What's Next for Assad? - by Pavel Aptekar

The sudden announcement that Syrian President Bashar Assad is ready to hold early elections obviously comes at Moscow's urging. Assad broke the news in Damascus to a visiting delegation of Russian parliamentarians just three days after the Syrian leader returned from his meeting in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin. Bloomberg quoted an unidentified senior Moscow politician as saying that the Kremlin insisted on this scenario.

Russia has long used early elections as a cover for reappointing public officials, especially governors. As applied to Assad, Moscow might have either one of two nearly opposite goals in mind.

First, the Kremlin might want to use early elections to "renew the mandate" of Syria's standing president, the man whom Moscow insists is the "legitimate leader" despite the incredulity of the West.

Of course, it is theoretically possible to hold early elections in a country seized by civil war and then proclaim the winner the legitimate president, but what good would it do?

A truce is first necessary for elections to have any legitimacy at all, and a truce can only occur once the Islamic State is routed from the country or a major portion of Syrian territory is cleared of militants. Clearly, victory over the Islamic State is a long-term goal, even with the help of Russian aviation and the Iranian military.

According to Alexei Malashenko of the Carnegie Center, if Russia supports Assad's participation in those elections, it will mean that Moscow has abandoned its earlier commitment to help create a transitional government to facilitate Assad's departure and plans to once again get behind the current leadership so as not to betray "its own guy" in the Middle East.

If that happens, the Syrian opposition, Turkey, the West and the Arab states will refuse to recognize the results of the elections and the war will inevitably continue.

Read more: What's Next for Assad? | Opinion | The Moscow Times

Iraq: U.S. bombs two ISIS targets in Iraq - by July Page and Robert Burns

The New York Times reported Thursday that U.S. military forces bombed at least two targets in northern Iraq.

The White House earlier said it was weighing direct military strikes to stem an Islamic militant group’s gains in Iraq, as well as humanitarian relief for thousands of displaced religious minorities in the country’s north, according to U.S. defense officials and others familiar with the administration’s thinking.

President Barack Obama huddled with his national security team Thursday morning to discuss the crisis as the Islamic State group made further gains. Airstrikes in particular would mark a significant shift in the U.S. strategy in Iraq, where the military fully withdrew in late 2011 after nearly a decade of war.

In recent days, the Islamic Group militants swept through villages in the north that are home to religious minorities including Christians and the Yazidis, who follow an ancient religion with ties to Zoroastrianism. Furthering their gains, the extremists seized Iraq’s largest dam Thursday, placing them in control of enormous power and water resources and access to the river that runs through the heart of Baghdad.

While the White House did not publicly outline the range of options under consideration, officials said the U.S. strongly condemns the extremists’ assault on minorities.

Read more: Report: U.S. bombs two militant targets in Iraq - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram