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's father was born and buried, Liz Sly of the Washington Post reports.

The confrontation—along with the regime's detainment of a prominent Alawite activist—reflects the weakening cohesion within the Alawite community, which comprises 2.5 million people concentrated in Latakia region on Syria's northwestern coast.

“The Alawites are critical for Assad’s survival. He wouldn’t survive a day without their complete support, so the fact that we are seeing tensions is significant,” Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, told the Post. “Most Alawites are upset with the regime, and they feel Assad is dragging their sect into a conflict they can’t eventually win.”

Syria scholar Joshua Landis, whose wife is Alawite, told the Post that the clash occurred when Mohammed al-Assad—known as the “Sheik of the Mountain” for his role as the local Assad family enforcer—pulled his gun after being insulted by another Assad relative named Sakher Osman.

Both men and as many as six others were injured in the ensuing shootout, according to the Post. Landis, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma, said President Assad intervened in the dispute to calm tempers and restore order.

The Alawite sect is a offshoot of Shiite Islam that endured centuries of persecution under Sunni rule until Assad's father, Hafez, seized power in 1970 and stacked the country's elite and security forces with Alawites. The population has remained loyal to Bashar Assad out of loyalty and a fear that they would be ostracized in the free-for-all that would likely follow Assad's downfall. 

SEE ALSO: Professor Landis Explains Why Aleppo And Damascus Are Doomed >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. 

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died." 

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In any case, the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

SEE ALSO: Don't Believe What Politicians Saying About The Benghazi Attack >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Gen. Wissam al-Hassan, the head of Lebanon’s national police intelligence unit who was killed in a car bombing last week, gave The Washington Post a grim and prophetic assessment of the Syrian civil war on a visit to the U.S. in late August.

From The Post:

Dictator Bashar al-Assad, he told us, still had a chance to outlast the rebellion against him, though “it will take a couple of years and more than 100,000 killed.” For the Assad regime, he added, “one of the solutions of the Syrian conflict is to move it outside Syria. He survives by making it a regional conflict.”

Top Lebanese officials accused Assad of doing just that when a car exploded in Beirut and killed Hassan, who in August exposed a plot of a pro-Assad former Lebanese minister that involved smuggling explosives into the country for a series of bombings.

Hassan was revered in Lebanon for leading the investigation that uncovered the alleged role by the Shiite group Hezbollah—which is closely ally to Assad—in the assassination of Sunni leader Saad Hariri’s father in 2005.

The Post adds that Hassan warned them that a drawn out conflict would lead “to sectarian war and a destroyed civil society” with the Syrian Army disintegrating "and after its collapse there will be chaos.”

SEE ALSO: Syria Is Looking At A Complete Free-For-All If The Assad Regime Falls >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian ceasefire 'agreement' was reported with optimism—and there was a lull in the fighting as it went into effect today at dawn—but it's fallen apart since then.

In the morning there were there were heavy clashes in the north. and Reuters reports that a Damascus car bomb has shattered the truce."

One activist groups has counted at least 110 casualties around the country today (as of two hours ago).

Considering that past ceasefire efforts have collapsed as both sides refused to lay down their arms, it's no wonder this temporary truce was destined to fail. Here's eight reasons why::

1. The two sides have been fighting for 19 months

This civil war has been going on for 19 months. It's a bit naive to think that a four-day truce—which has no stated plans for its aftermath—is going to factor into the big picture.

Last year during Eid al-Adha (which fell on Nov. 6-7) Syrian troops descended on a defiant neighborhood in Homs, kicking in doors and making arrests following weeks of violence.

2. It's unmonitored

The truce—proposed by U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and endorsed by the Security Council—was set for only the four days of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, but there were no arrangements for monitoring compliance.

3. Assad's government was quick to accept the loose truce

Assad is commanding a well-equipped, entrenched force that has everything to gain from a ceasefire during an insurrection. 

Assad can go pray while Syrian Army command can claim that it "implemented ceasefire, but has responded to rebel "violations" across the country."

Note: It was Russia reassured the world that Bashar al-Assad's regime was going to accept the UN ceasefire proposal. 

4. There was no cohesive agreement from the rebels, because they aren't cohesive

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) indicated that it would recognize the holiday, but it has been plagued by disorganization and infighting while radical jihadist elements have become the most organized rebel force. The Associated Press reports that the first serious battle on Friday involved the radical Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra, which "rejected the cease-fire from the outset."

