Despite an atmosphere of deep mutual distrust, two major rival Syrian Kurdish bodies have agreed to attend an expected international conference on the fate of Syria, known as Geneva II, on the side of the Syrian opposition forces, Syrian Kurdish sources told IPS.
Three months after averting a military strike against Syria with a last-minute deal to deprive it of its chemical weapons arsenal, U.S. policy toward the world's most violent conflict appears increasingly at sea.
The faint explosion is a reminder that though the newly refurbished fence protects their town, the two-and-a-half-year-old civil war which is tearing their motherland apart is never far off.
Kurdish fighters have emerged as a powerful player in the Syrian war thanks to the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG - “People's Protection Units”), a seemingly well-organised armed group which has so far proved capable of defending the territory it claims in northern Syria.
International peace talks on the Syria conflict could take place next month, Syria's deputy prime minister has said.
As if the Iran nuclear issue was not already difficult enough, it became even more complicated when Bashar al-Assad unleashed his chemical weapons across Damascus suburbs last month. Suddenly, the Syria issue is overshadowing all other factors concerning Iran.
World leaders from G20 are meeting in St Petersburg, Russia, amid sharp differences over possible U.S. military action against Syria in response to what the U.S. administration calls a deadly chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government.
What seemed inevitable just 48 hours ago – an imminent U.S. missile attack on Syrian targets in response to an alleged chemical attack that reportedly killed hundreds of Syrian citizens – stalled Thursday as the justification for military action faced increasing questioning both here and abroad.
The British government has published internal legal advice which it said showed it was legally entitled to take military action against Syria, even if the United Nations Security Council blocked such action.
While some kind of U.S. military action against Syria in the coming days appears increasingly inevitable, the debate over the why and how of such an attack has grown white hot here.
President Obama got it right. He was picked by U.S. voters to put the nation's interests first – not those of any ally, any member of Congress, or the media, even if they clamour for him to "do something" yet do not take responsibility for the consequences if things go wrong, as they have for some time in the Middle East.
The United States, Britain and France, three veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, are making a strong push for an "urgent" U.N. investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons Wednesday in Syria.
For the small town of Kafranbel in Syria, the old saying "a pen is mightier than a sword" still rings true. Every week in Kafranbel, protesters draw posters, write banners and demonstrate against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Despite Thursday's announcement that President Barack Obama has decided to provide direct military assistance to Syrian rebels, what precisely the administration has in mind remains unclear.
With U.S. intelligence agencies' concluding that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against rebel forces, the White House announced Thursday that it will increase "the scope and scale" of assistance it has been providing to the opposition, including direct support to its military arm.