West Asia News and Discussions

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Aug 2011 04:26

periphery. Army defections began a month or so ago. The game is up. He won't be able to keep up with the rebels morally or logistically.

Key is for Iran now to keep giving Syrian regime cash. But to what level it will help rmains to be seen.

Drivers - a pure revolution. i.e. removal of the entire baathist system, just like what we saw in Libya and Egypt. Each group has its reasons. Minorities are in support of Assad still i think.

In egypt you are now enterin the next phase which is the true revolution - i.e. wanting to remove the army who in the proestors eyereprsent the old guard. So, as a diversionary measure and under the face of pressure from protesters the army pulled the mubarak trial card out. Lets see where this goes.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Aug 2011 08:03

shyamd wrote: In egypt you are now enterin the next phase which is the true revolution - i.e. wanting to remove the army who in the proestors eyereprsent the old guard. So, as a diversionary measure and under the face of pressure from protesters the army pulled the mubarak trial card out. Lets see where this goes.

Shyamd,

My read of the situation is saying that islamists are ganging up with army and are kicking out the useful idiots. A muslim brother hood+ army is going to have dominance and to achieve this, army will clean itself off any residual monarchial (mubarak) underlings, while the brother hood will clean off the minorities.

It seems to be a classical islamic uprising following the exact same footsteps of the iranian one.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Aug 2011 12:27

5 Books for understanding Arab uprising

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 06 Aug 2011 15:11

Lalmohan wrote: notably an arab shia state

North Africa (Egypt+Libya) might be setting itself up for a moderate construct in the long term (~40 years) by inducing anti-Baathism in WANA at the present.

NA is playing out the moves both internally and externally what Iran played out internally leading up to 1979. Add social media to the mix and things get a whole lot faster.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Aug 2011 17:51

A quick note of dissent : more democracy in the region will sure destabilize the region - but the greatest problem happens to US and "western" interests. It is they who lose their autocratic/dictatorial/individual-dynasty based handles there. Hence the most loud voices of opposition will come from there masquerading as "voices of caution".

Yes it will be chaos - but chaos in islamic lands is good. In the process the mullahs come to power in their eagerness - and the next stage of liberation of these lands start. Because then mullahs are forced to come down to the level of the past dictators, and show up all the human muck inside the mullah too. The next few generations then start putting the mullahs back into ringside slots near the drain that they are actually fit for. But all this happens outside the hands of Sam or Italian style family businesses that serve as the model for politics and religion corporatorium.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 06 Aug 2011 18:32

Shyamd ji and Brihaspatiji , Once the Assad regime is out of power , what will be the fate of alawites who are a small minority in syria?Also how quickly will the salafists capture power in Syria?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Aug 2011 03:18

MB are not salafi and infact some say they are the anti thesis of salafi. please note the difference. The ones sparking trouble with the minorities were the salafi's (takfiri), not the MB.

- Democracy will paralyse and weaken these states even more.
- Israel wll give up the Golan for permanent peace and a fresh start etc.

Fate of the alawites - they hold the top positions/businesses and will be seen as part of the regime. They will jump ship and will be in exile in london/paris/US. Those that remain will be exiled, put totrial, business seized and given probably to the new constituency - whoever that is.

Its early days yet but this is my prediction.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Aug 2011 21:36

Another interesting thing that is being toyed around is a sunni state splitting syria in half and encompassing central and western iraq. Jordan can provide all the intel etc as a base to make this happen.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 07 Aug 2011 23:29

shyamd wrote:MB are not salafi and infact some say they are the anti thesis of salafi. please note the difference. The ones sparking trouble with the minorities were the salafi's (takfiri), not the MB.

- Democracy will paralyse and weaken these states even more.
- Israel wll give up the Golan for permanent peace and a fresh start etc.

Fate of the alawites - they hold the top positions/businesses and will be seen as part of the regime. They will jump ship and will be in exile in london/paris/US. Those that remain will be exiled, put totrial, business seized and given probably to the new constituency - whoever that is.

Its early days yet but this is my prediction.

Shyamd ji , But is MB an important player in syria like it is in Egypt ? I mean what kind of support it has in streets?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Aug 2011 23:34

shyamd wrote:Another interesting thing that is being toyed around is a sunni state splitting syria in half and encompassing central and western iraq. Jordan can provide all the intel etc as a base to make this happen.

shyamd ji,

why would it be better to have to Central and Western Iraq and Eastern Syria as one state, even from the PoV of USA? Why not keep them as two states? The more the fragmentation, the better it is. Or is it the question of building up a strong Sunni state to counter the "Shia Crescent"?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Aug 2011 00:09

Darshann, MB is a Egyptian phenomenon.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 08 Aug 2011 01:11

Darshann , MB is not super strong in Syria (but enough to pose a threat to the regime I think) - but they are the strongest in Egypt. They are the most organised group there I think. But we should be watching which tribes are reacting and how they are reacting. But a lot of them are exiled and stuff like that.

If memory serves me right the guys in the east are the same sunni tribes as central/anbar iraqi's - the same tribes the US tried to put down earlier. and are part of the sahwa council.

RajeshA, US is not thrilled. Its just a rumour at this point if you ask me. I asked for confirmation the feeling I got was that its not true for the moment but could be a possibility. The word in DC is that the US is not too keen to let Asad go down. Its being done to counter Iran influence. Jordan will provide the mil/intelligence support and be able to support the state.

I personally don't think they will do it. This may just be a scare tactic. It will be a punishment tactic for Iraq if it causes too many probs, but this card won't be played yet by the Saudi's.

------------------
Gilani on a trip to KSA as of today, he was received by the KSA GID chief. Will be discussing oil facilities in TSP

----------------------
KSA King just made a speech on Syria calling for wide and immediate reforms. KSA cannot acceptswhat is happening in Syria and is recallng its ambassdor (after Qatar). It will coordinate next steps with Turkey.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Aug 2011 08:55

darshhan ji,
Alawites will have to leave if they want to hang on to their skins. But some will be retained and incorporated - in fact it is not unlikely that at least one faction is in touch with the rebels. MB will not have that much difficulty in filling up political space once Assad regime goes. They are present, and were always present - and even parts of Assad regime will turn pro-MB.

A kind of loose formation "moderate" rebels, MB and anti-Aassad Alawites will form a temporary coalition against the so-called extremist "chaos" of the rebellion. So there will be a second phase of the struggle between young "educated" and tribal radicals on one side and the "coalition for stability" and "peaceful transition from autocracy" grouping. Of course the former will lose out in the short term.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 08 Aug 2011 09:35

Russian Envoy: NATO Is Planning Attacks on Syria, Iran

Large scale war to engulf region, warns Rogozin

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, August 5, 2011

Even as it finds itself still embroiled in Libya, NATO is preparing to launch a military assault on Syria in order to create a beachhead for a future attack on Iran, claims Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin.

“The planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa,” Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published on Friday.

The envoy added that attacks on Syria and Yemen were part of a build-up focused around regime change in Iran.

“The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region,” Rogozin said.

Rogozin has been known to make embellished statements about NATO’s military adventurism in the past, so whether there will actually be an intervention in Syria remains to be seen.

[...]
Efforts by Palestinian leaders to achieve full statehood, set to be heard by the United Nations in early September, has prompted speculation that Israel is planning a surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in September as a means of distracting from and ultimately derailing the prospect of such an agreement.

Last month, former CIA agent Robert Baer said that comments made by former Mossad head Meir Dagan “tell us with near certainty that Netanyahu is planning an attack, and in as much as I can guess when it’s going to be, it’s probably going to be in September before a vote on the Palestinian state.”

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Aug 2011 18:20

It is on the cards! NATO's next invasion will be in Syria.The Ottoman Turks are bestrirring themselves and no doubt fond memories of their once great empire that straddled much of the Middle East/West Asia,fuels their ambitions.How long ago was it that T.E.Lawrence -"of Arabia" swept into Damascus with his rag-tag band of bedou and "Arab" tribesmen,and Britain sending the Ottoman empire into oblivion? Is history about to repeat itself?There seems to be a very devious and carefully planned conspiracy to redraw the map of the Arab world.It is not for nothing that in Syria,the major anti-govt. disturbances are in areas at the periphery of its territory.Refugees fleeing the fighting heading for Turkeu only increase the claim of the Turks to intervene.Was the clippping of the woings of the Turkish military also part of this grand strategy? The removal of certain pro-NATO Arab envoys from Damascus is also not a coincidence and the Turkish warning is just another pre-invasion tactic to "accclimatise" global opinion before the storm is let loose!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/

World News latest
Syria: Turkey warns Assad 'patience running out'

Turkey's foreign minister flies to Syria to warn Bashar al-Assad 'patience running out' with violent crackdown
Turkey's foreign minister has flown to Syria to warn embattled President Bashar al-Assad that Ankara has "run out of patience" with his regime's brutal crackdown on civilian demonstrators.

400
227
TelegraphPlayer-8689303Link to this video By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent
12:18PM BST 09 Aug 2011
Ahmet Davutoglu's mission comes as opinion in the Arab world swung firmly against Mr Assad, the Syrian president, for the first time since the uprising began in mid-March.

First Saudi Arabia, then its two closest allies, Bahrain and Kuwait, recalled their ambassadors and issued strongly worded statements calling for an end to the violence which has so far claimed 2,000 lives.

On Tuesday, Syrian forces killed at least five civilians during raids on villages around the besieged city of Hama, broadening a 10 day offensive on the city to nearby countryside, local activists said.

Activists also reported that two civilians were killed and several wounded on Tuesday in the northwestern Idlib province bordering Turkey.

On Monday, security forces shot dead at least eight people - including a mother and her two children - in Deir Ezzor, the largest city in eastern Syria, where 42 people were reported killed on Sunday in an army assault.

According to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, his foreign minister will tell Mr Assad's regime that it "has run out of patience" with the bloodshed.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has asked Mr Davutoglu to press Syria to "return its military to the barracks".

William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, said he was concerned the violence against civilians "showed no sign of ending".

“This brutality exposes the regime’s claims to be committed to a reform process as an utter sham," he said.

"I welcome the strong condemnation by countries across the Arab world and Turkey of the regime’s actions and am urgently working with partners on increasing the pressure further on President Assad and those around him.”

An adviser to Mr Assad said at the weekend that it would not accept interference in its internal affairs and criticised Turkey for ignoring the role of armed groups which Damascus says are behind the unrest.

"If Davutoglu is coming to Syria to deliver a decisive message, then he will hear even more decisive words in relation to Turkey's position," Bouthaina Shaaban said.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Aug 2011 18:32

Was reading about the Armenian genocide under the Ottomans and the general conditions as prevailing under the Ottoman rulers.

Makes me believe that getting rid of Ottoman Empire after WWI was one of the good outcomes of the Great War. And any realignment in ME which gives more power to Turkey and by extension the new found love of Islam in that society, will push the entire ME greater into fundamental islamic fold. Strong Turkey as leader of Ummah and with the ability of wider pull, will cast shadow not only on ME but Central Asian states with their turkic diaspora.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Aug 2011 19:21

Why should that matter! Turkey is economically "growing" - EU cannot ignore it, and "growth and prosperity" always overtakes Islamic fundamentalism - isnt it? That was the prevalent wisdom on the forum from "trade-growth-prosperity-growth-trade/puts all else under" proponents for a long long time!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Aug 2011 19:36

Klaus wrote:
Lalmohan wrote: notably an arab shia state
North Africa (Egypt+Libya) might be setting itself up for a moderate construct in the long term (~40 years) by inducing anti-Baathism in WANA at the present.

NA is playing out the moves both internally and externally what Iran played out internally leading up to 1979. Add social media to the mix and things get a whole lot faster.

On the contrary WANA is setting itself to de-Islamize eventually. De-Baathisim is first step. Iran the mullahs/ayotollahs took over and stopped de-Islamization by taking over the anti-Shah revolution.

Philip, Turkey (secular, modern Islamic state in NATO) is delivering the NATO message to Syria. This way its not seen in religious terms.

rohitvats, Turkey can't be new ummah leader. The Wahabi revival has re-Arabised, Islam. However Turkey is disappointed that its modernisaation has not found acceptance in EU and hence is turning Asiawards. Europe is still afraid of the historical ghost from East. They have faced so many invasions from East thru the ages.
Anyway this is the Asian century reversing three hundred years of recent history.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 09 Aug 2011 22:31

PM sounds out Saudis on weapons sale

The Pakistani side reportedly reiterated its interest in selling heavy defence equipment, including tanks and armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been evaluating the possibility for some time.

It is believed that Prime Minister Gilani also made a request to Saudi officials to extend the deferred oil payment facility to Pakistan again, so as to help it overcome the current budgetary problems. Saudi Arabia indicated it would consider the suggestion.

The current situation in Afghanistan, especially the emerging situation in the wake of the anticipated US pullout and its fallout on the entire region, was also discussed between the two leaders.

Saudi Arabia underlined the significant role that Islamabad had to play in bringing about a peaceful, negotiated, end to the Afghan imbroglio.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agreed to the need of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Early on Monday morning, Prime Minister Gilani and his entourage performed Umrah, praying for the solidarity, stability and progress of Pakistan and the Ummah.

Before meeting King Abdullah, the prime minister also addressed the Pakistan Investment Forum at an Iftar dinner hosted by them.

He assured the business community that Pakistan was in safe hands and that Pakistan’s economy was on way to recovery.

He said that the current democratic era had provided political stability to the country – so very essential for the growth and economic prosperity of any country.

The official press release
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia agree on strengthening ties

B

y Shafek E Koreshe
EDDAH, August 9 (APP): Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on Tuesday agreed to enhance cooperation and boost their ties in a comprehensive manner. Bilateral relations, cooperation and regional situation were reviewed during an audience by Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani with the Custodian of two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz here at the Royal Palace. The leaders also agreed to work closely to promote the cause of global peace, promote harmony and tolerance among different religions and espouse the universal values of humanity and brotherhood. Prime Minister Gilani highly appreciated the contribution of King Abdullah to promote interfaith harmony.
A broad consensus was reached on enhancing Pakistan-Saudi Arabia partnership based on comprehensive cooperation. Modalities and mechanism for this purpose were also discussed.
Both sides expressed the wish to enhance mutually beneficial cooperation and work closely to safeguard the stability and peace in the region and Islamic world.
Prime Minister Gilani who is here on an official visit was received by King Abdullah, during the holy month of Ramzan reflecting a very special gesture.
King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz said Pakistan was a key member of the Ummah and a close friend of the Kingdom. “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are one country; they are more than friends and more than brothers,” King Abdullah said.
King Abdullah assured the prime minister of the Kingdom’s steadfast support to Pakistan. He also lauded Pakistan’s support to the Kingdom.
Prime Minister Gilani reciprocating the feelings regarding their close ties said “Pakistan’s security was Saudi Arabia’s security and Saudi Arabia’s security was Pakistan’s security.”
Prime Minister Gilani informed King Abdullah about Pakistan’s relations with the regional countries.
He also informed the King about Pakistan’s efforts to promote peace, reconciliation in Afghanistan and its efforts to improve relations with India. King Abdullah appreciated the progress and said it was important that there are good relations between the neighbouring countries.
King Abdullah also informed him about his conversation with Afghan President Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who also welcomed that the things were moving in the right direction and reciprocated Pakistan’s desire to live in peace and harmony for regional stability.
He said there was a general understanding that conflicts bring losses and leads to dependence on others. The Prime Minister also appreciated the Saudi government for promoting interfaith dialogue in the Muslim world.
King Abdullah said he has worked hard for peace for the believers of the Holy Books across the world and for better relations between the Muslims and non-Muslims. He said there were differences but believed that animosity leads to economic and moral destruction. However he believed that humans were brothers and the benefits of living together with harmony were above everything.
Prime Minister Gilani said these were challenging times for the Muslim Ummah and wider cooperation and deeper understanding between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were critical for the stability and prosperity of the Muslim world. The Prime Minister appreciated the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the welfare and development of the Muslim world and said there was an urgent need to ensure peaceful transformation, order, stability and unity in Islamic states.
He also expressed his sense of gratitude to the people and government of Saudi Arabia for extending generous assistance to the earthquake and flood affected people of Pakistan and pointed that the rehabilitation work was continuing at a steady pace.
Prime Minister Gilani extended an invitation to King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz to visit Pakistan.
King Abdullah said that he would visit Pakistan at a time and date convenient to both the countries.
Prime Minister Gilani was accompanied by Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Senior Minister for Industries Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Barrister Masood Kausar and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Principal Secretary Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, Press Secretary Muhammad Akram Shaheedi and Pakistan’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Muhammad Naeem Khan.

---------------------
This is the last visit by the FM of Turkey to convince Assad to open up to reforms.
They know that Asad will fight to the last syrian to stay in power. Iran's interception of arms to Syria is a message of things to come for both. If Hezbola and syrian lackeys in Lebanon don't call for a rally in support of Asad, then it means that Hezbolah is thinking whether asad will survive.Turkey have begun to take pre emptive steps in Lebnon to stem support to Assad - a sign of things to come. Erdogan has held conversations with Jumblat and others. Thisis a pressure tactic on asad.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Aug 2011 03:24

How pakistan tried to use this alliance against us unsuccessfully.

The origins of the defence pacts with KSA.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_ ... ganization

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Aug 2011 08:00

Is Saudi Arabia really counter-revolutionary?

Responding to Syria: The King's statement, the President's hesitation

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Aug 2011 15:41

Karzai is not an effective partner to KSA on Iran as I had initially said. Got confirmation. Which means it is a combo of PRC, TSP KSA to remove Karzai from power. Taleban are firm allies against Iran.

India strategically needs Iran’s oil Atul Aneja

On Line: 03 August 2011 12:32
In Print: Thursday 04 August 2011

Font Size
India's ties with Iran need urgent attention as an unresolved row over oil payments threatens to drag the relationship, once described as “strategic,” to a new low.

The problem arose in December 2010 when the Reserve Bank of India, under U.S. pressure, decided to no longer use a clearing mechanism to pay Iran for its crude.
Faced with these objections, India, according to the Financial Times, began using the German bank, EIH, for making payments. However, this channel broke down in May 2011, after the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran.

Iran is India's core energy partner — its second largest oil supplier. Nearly 12 per cent of India's total demand, around 4,00,000 barrels a day, feeds India's refineries and petrochemical complexes. The Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MPCL) is the largest oil importer from Iran. The IOC, BPCL, HPCL and Essar are also major consumers of Iranian crude.

Because of the difficulties over payments, Indian companies have accumulated a debt of nearly $5 billion. With the payment row festering, Iran decided to halt supplies to Indian firms for August. However, as the deadline for the payments neared, both sides scrambled to achieve a breakthrough. On July 31, Iran's Oil Ministry website SHANA reported that the payment row had been settled. India would pay part of the debt “promptly” and the rest would be “gradually settled.” The Ministry's optimism notwithstanding, details of the inner workings of the new mechanism and the prospects of its durability remain far from clear. (Media reports say that India and Iran have finalized the settlement of dues through a Turkish bank arrangement.)

The possible collapse of Iranian supplies will have far greater ramifications than a mere commercial impediment in a buyer-seller relationship. Iran's decision not to supply oil, if implemented, will deliver a serious blow to the evolution of a robust geostrategic relationship between New Delhi and Tehran, of which a highly developed energy partnership has to be the core.

Aware of the importance of establishing a strong political relationship, India and Iran, with Pakistan as the third party, had begun negotiations on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. Had the pipeline materialized, it would have not only generated obvious economic benefits but also imparted regional stability, premised on mutually beneficial interdependence.

Before threatening to stop supplies, Iran had begun to show fresh interest in seeking Indian investments in its oil and gas sector. Alive to the recent Indian energy forays in neighboring Central Asia, Iranians were also considering working with India on a possible fuel swap arrangement in the future.

Under this mechanism, Iran could export energy to India from its terminals, in return for an equal amount of oil delivered across the border to Iran, which may have been tapped by Indian firms in Central Asia.

Apart from energy, there are two key elements that define the relationship. One of them is trans-continental transit. Iran's port of Bandar Abbas is the starting point of the north-south corridor which can ferry goods northwards towards the Caspian, and further into Russia and Europe. But, more critically, India needs Iran to physically access Afghanistan. It can do so from the Iranian port of Chabahar, from where a land corridor extends northwards before entering Afghanistan. For reasons of geography, Iran is central to India's Afghan policy.

It is, therefore, disappointing that India, instead of quickly arriving at a new payment agreement with Iran and defusing a major crisis, has apparently decided to place heavier reliance on Saudi Arabia as an alternative fuel supplier.

The decision to increase dependence on Saudi Arabia and reduce procurements from Iran is particularly ill-timed because of the rapid escalation recently of a Cold War between the two countries.

------------------------

Gulf contributes to help build India’s biggest mosque in Calicut

Spread across 250,000 sqft, the mosque can accommodate 30,000 worshippers at a time
By VM SathishPublished Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Share mubarak grand masjid kozhikode. (SUPPLIED)

Non-Resident Indians in the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries are contributing to build what is claimed to be India's biggest mosque, Share Mubarak Masjid, which will come up in the outskirts of Calicut, Kerala, home to a large number of NRIs living in the UAE.

Speaking to Emirates 24|7, Dr MA Hakkim Azhari Kanthapuram, Joint Secretary of Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya of Calicut, said during his visit to the UAE that about one million members of the organisation, many of them living in the UAE, contributed Rs1,000 (Dh85) each to build the largest Indian mosque in a proposed Knowledge City, which is located on the outskirts of Calicut.

To be built at a cost of Rs400 million (Dh33.33 million), the mosque will have a built-up area of 250,000 square feet, accommodating up to 30,000 worshippers.

Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya is a leading religious and charitable institution in India, helping the destitute Muslims and orphans in their education and overall socio-cultural development.

Dr Hakkim said there will be a library for Islamic research and a conference hall where both Muslims and non-Muslims can come in pursuit of knowledge. The mosque will also be surrounded by Moghul-style garden and landscaping. The entire township would cost about Rs12 billion (Dh1 billion).

“There will be an Islamic museum and an Islamic research and study centre. There will be a Heritage City, Healthcare City, Education City, Media City, Shariah City, Commercial City and Industrial city within the huge project area," he said.

There will be professional engineering and medical colleges, a multidisciplinary hospital and healthcare city, a shopping mall, star hotels and convention center, as part of the Knowledge City," he said, adding that the proposed projects open new opportunities for the Non Resident Indian members of the organisation. There will be a Shariah-complaint hotel. "The City layout has been finalised and urban planning is going on. Within the next six months, construction work will start. It will be a great historical projects for Indian Muslims," he said adding that currently 17,000 students including 6,000 residential students and some students from the USA, Europe and Middle East study at various educational institutions run by Markaz.

Currently, the biggest Indian mosque is Delhi's Jamia Masjid, built in the 17th century by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan. The Jamia Masjid is built with red sandstone and white marble. About 25,000 people can pray here at a time.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Aug 2011 18:45

Re: Syria situation. NATO seriously evaluating ground raid into Syria. India, South Africa and Brazil have arrived on a tour in Damascus. They are trying to save Asad.

Germany Merkel has asked whether the AF can take on Syria. Rogozin (RUS ambassador) warned of NATO strike on Syria. Serious developments and discussions going on. turkey will play the lead role for the obvious reason of sharing a border.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Aug 2011 19:17

Published on Aug 09, 2011
By M.K. Bhadrakumar
Syria lays bare India’s foreign policy: Rediff Blogs

India’s predicament is going to be acute. The plain truth is that geopolitics lie at the core of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has territorial ambitions over its former colony. It also has dreams of reclaiming the Ottoman legacy in the region. The NATO wants to arrive in the heart of the Muslim Middle East, which would be a huge leap out of Europe in its journey to become the premier global security organisation. For the US and Israel, the regime change in Damascus means the weakening of Hamas and it also opens the way to isolate Iran and Hezbollah, which in turn enables Israel to regain its regional dominance. The Sunni-Shi’ite schism provides the ideal backdrop for the US to retain its regional dominance over the strategically important Arab world — ‘divide-and-rule’. The Persian Gulf autocrats are hoping that Syria would divert attention away for a long while from their own rotting parishes.

All-in-all, the decision India takes at any UN Security Council process can only be viewed as ‘ideological’ insofar as it will be about: a) India’s strategic partnership with US and the need to harmonise with US regional policies; b) India’s dependence on the Jewish lobby in the US and the military ties with Israel; and, c) India’s time-tested friendship with the Syrian regime. If India votes with a US-Israeli-Saudi-Turkish move against the Syrian regime, will it bring India closer to UN Security Council membership? No way. Does India have stakes in the Sunni-Shi’ite schism that is going to tear apart the Muslim world? Certainly not. Does India have partisan interests in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry? Unlikely — even making allowance for the Saudi/Wahhabi/petrodollar clout over the ruling Congress Party in India’s domestic politics.

Finally, what happens if there is a regime change in Syria? Will it be any better than the chaos that unfolded in Iraq or Libya? Does India have any clear-cut vision to offer for a post-Assad Syria? Not even a brave heart in South Block will claim it has one. The strong likelihood is the emergence of the Islamist forces in yet another part of the Middle Eastern landscape. In sum, India’s stance on Syria in the UN is going to be something to write home about. It will lay bare the beating heart of India’s foreign policy establishment.

M.K. Bhadrakumar opines that India does not have any strategic interest in West Asia, only ideological reasons to vote one way or the other!

Syria is up for grabs, and the decision is about retaining a Shi'ite Crescent or doing away with it. Either India would end up pissing off the Saudis, with whom our relations have improved, or pissing off the Iranians beyond the little irritation we gave them due to our vote against them in the IAEA. This pissing off would be long term!

Indians should however play our own Great Game in West Asia! And what would that Great Game in West Asia be for India?

India's Great Game should be to create a contiguous region of influence from India to the Mediterranean, and
to break up every other power of consequence on the way, and
to control the dynamics of the Sunni-Shia shism
to control energy

The powers that need to be broken up are Iran and Turkey. Why Iran? As long as Iran remains strong, Iran would consider itself as the primary power in Central Asia. This India cannot allow! The only power to hold sway in Central Asia can be India, and all other centers of power have to bow to Delhi, including Tehran! Also Turkey needs to be broken up into Turk and Kurdish areas.

The foundation of our power in West Asia should be an Independent United Kurdistan consisting of parts of Kurdistan, today spread over four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Kurdistan should be today what once the Mittanis were in ancient times.

We should consider a break-up of Syria seriously, as it would help us create Syrian Kurdistan and join it up with Iraqi Kurdistan! That would be one more part of the puzzle solved, leaving us with the part in Iran and in Turkey.

Why Kurdistan?

Kurdish belongs to the Indo-European group of languages. It is closely linked with Baluchi language, and we propose to have Baluchistan as part of India someday. The Kurds are mostly a secular group, subjugated by other Muslim ethnicities - Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc. They will be very grateful for an Indian role in their liberation. So if USA has Israel in the Middle East as its power-base, we should develop Kurdistan as our power-base.

Some day, a much smaller Iran would build the geographical link between India (Baluchistan) and Kurdistan.

We should support the Alawites to create their own country in the North-West of Syria on the Mediterranean contiguous with Syrian Kurdistan. Also Syrian Christians can move to the North-West around Antioch and get some safe haven for themselves.

Thus the Shi'ite Crescent will be broken and the linkage would be through Kurdistan, a place where India would/could have a lot of influence. So we would control how much influence Iran can exert on the Mediterranean - in Lebanon, in North-West Syria. Of course, we would allow some, for North-West Syria would also give Kurdistan access to the sea.

Some day Iran too would throw away the yoke of Theocracy and even Islam itself and embrace its Aryan and Zoroastrian roots. Some day, Iran too may become a part of the Aryan Crescent stretching from India all the way to Mediterranean.

India too should develop long-term national interests in the region! As we grow into a power, we will need all the geostrategic space we can get!

However as many Indians like M.K. Bhadrakumar are still captive to Marxism, they are unable to see any Indian national interest anywhere, and presuppose that Indians will only be sucking up to one or the other power center in the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2011 20:02

RajeshA, Might be OT but the extent of Indic thought and customs (Indic memes) in Asia is from East of Syria desert to Plain of Jars in Cambodia.

The West of the Syrian desert is out of area for Indic memes. All in between look to India for guidance for a large part of their history.

MKB has lost it long ago.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Aug 2011 20:20

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Might be OT but the extent of Indic thought and customs (Indic memes) in Asia is from East of Syria desert to Plain of Jars in Cambodia.

The West of the Syrian desert is out of area for Indic memes. All in between look to India for guidance for a large part of their history.

ramana garu,

that (North-East) is about till where the Kurds are spread out, beyond that, that is why I am espousing an alliance with the Alawite-Syrian-Orthodox North-West Syrian country, separated from the Sunni Arab parts. That would bring Indian reach all the way to the Mediterranean, something I call the "Aryan Crescent".

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 10 Aug 2011 20:27

RajeshA wrote:The foundation of our power in West Asia should be an Independent United Kurdistan

RajeshA ji, thanks for highlighting the importance of the stateless, brutalized, Kurdish nation.

Good point also about the Mittani-Indic connection to that part of the world. Apart from taking geostrategic positions on the evolving turmoil in the ME, there are many other things India can do to increase its own cultural and ideological footprint in that area (instead of the reverse as the idiot MKB suggests). For one, a lot of Kurdish cultural contributions have been subsumed under the "Iranian" rubric. These need to be distinguished. For example, most of the instruments used in Dastgahi classical music are of Kurdish, not Persian, origin. We need to invite their artists and help them raise their international profile. Secondly, Zoroastrianism also resonates deeply with them, while today's Iran defines itself primarily in pan-Islamist lines in order to project its power. If the external compulsion of that pan-Islamist logic were undermined, perhaps the Persians would come around to being comfortable in their true Indo-Aryan identity. Many other religious sects in Kurdistan, both explicitly non-Moslem as well as fringe Moslem, have echoes in India. Tremendous similarity between Sikhism and a couple of Kurdish sects, for example. All these need to be encouraged, via cultural, educational and tourism channels.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 10 Aug 2011 21:02

X-post from Kurdistan thread:

Some recent news items reported in the Iranian state-controlled press:

Aug 6th: Iranian forces act against PJAK - deny allegations of entering Iraqi Kurdistan

“The operation against the group will continue until all members are killed.”

And yesterday: 'PJAK kills 5 Iranian security forces'

Five Iranian security forces have been killed when their vehicle was ambushed by members of the terrorist group of the Party for Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) in northwest Iran, an official says.

[...]

Iran has recently deployed 5,000 military forces in the northwest of the country along its common border with the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Aug 2011 02:47

Iran is increasingly worried about Syria. The turks said Syria is an "internal problem" of Turkey!

------------------------
A good article

Syrian-Saudi ties spiral downwards

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - The speech on Sunday by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to the people of Syria marks a turning point in Syrian-Saudi relations and a precedent in Saudi foreign policy.

It is also heralds a new chapter in Syria's domestic crisis, which began in mid-March when demonstrators took to the streets, calling for downfall of the regime and which has resulted in the deaths of more than 1,600 people.

The writing has been on the wall since July 31, when Lebanon's former prime minister Saad al-Hariri - a staunch Saudi ally - spoke out against the Syrian government, for the first time in

five months. His statement could not have been made had it not been approved by the Saudis. His criticism of the government's military operation in Hama was seemingly a prelude to what the king had to say.

Never in the kingdom's history has it publicly spoken about the internal affairs of an Arab country at such a senior level. Usually, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal comments on Arab affairs, or it is done by some unidentified "source" at the Foreign Ministry.

Never has the king gone as far - with the sole exception of 1990 when he called on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. But even then, it wasn't in the form of an exclusive speech to the Iraqi people, as was the case with Syria. And this wasn't a speech on the occasion of the Muslim holy fast month of Ramadan, for example, in which Abdullah made mention of the Syrian crisis.

It was a speech about Syria - only about Syria - that was targeted at both government and public alike.

"What is happening in Syria is not acceptable," he said, demanding an end to the "killing machine and bloodshed". The Saudi King, who visited Syria last October, added, "Any sane Arab, Muslim or anyone else knows that this has nothing to do with religion, or ethics or morals." Abdullah accused the Syrian authorities of disproportionate use of force against demonstrators, ending his brief address by recalling Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Syria "for consultations".

It is not the first time Saudi Arabia has withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus. It happened in the 1950s during the height of Saudi tension with then-Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was closely allied to Damascus. It happened again in the late 1960s when Syria welcomed leading Saudi dissidents and hosted airwaves that were critical of then-Saudi monarch King Faisal.

And more recently, it happened after 2005, when relations plummeted over the murder of Lebanon's ex-prime minister Rafik al-Hariri and Syria's support for Hezbollah, which the Saudis believed were proxies for Iran who were undermining the influence of their allies in Beirut.

It reached new heights in 2006, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, when the Saudis were critical of Hezbollah, accusing them of being "adventurers". Then, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad famously delivered a speech accusing Abdullah and his team of being "half-men", after which Syrian-Saudi relations reached rock bottom, with the Saudi king refusing to attend an Arab summit in Damascus in March 2008.

Things changed a year later when Barack Obama came to the White House and turned a new page with Damascus, sending an ambassador to Syria and signaling the Saudis to do the same. This was after several European countries, headed by France, also acted accordingly, using Syria's influence with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine to help moderate the behavior of these two non-state players.

In late 2010, Assad and Abdullah met in Damascus, where they exchanged senior Orders of Merit - signaling that a new page had been turned in relations. The leaders then went to Beirut and were photographed holding hands in a warm Arab brotherly fashion, with the aim of hammering out an agreement between Hariri and Hezbollah, known as the Syrian-Saudi Initiative, pertaining to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating Rafik al-Hariri's assassination.

Abdullah took a firm pro-Syrian line, standing up to critical figures within the kingdom like his nephews Prince Bandar and Saud al-Faisal, claiming that the road to stability in Beirut ran through Damascus. He made sure that all of Syria's demands in Lebanon, and those of its allies, were respected.

Among other things, he instructed Hariri to grant Hezbollah all the key government posts it was seeking for itself and allies in the March 8 alliance, and to issue a cabinet policy statement that pledged to "protect and embrace" the arms of Hezbollah. When the Syrians wanted to remove Hariri, he also did not object, approving the appointment of Najib Mikati as prime minister. The Syrian-Saudi initiative, however, collapsed, and relations went from bad to worse - exploding last week over Syrian domestics.

Pro-regime figures within Syria are furious with what Abdullah had to say, but have been very careful as to not fire back at him, at least not through official media. Unofficial websites and publications, however, have already lashed out against Abdullah, asking why he "suddenly woke up" five months into the Syria crisis?

The king, after all, had been silent since mid-March, even sending an opposite message in July when his country approved a long-term 375 million riyal (US100 million) loan to Damascus.

Many pro-regime elements are saying that Abdullah's statements only came after he received a nudge from Obama. Others in Syria immediately accused Abdullah of double standards, arguing that he was not only silent on the crackdown in Bahrain, but actually helped the Bahraini government strike at demonstrators by sending Saudi troops into the volatile kingdom next door.

An official media war with Saudi Arabia, however, would be too costly for the Syrians. It would spell serious trouble not only with Riyadh but with the entire Gulf.

Already, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have withdrawn their ambassadors from Damascus "for consultations". A further slump with Saudi Arabia would probably encourage the United Arab Emirates and Oman to follow suit.

Syria's economy is in bad shape, with foreign investment having been scared off by five months of continued violence and a deterioration of relations with most of its traditional allies, including Turkey and Qatar.

Politically, Syria realizes that there is no point picking a fight with Saudi Arabia, citing the example of 2005-2009, when despite turbulence in bilateral relations, the Syrians had no choice but to patch up relations with Riyadh in order to deliver results on Lebanon and Iraq - two countries in which they both share strong influence with different constituencies.

That influence with non-state players, especially in Iraq, is co-shared by Syria and Saudi Arabia, who enjoy good relations with Iraqi Sunnis. Damaging that relationship today would affect one of the last cards currently in possession of the Syrians.

But with the Saudis having taken the offensive on Syria, along with Qatar and other Gulf states, the only standing ally today is Iran.

This is alarming to the Saudis, who worked hard after 2005 to rebuild bridges with Damascus, with the sole purpose of curbing and challenging Iranian influence in Syria. Saudi Arabia's argument then was that Syria should be "embraced" by the Arab neighborhood in order to take a step back from the Iranians.

That now is impossible, given that Iran has proven to be "best friend" of the Syrian authorities. Many are waiting to see how Iran will react to the recent Saudi action. Undoubtedly they will try to compensate Syria for an ally lost - naturally, to the benefit of Iran. Based on how warm and generous that Iranian support is, Saudi Arabia will either go a step further in pushing the Syrian government to cease violence, or take a step back.

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Aug 2011 06:17

On India's policy in West Asia

New U.N. bloc finds constraining the West preferable to restraining Syria

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Aug 2011 07:03

On Protesters in Israel

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Aug 2011 09:28

There will be no NATO strikes on Syria. On the other hand the turning of Arab and Turkish opinion against the regime means that US can safely take a harder line on Bashir al-Asad. If Assad goes Hezbollah is weakened, and Iran is weakened. Hamas may or may not be weakened.

Back in the 1980s Hafez al-Asad survived similar isolation thanks in part to solid material and diplomatic Soviet and Iranian support. Russia has neither the means nor the will to provide similar levels of support. Is Iran enough? We shall have to see.

Internally the most critical bastion of support for Al-Asad are the well off Christians and Sunnis (professionals and business types) in Damascus and Aleppo. I don't think the Christians will waver in their support, but the Sunnis might.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Aug 2011 16:18

Johann ji, the sunni's have started defecting from the army already. Lets see. I am going to a dinner with the inlaws of the head of the Syrian MB today. Lets see if I hear anything interesting.

-----------------------------
Hamid Ali Rao, presently Ambassador and permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, has been appointed as the next Ambassador of India to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in succession to Talmiz Ahmad.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Aug 2011 16:33

Tx Abhi for that vital post about the new UN bloc,nicknamed "BIAS", which includes India.This is worth quoting:

The bloc's defenders say that their caution over Syria reflects deep and justifiable ambivalence over the West's leadership on the world stage, particularly what they view as its reflexive use of economic sanctions and military force to solve political crises. That concern, they say, was reinforced earlier this year after U.S. and European diplomats parlayed a Security Council resolution -- portrayed narrowly as a measure aimed at protecting civilians -- into a much broader mandate for regime change, targeting members of Col. Moammar al-Qaddafi's family and key installations, including a government controlled television station.

The South African government, the only member of the group to have voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Libya, has been on the defensive back home, facing criticism from within the ranks of the ruling ANC, according to diplomatic sources. It has hardened its opposition to tough action on Syria. On Tuesday, Sanqu told the council that invoking the protection of civilians as a pretext for military action in Libya would havea detrimental impact on the council's ability to take similar action elsewhere.

Throughout the several days of negotiations, the IBSA countries portrayed the conflict in Syria as one between opposing armed camps. Brazil introduced a set of elements that included no condemnation of Syria and would have placed the violence against civilians on the same levels as attacks against security forces. It called for the council to "condemn all forms of violence including the use of force against unarmed civilians, sectarian violence as well as hostility against security forces."

India reinforced that position in public. "Let's look at the facts," Puri told reporters during a break in the talks. "This is no longer an issue, and has not been for a while, of only a state against innocent, helpless civilians. There has been violence perpetrated against the security forces and against public infrastructure ... 350 security forces personnel have died, buildings have been burnt."

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Aug 2011 16:55

There is another curious angle to this - the bloc members' concerns could also reflect their own current perceptions about possibilities of domestic uprisings. When any state takes the side of army/security forces of another state - the underlying thought process is usually from placing themselves in the position of the other ruling regime - in their own imagination.

India and SA both have regimes which have reasons to be worried about internal violent opposition. They are acting in projected self interest.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Aug 2011 17:05

brihaspati wrote:There is another curious angle to this - the bloc members' concerns could also reflect their own current perceptions about possibilities of domestic uprisings. When any state takes the side of army/security forces of another state - the underlying thought process is usually from placing themselves in the position of the other ruling regime - in their own imagination.

India and SA both have regimes which have reasons to be worried about internal violent opposition. They are acting in projected self interest.

Which is of course dumb! Every regime stays or falls on its own strengths and weaknesses!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Aug 2011 17:10

I am inclined to think that India is acting to show leadership on the issue. We all know that Turkey is the one that is really going to be calling the shots.

Hopefully if Asad goes for wide reforms, then this could still be solved and it would be a success for indian/western diplomacy.

First objective for a Turkish invasion would be to secure the border and prevent Kurdish seccessionists from entering turkey by taking advantage of the situation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Aug 2011 17:21

Asking hard and step-by-step questions about why there is the need to save Assad from Indian interests view - will lead to pretty strange logical posturings. In reality what happens in Syria does not have immediate effects on India - but a lot depends on the mindset of the Indian looking at it from the safety of Delhite towers in the clouds. It depends on what policy-makers at ND have been led to believe are behind Assad and his opponents - and what those forces may mean for the respective camps that the policy-makers identify with.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Aug 2011 17:27

brihaspati wrote:Asking hard and step-by-step questions about why there is the need to save Assad from Indian interests view - will lead to pretty strange logical posturings. In reality what happens in Syria does not have immediate effects on India - but a lot depends on the mindset of the Indian looking at it from the safety of Delhite towers in the clouds. It depends on what policy-makers at ND have been led to believe are behind Assad and his opponents - and what those forces may mean for the respective camps that the policy-makers identify with.

It is a good thing that in India there are hardly any Press Interviews of Foreign Minister or Prime Minister on these issues!

Perhaps Lok Sabha should pass a bill, making it mandatory that PM and Minister for External Affairs hold monthly press conferences of at least one-hour, and a committee from Lok Sabha made up of all parties can decide which correspondents can visit these conferences and pose questions!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 19:06

Assad support from well of Syrians keeps the regime from going Islamist. And keeping Syria in the middile is an Indian interest.