As the United States begins to deepen ties with moderate Syrian rebels to combat the extremist group ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a key component of its coalition appears to have struck a non-aggression pact with the group.

According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army.

The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS.

The AFP report cited information from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group monitoring the Syrian civil war, which said parties to the agreement "promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." The term Nussayri refers to the Alawite ethnic group that Assad and many of his supporters belong to. AFP said the agreement was signed in a suburb of the Syrian capital, where ISIS has a strong presence.

Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, cited a report from the anti-regime Orient Net website to suggest on Twitter that the signatories of the ceasefire include a U.S.-backed coalition called the Syrian Revolutionary Front.According to the U.K.-based outlet Middle East Eye, that same Orient Net report says the ceasefire between groups described in the U.S. as "moderate rebels" and the Islamic State was mediated by the al-Nusra Front, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria.

As recently as March, the Syrian Revolutionary Front and its leader were described in Foreign Policy as "the West's best fighting chance against Syria's Islamist armies." As of that report, the group controlled 25,000 fighters and its leader had close ties with the Western-friendly Syrian National Coalition.

Its leader initially won Western favor by successfully fighting ISIS in northern Syria.

"He proved his mettle in a sense and that's what endeared him to the Americans," said Joshua Landis, a prominent Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma. "The Americans are looking for people who can actually fight. That's been their problem: they've gone with people who are moderate but they don't know to fight. This guy appears to be both moderate and he knows how to fight."

The Orient Net report on the ceasefire identified the Syrian Revolutionary Front as part of the Free Syrian Army, the loose array of non-jihadist rebel brigades that the U.S. has directly supported since last year. Obama asked Congress to approve $500 million to train and equip "vetted" Syrian rebels this summer. He repeated his request in his address Wednesday about ISIS.

Despite its reputation as a palatable ally, the U.S.-backed Syrian Revolutionary Front has previously said that its chief goal is not to stop the rise of extremists, but to topple Assad. In April, its leader told The Independent, "It’s clear that I’m not fighting against al-Qa’ida. This is a problem outside of Syria’s border, so it’s not our problem. I don’t have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria."

The prospect of a group once supported by the U.S. now sitting down with ISIS raises fundamental questions about U.S. strategy in Syria. Why support Syrians who have a very different, clearly stated goal and who will act as they see fit to achieve it? What assurance does the administration have that fighters it trains and arms in Syria won't ally with ISIS if it seems like the most effective anti-Assad force?

The White House argues that its ability to spotlight and support reliable rebel groups has been heightened by improved and expanded intelligence. In an interview with The Huffington Post before news of the pact broke, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes expressed confidence in U.S. allies in the region.

"We have been working with the Syrian opposition now for a couple of years, providing them assistance, non-lethal at first but then we [now] provide them with some military assistance, so we know them better today than we did a year, two years ago," Rhodes said. "There are people who have been vetted who we have relationships with, who we deliver assistance to, so we're not starting from scratch."

Many of those groups, the administration acknowledges, have not passed a vetting process, which explains the delay in expanding assistance. But the news that the Syrian Revolutionary Front, a major player in the moderate coalition, has now chosen to stop fighting ISIS may inspire other groups, either already vetted or still waiting for aid, to determine that a deal with the extremist group is worthwhile. Given reports that Assad avoided fighting ISIS in order to crush the moderate rebels -- his calculus being that the West would eventually combat the extremists, as it is now doing -- potential U.S. partners may decide that instead of being prey to both extremists and the government, they should settle one battle.

"These guys are all starved for arms," Landis said. "They don’t want to go get themselves killed by fighting ISIS until they figure out where Obama is."

That turns a conflict that the White House hopes is three-sided -- with radical Sunnis, moderate Sunnis and Assad all battling each other -- into a sectarian, two-sided war of Sunnis against Assad. Reports already suggest that Syrians who entered the civil war opposing Assad are now turning to ISIS as their best bet for a different kind of government.

Rhodes warned that a wrong move by the U.S. may lead to that precise perception and reality.

"If we were to try to run a play with Assad, we would ensure that they" -- all Sunni rebel groups -- "were turned against us, and in fact we would be taking sides in a sectarian war against one side. We need a Sunni partner in these countries," he said. "That's why we need this inclusive government [in Iraq] and that's why we need a Sunni opposition partner in Syria."

This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria.

"This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted.

If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.

"We don't know who the moderates are," Landis said. Describing a recent interview in which a Free Syrian Army commander told an Arab outlet that the U.S. wanted to make Syrian rebels "slaves," he added, "These guys are supposed to be our buddies?"

(The Huffington Post)

By John Irish

PARIS (Reuters) - The United States says it is "comfortable" it can forge an international coalition to fight Islamic State, but with Western and Middle Eastern allies hesitant, it risks finding itself out on a limb.

President Barack Obama this week unveiled a rough plan to fight the Islamist militants simultaneously in Iraq and Syria, thrusting the United States directly into two different wars in which nearly every country in the region has a stake.

The broad concept of a coalition has been accepted in Western capitals and on Thursday 10 Arab states, including rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar, signed up to a "co-ordinated military campaign".

"I'm comfortable that this will be a broad-based coalition with Arab nations, European nations, the United States, others," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in Ankara on Friday.

But he added it was "premature" to set out what tasks individual coalition partners would shoulder. And the devil could be in the details.

"This coalition has to be efficient and targeted," said a senior French diplomat. "We have to keep our autonomy. We don't want to be the United States' subcontractor. For the moment they haven't made their intentions clear to us."

The United States and Britain pulled out of striking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad last year hours before French planes had been due to take off, leaving President Francois Hollande embarrassed and isolated.

This time around Paris wants clear commitment and international legality for any action in Syria. In Iraq, it wants a political plan encompassing all sides of society to be in place for the period after Islamic State (IS) is weakened.

"The coalition must be the most legal possible," said former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine. "It needs members of the Security Council and as many Arab countries as possible and there has to be a follow-up. Otherwise it will all start again in three months. There needs to be a long-term vision."

That is the idea of a conference in Paris on Sept. 15 that will bring Iraqi authorities together with 15-20 international players. The talks come ahead of a U.N. Security Council ministerial meeting on Sept. 19 and a heads of state meeting at the U.N. General Assembly at the end of the month.

"The goal is to coordinate aid, support and action for the unity of Iraq and against this terrorist group," Hollande, the first Western leader to travel to Iraq since Islamic State's advances in June, told reporters in Baghdad on Friday.

France has so far sent weapons to Kurdish fighters in Iraq and humanitarian aid. It is likely to send about 250 special forces troops to help direct strikes for Rafale fighter jets.

But what it can offer is limited. France's forces are stretched, with more than 5,000 troops in Mali and Central African Republic. Its planned 450 million euros overseas defence budget for 2014 is already over a billion euros, at a time when the government is under severe pressure to cut spending.

View gallery

This undated file image posted on a militant website on Jan. 14, 2014, which has been verified and i …

BRITAIN KEEN - TO A DEGREE

Britain, Washington's main ally in 2003, has sent mixed messages. It has stressed the West should not go over the heads of regional powers or neglect the importance of forming an inclusive government in Iraq.

Like France, it is also cautious about action in Syria because of legal questions and Syrian government air defences.

In Iraq, it has delivered humanitarian aid, carried out surveillance, given weapons to Kurds and promised training.

On military action, Britain supports U.S. air strikes and Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly said Britain itself has ruled nothing out except combat troops on the ground.

"We need to keep working closely and talking, thinking about the strategy. It shouldn’t be presented too much as ‘here is the plan, these are the roles, who wants what’," said a British government official.

With an election less than nine months away, the British government is well aware of public opposition to Britain's role in invading Iraq with the United States in 2003.

Cameron is also scarred by the memory of an embarrassing parliamentary defeat last summer, when he recalled MPs during the summer recess only to fail to win their approval to leave open the possibility of military action against Syria.

Members of the government have said they would again try to seek authorisation from parliament for involvement in any strikes, unless it became necessary to act quickly due to a humanitarian emergency or a threat to Britain.

"As the global resolve to tackle (IS) strengthens, we will consider carefully what role the United Kingdom should play in the international coalition," Foreign Office Minister David Lidington said on Friday.

"The basic fact is that no decisions about UK military action have been taken or are being asked of us at the moment."

Most other European countries appear unwilling to go beyond humanitarian and logistical aid.

Germany and the Czech Republic have promised to help arm the Kurds. But Berlin has been adamant it will not take part in air strikes.

NATO is ready to facilitate and coordinate airlift supplies, and could offer training to Iraqi forces.

"We have to try to support and sustain the local protagonists who may be able to stop and contain Islamic State in those areas," Italian Defence Minister Roberta Pinotti said.

"The Americans have chosen to carry out air strikes. We haven't yet chosen that," she said.

ARABS AND TURKS ON BOARD?

The U.S.-led coalition will want active military support from Middle Eastern states, to at least avoid the appearance of waging a Western "crusade".

In the campaign to bring down former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the United Arab Emirates contributed to air strikes, while Qatar provided weapons to rebels.

But in Iraq, the stakes for regional players are higher. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt are unlikely to want to take a key role in military operations.

"The situation is critical on our border because (Islamic State) are close. Yes, Saudi Arabia is ready to help, but America must first show it is with us now," said a Saudi Arabian military officer in Paris last week.

Turkey, a NATO member which shares long borders with both Syria and Iraq, has so far also conspicuously avoided committing itself to the new military campaign.

U.S. officials have played down hopes of persuading Ankara to take a combat role, focusing more on Turkey's efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters crossing its territory and the provision of humanitarian aid.

From the early days of the Syrian conflict, Turkey has backed mainly Sunni rebels fighting Assad. Although it is alarmed by Islamic State's rise, it is wary about any military action that might weaken Assad's foes.

It is also nervous about strengthening Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Turkey's own Kurdish militants waged a three-decade insurgency against the Turkish state and are engaged in a delicate peace process.

Pro-government newspapers on Friday welcomed Ankara's reluctance to take a frontline role in the coalition, questioning whether U.S.-led military action was the answer and drawing parallels with 2003, when Turkey's parliament rejected a U.S. request to use Turkish territory to invade Iraq.

"In a coalition, you are not expected to do the same things. Some can provide humanitarian help, others financial and others military support," said another French diplomat. "The importance is that everything is coherent."

By Arshad Mohammed and Bill Trott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States hit Russia's largest bank, a major arms maker and arctic, deepwater and shale exploration by its biggest oil companies with new sanctions on Friday to punish Moscow for its intervention in Ukraine.

The sanctions, coordinated with similar European Union steps, were triggered by what the West sees as Moscow's recent effort to destabilize eastern Ukraine by backing pro-Russian separatists with troops, heavy arms and cross-border shelling.. They are the latest economic penalties imposed by the West since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March.

The sanctions target companies including Sberbank, Russia's largest bank by assets, and Rostec, a conglomerate that makes everything from Kalashnikovs to cars, by limiting their ability to access the U.S. debt markets.

They also bar U.S. companies from selling goods or services to five Russian energy companies to conduct deepwater, Arctic offshore and shale projects. The Russian firms affected are Gazprom, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Rosneft.

The United States stressed that the sanctions could be removed if Russia, which denies sending troops into eastern Ukraine and arming the separatists, took a series of steps including the withdrawal of all of its forces from its neighbor.

However, a defiant Russian President Vladimir Putin called the new economic penalties "strange," given his backing of peace efforts in eastern Ukraine, and Russia's Foreign Ministry said it would respond quickly with retaliatory measures against what it criticized as another "hostile step."

SHUTTING DOWN SOME OIL EXPLORATION

The energy sanctions, and similar EU steps, are not designed to curb Russia's current, conventional oil production but to hit future production by depriving Russian firms of the expertise of companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp and BP Plc.

View gallery

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (R) talks with Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk during a governm …

Russia, along with Saudi Arabia and the United States, is one of the world's top oil producers and is the main energy supplier to Europe. Like other producers, it is keen to extract oil from the arctic, shale fields and deep sea deposits.

The latest U.S. energy sanctions go further than steps Washington took in July, when the U.S. Commerce Department barred American companies from using certain technologies to exploit oil in shale, deep sea and arctic fields.

"It is designed to effectively shut down this type of oil exploration and production activity by depriving these Russian companies of the goods, technology and services that they need to do this work," a senior U.S. official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity said of the U.S. and EU steps.

Texas-based Exxon signed a $3.2 billion agreement in 2011 with Russian company Rosneft Oil Co to develop the Arctic, while BP owns 18.5 percent of Rosneft, the Russian state-controlled oil giant, according to Thomson Reuters data.

Earlier this year BP signed a deal to explore for oil with Rosneft in Russia's Volga-Urals region primarily focusing on unconventional, or shale formations, in that region.

Major oil companies, including Exxon, said they were assessing the sanctions and would comply with U.S. law.

The new U.S. sanctions were timed to coincide with fresh European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.

The U.S. Treasury Department said the sanctions include a ban on U.S. individuals or companies dealing with Rostec, a major Russian technology and defense conglomerate, in debt transactions of more than 30 days maturity.

Assets also were blocked for five state-owned defense technology firms, OAO Dolgoprudny Research Production Enterprise, Mytishchinski Mashinostroitelny Zavod OAO, Kalinin Machine Plant JSC, Almaz-Antey GSKB, and JSC NIIP.

The new sanctions also tighten the financial noose on six Russian banks, including Sberbank, by barring U.S. individuals and companies from dealing in any debt they issue of longer than 30 days maturity.

The five banks previously covered had only faced a restriction on debt maturities of more than 90 days. Like those five, Sberbank now also faces a ban on U.S. equity financing.

The Treasury Department also imposed sanctions prohibiting U.S. individuals and companies from dealing in new debt of greater than 90 days maturity issued by Russian energy companies Gazprom Neft and Transneft.

"These steps underscore the continued resolve of the international community against Russia’s aggression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a statement. "Russia’s economic and diplomatic isolation will continue to grow as long as its actions do not live up to its words."

(Additonal reporting by Roberta Rampton, Lesley Wroughton, Timothy Gardner in Washington; Ernest Scheyder in North Dakota, Terry Wade in Houston and Alessandra Prentice in Moscow; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Tom Brown)

Related Video