5. There is a grinding battle going on in Aleppo

Jabhat al-Nusra stormed a Syrian military base  outside of, Maaret al-Numan, a strategic town on the road to the northern city of Aleppo. In the city the two sides have been engaging in street-by-street urban warfare for weeks with neither side able to score a decisive victory, AP reports.

6. The tie goes to the defender

The strategic advantage of a ceasefire always goes to the regime. They are well-supplied and centralized. Every advance during every day means quite a bit to a rebel force without enough food or bullets while every delay is an opportunity for the regime to further consolidate, regroup and make a case for the continuance of the status quo. 

7. Religious ceasefires rarely last, in fact, they're often used for surprise attacks

Yom Kippur War anyone?

Religious holidays, especially Ramadan, are more often a pretense than a recognized peacetime.   Iraqis fought over most of the Ramadan's in the Iraq War, Palestinians launched the Intifada during Ramadan, the Indian government suggested a ceasefire with Kashmir in observance of Ramadan which never got off the ground.

The Syrian rebels aren't stupid. They know that the Assad government could possibly use the opportunity to catch them by surprise.

8. This has been no holds barred from the beginning

Why would the rebels trust the guy who has been massacring his own people for more than a year? Why would the regime trust the dissidents who have committed atrocities as well and have clearly been infiltrated by al-Qaeda?

Nevertheless, U.S. diplomat Daniel Serwer said Lakhdar Brahimi wasn't wrong to try and should keep on trying because any temporary truce gives relative moderates on both sides an opportunity to reassert themselves.

SEE ALSO: Professor Explains Why Aleppo And Damascus Are Doomed >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The war has spread to a fertile region east of Aleppo

WOMEN, their faces wrapped in scarves to protect them from the sun, bend over in the fields to pick cotton. Flocks of sheep kick up dust from tilled wheat fields, as young boys herd them along. Here in Raqqa province, east of Aleppo, life has gone on largely as normal for the last 19 months as the rest of Syria has descended into bloodshed. But since rebels seized the border town of Tal Abyad last month, the province has turned into a budding battleground.

"We are going to push down to the city of Raqqa, and this will weaken the regime’s control of Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor," explains Abu Hassan, a member of the Raqqa Revolutionary Military Council, which is based in a pink-walled former school in Tal Abyad. Every day the rebels, led by the Farouq brigade, launch attacks. One night they destroy a regime checkpoint, the next they capture the loyalist owner of a petrol-station and his militia. And every day volleys of gunfire ring out as felled fighters and civilians killed by shelling are ferried back to wailing mothers and stoic fathers in their villages.

East of Aleppo, far from the main arterial roads used by the regime to resupply its forces, Raqqa province may appear to have little strategic importance. But it is crucial to the regime’s survival, for it is part of the Jazeera region stretching across Raqqa into Hasaka and Deir ez-Zor in the east, which is Syria’s breadbasket.

Sitting in a remote mud house, Nizar Hamza, the leader of a Bedouin rebel group, explains how his ragtag fighters try to guard the silos and fields and sometimes hustle sheep so the people can be fed. The local civilian council distributes harvested wheat. Yet for now the regime still controls much of the land. Lorries, accompanied by vehicles mounted with guns, and with helicopters overhead, easily pass through to get the grain.

In their battle for Raqqa, the opposition fighters face more than just the resistance of the regime. As everywhere else in the country, Raqqa’s people have their own grievances. Here the Baathist regime confiscated land and redistributed it. Poverty is widespread. Drought pushed thousands off their land. The region’s Kurds have long been sidelined. But protests have been small and few. Some locals have benefited from the regime. It won the loyalty of some tribes by currying their favour over many years and by paying off tribal leaders, while building up alternative sheikhs to weaken the control of the more obstreperous traditional leaders. Tribal authority has crumbled during the revolution in the past year, as members argue within the tribe over how best to react.

Fear abounds, too. "The security forces have always been so strong here that many people just don’t believe Assad will go," says Mustafa Ahmad, a local village leader. Having seen the violence tearing nearby Aleppo apart, with Raqqa city now home to thousands of displaced people, many here on the vast swathes of bronzed, sun-parched land do not want the battle to be brought to their doorstep. "Bashar Assad is a dog, a murderer," says a mother of eight. "But we don’t like the fighters either. We are tired and want peace."

Opposition leaders have little truck with these concerns, however. They are focused more on making pacts with other rebel groups than with mollifying the local civilians, and are pushing on down to add villages, towns and fields in Raqqa to the list of liberated areas. "Revolutions are messy," admits Abu Azzam, the local rebel commander, with a shrug. For Raqqa, things may get far messier yet.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

At this point it's clear that the U.S. had something to hide at Benghazi, and that's why reports coming out of the Libyan city have been so confusing.

Two key details about the the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans cannot be underestimated.

"The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation," officials briefed on intelligence told the Wall Street Journal, and there's evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.

WSJ reports that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the previously hidden CIA mission, which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. These weapons are presumably from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. 

What's odd is that a Libyan ship—which reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7s—docked in southern Turkey on Sept. 6 and its cargo ended up in the hands of Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

Stevens' last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."

Since Stevens and his staff served as "diplomatic cover" for the CIA—only seven of more than 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi worked for the State Department—the spy agency would certainly know about heavy weapons and Libyan jihadists flooding into Syria if Stevens did.

Given that most of the weapons going to hard-line jihadists in Syria are U.S.-made and are being handed out by the CIA, it's not a stretch to wonder if the CIA is indirectly arming Syrian rebels with heavy weapons as well.

If President Obama's position is to refrain from arming rebels with heavy weapons, but regime change in Syria is advantageous, then a covert CIA operation with plausible deniability seems to be the only answer. It's a dicey dance, especially if it's exposed.

In an article titled "Petraeus’s Quieter Style at C.I.A. Leaves Void on Libya Furor," Scott Shane of the The New York Times notes that CIA Director David Petraeus has "managed the delicate task of supporting rebels in Syria’s civil war while trying to prevent the arming of anti-American extremists."

In regards to Benghazi, Petraeus has "stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security," the WSJ reported, noting that during the attack "some officials at State and the Pentagon were largely in the dark about the CIA's role."

SEE ALSO: How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Today, Russia endorsed an Egyptian-led initiative to establish a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Syria — a sign that the country's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may start coming to an end.

The action isn't totally unprecedented, and is in some ways in line with Russia's prior stance towards the Syria conflict. Russia has cautiously supported the embattled leader and maintained a position of non-intervention. Diplomats and senior officials in Russia have condemned the violence, but have maintained that it is a regional issue, which should be handled by regional powers and foreign states should not intervene militarily..

"Our main task at this stage is to get all the Syrians who are fighting each other to stop shooting and sit down at the negotiating table,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. “It is essential that all outside players use their influence with various Syrian groups, be it government or opposition forces, to send the same signals."Lavrov noted in March that Russia does not support the Assad regime, but rather a specific "philosophy of international relations and the Syrian people’s right to solve their own problems"

The action also is in line with the "pragmatism" that many believe defines Russian President Vladimir Putin's foreign policy. 

Deputy Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Matthew Rojansky told Business Insider last month that "Putin himself is realistic — he’s a businessman, first and foremost. And I regard him much more as a Russian CEO than a soviet-style party leader."

He added:

[Putin's] interest in spheres of influence, if you use that term, is much closer to home — it’s about the near-abroad and the former Soviet countries that are on Russia’s borders. It’s very much not about playing geopolitical chess in the Middle East. He sees that as a losing proposition ... What [Russia has] done with Assad is they’ve picked a clear red line. But even that line may waver and change as opportunities arise — it’s very opportunistic I think is the key."

However, their support for the newly led initiative is surprising based on the governments involved. The Egyptian led coalition also includes Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. Of those four states, only Iran has maintained its support for Assad — the other three have called for him to step down.

And today, Lavrov told an Egyptian newspaper that Russia sold $1 billion worth of weapons to the Syrian regime last year. Russia claims that the weapons "were meant for defense against external threats, not to support President Bashar al-Assad."

An arms sale and a continued opposition to a U.N.-backed arms embargo appear to translate to implicit support for the Syrian regime ideologically. However, a profitable arms agreement with a historic ally could be seen by some as a pragmatic step to bring in revenue. But opponents claim that Russia will have trouble collecting payment from the cash-strapped Assad regime.

ALSO: Is Putin in poor health? >

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »