West Asia News and Discussions

[Agnimitra]

Iran attacks Turkey's NATO shield, if hit

Commander of the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps says in case of a military movement against Iran, NATO's missile shield in Turkey will be Iran's first target.

[Philip]

3 more subs join the Iranian navy.These homebuilt small subs can be a major irritant in any Gulf crisis,by simply sitting on the ocean bed in silence and waitign for the "enemy" warships and tankers to get within range.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... 322345136/

3 more submarines join Iranian navy
Published: Nov. 26, 2011

TEHRAN, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Iran's submarine fleet grew Saturday, adding three Ghadir-class vessels, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, the commander of the navy, said.

At a news conference in Tehran, the admiral said the submarines, like others in the Ghadir class, are of homegrown design, the Fars News Agency reported.

"All parts of these submarines, including their body and their advanced radar equipment and defense systems, have been designed and manufactured by our country's defense experts and with the help of the Defense Ministry," he said.

Military officials said the submarines are armed with both missiles and torpedoes and have equipment enabling them to avoid detection by sonar.

The first Ghadir-class submarines were launched in 2009.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... z1essC3JEC

[abhishek_sharma]

Requiem for the "Arab Spring?"

[chaanakya]

x-posted from Iran News

Iranian students storm British embassy in Tehran, take 6 hostages

TEHRAN: Dozens of hard-line Iranian students stormed the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, bringing down the Union Jack flag and throwing documents from windows in scenes reminiscent of the anger against Western powers after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The mob moved into the diplomatic compound two days after Iran's parliament approved a bill that reduces diplomatic relations with Britain following London's support of recently upgraded Western sanctions on Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

The protesters broke through after clashing with anti-riot police and chanting for its takeover. "Death to England,'' some cried in the first significant assault of a foreign diplomatic area in Iran in years.

There was no immediate word on casualties or how many embassy employees were inside at the time of the assault, although it occurred after business hours had ended. More protesters poured into the compound as police tried to clear the site.

[ramana]

Nightwatch comments linking NoKo to WANA in the proliferation axis. Its truly flat

Nightwatch 29 Nov 2011

North Korea-Syria: The German newspaper Die Welt reported North Korea has supplied maraging steel manufacturing technology to Syria and since 2009 has been helping Syria build a new missile factory near Homs. North Korea reportedly is building a turnkey facility and Iran supposedly has helped pay for it.

Comment: This is a specialty steel that may be rolled thinner than other steel without losing strength under high stress, making it highly valuable in the production of missiles and uranium centrifuges, as well as in engine crankshafts and gears in civilian applications. Use of maraging steel lightens the missile airframe, thereby enabling it to carry more fuel to lengthen flight distance or to carry a larger warhead to its original range.


Production and sale of maraging steel are monitored by the Nuclear Supplies Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime. Its sale is prohibited to Iran by UN sanctions resolutions.

Comment: Die Welt cited "Western security sources," which strongly suggests the Israelis leaked this information. If so, that means the factory has been targeted for destruction by an Israeli air attack.

The link between North Korea's ballistic missile production technology and Syria's Scud forces dates to the 1980s. North Korea built a complete set of Scud facilities for Syria, including a missile assembly plant, before its own were completed, driven by the North's incessant need for hard currency even 30 years ago.

Construction of a new turnkey facility is consistent with the North Korea's practice of selling the technology base in order to make a high-dollar sale. Syria, Iran and Pakistan all benefitted from this sales practice.

Iranian and North Korean cooperation in a third country joint venture would be without precedent, but is plausible because Syria is spending its reserves on military operations to remain in power. What is not clear is whether Iran has purchased some of the production from the Homs plant. That could be the basis for a new defensive alliance.


Heretofore, Pakistan has been considered the arsenal of the Arab Muslims. That could change.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology is proving unpreventable when a country is determined to get it. Syria appears to be determined.

{Wrong conclusion. When a major power (China and US in past) decides to proliferate for its own interests then anti-prolifearation breaks down.}

Syria-Arab League: Economic sanctions imposed by the Arab League on Syria have halted attempts to reach a deal ending violence in the country, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said at a 28 November news conference. Al-Moallem said Syria has made every effort to find a way out of the crisis. Economic Minister Mohammed Nidal al-Shaar said the sanctions result from a political decision that sets a dangerous precedent and will harm ordinary people more than the regime.

Syria-European Union (EU): EU nations agreed to impose new financial sanctions aimed at blocking the flow of capital to the Syrian government, an EU official said. The sanctions prohibit long-term financial support for trade, excluding food and medicine, and government loans, both bilateral and via international support. The sanctions also bar European companies from trading Syrian government bonds. Syrian banks will be banned from opening branches in EU countries and investing in European banks. Twelve Syrian nationals and 11 Syrian entities will be added to the list of EU travel bans and EU asset freezes. The new round of sanctions will be approved on 1 December.


Comment: The new sanctions amount to a form of economic warfare against Syria to effect political change. As long as Iran, China and Russia support Syria, Syria might falter but not fall under the burden of the sanctions. Lots of western business people certainly would suffer should banks refuse to honor their credit cards, but the sanctions do not seem to go that far as yet.

The West's and the League's sanctions promote the re-polarization of what is increasingly a global economy. A new polarization centered on Moscow and linked to Beijing serves Russian Prime Minister Putin's agenda.

Egypt: Egyptians prepared for a second day of voting after crowds gathered to cast ballots in Egypt's first free election in more than 30 years. Voters swamped the voting booths despite a two-hour extension for polling. The voters are electing representatives to a parliament whose primary task is to write a new constitution in the next year or so.


Comment: The Muslim Brotherhood and its Freedom and Justice Party are likely to be the big winners because they are the most organized non-military political group in Egypt. Brotherhood name recognition alone ensures a strong showing.

The Brothers declined to participate in the Cairo protests during the past five days. Brotherhood support for its candidates explains why. The Muslim Brotherhood reportedly fielded more than 30,000 election volunteers in the city of Alexandria alone to shepherd voters. Brotherhood representatives have been reported at every polling station that has reported, better dressed and more disciplined than election officials in several instances.

One Brotherhood spokesman told the press that Egypt will not follow the Turkish model of a capitalist pro-Islamist government. He denounced women without head coverings, adultery and homosexuality in Turkey. He insisted Egypt is a Muslim country that will implement Sharia strictly.

A plurality of voters in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt has elected Islamist parties who publicly advocate "Islamicization" agendas. For these three, and for Turkey, democracy is a station stop on the trolley line to creating an Islamic emirate.

Libya: Tripoli Military Council head Abdel Hakim Belhadj, an al Qaida member, said on 28 November that he will support Libya's interim government even though his supporters were not given top positions. Belhadj is the leader of the western Libyan forces that actually drove Qadhafi from Tripoli.

Belhadj was consulted about the most powerful appointments, but did not submit his name for any cabinet positions. He said he hoped the new government would be allowed to establish stability in Libya because the duty of revolutionaries is to support the interim government and its ministers. The militias have a good relationship with the defense minister and will cooperate, Belhadj added.

He did not set a date to transfer the control of his forces and weapons to the new leaders.

Comment: Libya's new government will be unable to resist the regional impulse, apparent in all its neighbors, towards "Islamicization." The non-urban majority wants it. Democracy provides the political mechanism to get what they want.

The big trend is WANA will revert to teh backwaters of history as it regressess to hardline Islamization without the moderating Persain influence.

In a way it will make Kishore Mahbubani's prediction about all aberrations of past 200 years will revert to to normal.

Its great to be alive to see these changes!!!!

[Agnimitra]

The big trend is WANA will revert to teh backwaters of history as it regressess to hardline Islamization without the moderating Persain influence.

In a way it will make Kishore Mahbubani's prediction about all aberrations of past 200 years will revert to to normal.

Do you think Turkey may play the moderating influence? I know the hardline Islamists consider the Turkish model a mere stepping stone, but the larger populace may latch onto it?

[RamaY]

The big trend is WANA will revert to teh backwaters of history as it regressess to hardline Islamization without the moderating Persain influence.

In a way it will make Kishore Mahbubani's prediction about all aberrations of past 200 years will revert to to normal.

Its great to be alive to see these changes!!!!

I have a question on KM's outlook.

If the arab-spring is leading to (initially) democratically elected Islamic Emirates with Sharia, then how would Islamic world become more progressive in next 20-30 years?

[ramana]

I think Turkey won't as the trend is for revival of Arabist Islam. Turkey was good with the sword and the Naqshbandi sufis only. Arabs hate music and denigrate them as whirling dervishes. See the shiv's twin pillar model of Islam. It has no place for third props. Maybe temporary but will revert to the twin pillars.

----------

RamaY when did Kishore Mahbubani's say that Arab spring will lead to the moderate Islamic soceity? Its the Western expertaratti that say that. Specifically those in Duplicity fed by petro dollars.

What KM said is the world will revert to the normal of last 2000 years and it has its own dynamic.

[Suppiah]

There is no such thing as the 'normal' of 2000a years, or 500 years or 100 years. If you are looking for 'normal' that lasts eons, you have to go back to pre-history, when we were monkeys. That is the sort of era that lasted thousands/millions of years and hence can be called 'normal'. Or perhaps the era when we were all Indo-Europeans, speaking the same language roaming the steppes of Kazhakastan.

KM gets carried away by his exalted status and it is easy to offer such sound bites to look smart.

The biggest game changer for Arab world would be loss of oil revenue, end of oil era, not some fake spring or summer. It is coming in our lifetime, perhaps within 10-20 years.

When that happens, there can be two major possibilities - complete breakdown of governance and return to 6th century Arabia or society that awakes and taps its non-oil potential, which requires education, moderation, global links, secularism, less of beards / skull caps and more of science and maths.

The path to second option may lie thru the first one.

I am no KM but here goes the $0.02

[Agnimitra]

X-posting from Af-Pak dhaaga:

From Stratfor: Russia joins Pakistan to threaten NATO's Afghan War

Days after the Pakistanis closed their borders to the passage of fuel and supplies for the NATO-led war effort in Afghanistan, for very different reasons the Russians threatened to close the alternative Russia-controlled Northern Distribution Network (NDN).

Are these related? -
Russia downgrades relations with Qatar over attack on ambassador

Russia will downgrade its diplomatic relations with Qatar following an attack on the Russian ambassador by customs officers at Doha airport, the Foreign Ministry said on its website on Monday.

Airport security and customs officials beat up Russian Ambassador Vladimir Titorenko and two other Russian diplomats on November 29 in an attempt to seize the diplomatic dispatch the ambassador was carrying on a return trip from Jordan.

The Qatari officials reportedly tried to X-ray the diplomatic mail despite a bilateral agreement allowing diplomats from both countries to carry diplomatic bags through customs without any inspection under the 1961 Vienna Convention.

The Russian Foreign Ministry sent a protest note to Qatari authorities on November 30, demanding “an immediate and full investigation into the incident, the strict punishment of the culprits and the prevention of similar incidents in the future.”

There has been no official response from Qatar so far.

An anonymous diplomatic source earlier told RIA Novosti that the incident had been most likely provoked by Russia’s position on the Syrian crisis, which many Qatari analysts believe advocates the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad.

[RamaY]

There is no such thing as the 'normal' of 2000a years, or 500 years or 100 years. If you are looking for 'normal' that lasts eons, you have to go back to pre-history, when we were monkeys. That is the sort of era that lasted thousands/millions of years and hence can be called 'normal'. Or perhaps the era when we were all Indo-Europeans, speaking the same language roaming the steppes of Kazhakastan.
<snip>

I am no KM but here goes the $0.02

When KM says aberrations of past 200 years will be normalized, he was talking about two things
- The Anglo-Saxon colonial structures are failing
- The broader civilizational pulls are going to become strong again

His individual predictions are at best predictions, thats all.

Now he talks about few things
- Western decline - Even western strategists are agreeing on this trend. Who, Howmuch and Which geopolitical region is not being spelled yet.
- China - KM gives too much credit to China's TsuChitiyapanti. But China is definitely reaping the benefits of USA's foreign policy; not because it is smart but it is the only emerging Asuric empires. So it is gravitating all self-interest groups.
- Islamic nations - We don't need KM to predict this. Anyone who is clear of (sic) secularism can see the nuisance value of Islam on overall human evolution.
- India - KM doesn't talk about India same as any other strategist. The main reason IMO is India's lack of self-awareness (Ramanaji calls it Hanuma syndrome). First India needs to be deracinated before it can become successful and make any impact on its neighborhood and larger world.

[svinayak]

First India needs to be deracinated before it can become successful and make any impact on its neighborhood and larger world.

Correction: Deracinated generation has to go away first and India needs to decolonize the Indian mind before things change.

[RamaY]

Thanks for the correction... Thats what I meant.

[Klaus]

Iran states that it has downed a US stealth drone, Pentagon acknowledges the aircraft downing.

A stealthy RQ-170 drone played a critical role in surveilling the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was hiding in the months before the raid in which he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in May

The United States has lost less-sophisticated unmanned aircraft in recent years over Iran, but a nearly intact RQ-170 could offer a potential windfall of useful intelligence for the Iranians and their allies.

The aircraft has special coatings and a batwing-like shape that is designed to evade detection by enemy radar. The aircraft could help the Iranians better understand the vulnerabilities of U.S. stealth technology and provide them with clues on how to spot other aircraft, U.S. officials said.

Similar stealth technology is used in U.S. B-2 bombers and is a major feature of the military’s F-35 fighter jet, which is one of the largest and most expensive weapons programs in Pentagon history.

[ramana]

Nightwatch segment

5 Dec 2011

Saudi Arabia: Former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, told a security forum in Riyadh on 5 December that Saudi Arabia may consider acquiring nuclear weapons to match regional rivals Israel and Iran. "Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran... therefore it is our duty towards our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these weapons."


Comment: The conventional wisdom from a few years ago was that proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program might prompt Jordan, Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia to develop a nuclear weapons program so that there would be an Arab riposte to the Persians.

{Gives lie to the Paki claim of an Islamic bomb. The Arabs nor the Persians trusted the Paki bomb to be an Islamic bomb!}

The implication of Turki's comment is that Saudi Arabia has capabilities, or access to capabilities, that are not generally known. Proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon not only has implications for Israel's security, but also for the Sunni states of the Middle East.

{I would submit its not just Sunni-Shia but more historical Persian vs Assyrian/Arab rivalry at play}

Egypt: Turnout for Egypt's recent elections was 52 percent, significantly lower than the previously reported 62 percent, according to the Elections High Commission chairman Abdel Moaz Ibrahim. Members of the commission's secretariat made a counting mistake that skewed the previously published numbers, Ibrahim said.

Comment: By now most Readers know that the Brotherhood's party and the Salafists, combined, won about 60% of the vote in the first stage of parliamentary elections. The secular liberals were eliminated in the nine governates that voted on 28 November.


The significance of the revised turnout figure is that it undermines several weekend assessments. First it means that half of the Egyptian populace did not trust the voting process so as to risk voting or did not care. The turnout provided no clear result relative to Egyptian popular sentiment towards the military government; the path towards democracy or about moving Egypt towards an Islamic government.

Second it weakens conclusions about the strength of Islamic sentiment in Egypt. It now appears to be ambiguous, whereas the initial reports suggested Egypt had turned strongly Islamic.

The two strongest Islamist parties won the vote count, but widespread popular distrust of the system or apathy won the election. Those who are distrustful or apathetic, however, have no representation in parliament. Still, those who won the vote count have little basis for claiming they have been given a mandate from the Egyptian people.


The 28 November elections were a first stage in a lengthy and complicated election schedule leading to presidential elections in 2012. The next stage of the parliamentary elections is scheduled for 14 December.

[abhischekcc]

You need to read the news on the downing of a US drone by Iran with the news of downing of an Israeli drone by hezbollah a few days ago. Reading both news together indicates that Iranians have access to jamming devices that can make drones lose control or contact with base. Possibly EMP based weapon, or at least a high powered radio jammer that can jam the frequencies that the drone uses.

If this is true then the US war effort against Iran has received a push back of the highest order.

But what is interesting is that the Iranians do not have this technology, the Russians do. It is the Russians that have done both - developed EMP based weapons, as well as have capability to determine the frequencies that US drone operate on. The Iranians are good for only shouting at the top of their lungs.

Russia may have pulled another victory against the US empire.

[Agnimitra]

But what is interesting is that the Iranians do not have this technology, the Russians do. It is the Russians that have done both - developed EMP based weapons, as well as have capability to determine the frequencies that US drone operate on. The Iranians are good for only shouting at the top of their lungs.

Is this true? To what extent?

The Washington Post had reported that Iran's cyber warfare unit took over the controls of a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone flying over Eastern Iran and landed it with minimal damage. Also, blogged here:

UPDATE (1807 04DEC11): Western sources are reporting that the RQ-170 drone was shot down however FARS quoted an Iranian military official saying that it was taken down via electronic means "with electronic war units" and with minimal damage which makes this a cyber attack.

The Irani regime's propaganda mouthpiece PressTV had this bit in their report, mentioning the involvement of Iran's electronic warfare unit in the incident:

The informed source said on Sunday that the Iranian Army's electronic warfare unit successfully targeted the US-built RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft after it crossed into Iranian airspace over the border with neighboring Afghanistan.

Director of Iranian Air Defence Base for Elec. Warfare said this, according to stuff blogged here:

The Deputy Commander of the Khatam Al-Anbia Air Defense Base for Electronic Warfare, Colonel Moharram Qolizadeh, referring to the key role of electronic jamming systems in successful electronic warfare, said that Iran is seeking to deceive and detour incoming guided missiles. He said: “We have a project at hand that is in fact a stage ahead of jamming to ‘deceive’ the incoming missiles….At this stage, we disrupt transmission of data to the data processing unit of incoming missiles and reprogram it with our own information and redirect the missile towards our desired point.” He also referred to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by the enemy in order to identify sensitive areas in Iran and stated that “all the operations of these types of planes are under our surveillance, and we are capable of disrupting them.”

[shyamd]

Nightwatch segment

5 Dec 2011

Saudi Arabia: Former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, told a security forum in Riyadh on 5 December that Saudi Arabia may consider acquiring nuclear weapons to match regional rivals Israel and Iran. "Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran... therefore it is our duty towards our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these weapons."


Comment: The conventional wisdom from a few years ago was that proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program might prompt Jordan, Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia to develop a nuclear weapons program so that there would be an Arab riposte to the Persians.

{Gives lie to the Paki claim of an Islamic bomb. The Arabs nor the Persians trusted the Paki bomb to be an Islamic bomb!}

The implication of Turki's comment is that Saudi Arabia has capabilities, or access to capabilities, that are not generally known. Proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon not only has implications for Israel's security, but also for the Sunni states of the Middle East.

{I would submit its not just Sunni-Shia but more historical Persian vs Assyrian/Arab rivalry at play}

Will give the inside scoop on the conference. Iranian diplomats were also in attendance at the event. There is a new position. GCC is uniting into a confederation as mentioned before and there is a "new" position on Iran. They are expecting the stick to be used soon.

Western alliance has started in Syria. France once again with the first move - SF have been deployed. More later.

[Philip]

HIlarious! "Newt"-the-Gingrich,says that the Palestinians are an "invented people". Well,they've all -Jews,non-Jews,Samaritans,Phillistines,,etc., been living in what was called Palestine from pre- Roman times Israel was created les than a century ago after WW2,and what then do you call those who acll themselves "Amerricans"? The actual name of the people of the continent should be "Indians"!!! The "Newt" is yet another hilarious Yanqui bumpkin wiht presidential ambitions.It was not too long ago that his countrymen described him for his controversial policies,as "the man who killed Christmas".

If Newt vever get elected,we are in for "exciting times",as his tilt towards a one-nation "Palestine" will be severly tested in the streets of the region,now usherign in new raical forces more pro-Islamist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eople.html

US election 2012: Newt Gingrich says Palestinians are 'invented' people
Newt Gingrich last night made the most drastic play for Jewish support of any Republican presidential hopeful so far, describing the Palestinians as an “invented” people.

Xcpt:

US election 2012: Newt Gingrich says Palestinians are 'invented' people
Newt Gingrich last night made the most drastic play for Jewish support of any Republican presidential hopeful so far, describing the Palestinians as an “invented” people.

Read my lips: 'People need to hear what I have to say,' Newt Gingrich once said Photo: GETTY By Jon Swaine, Washington
09 Dec 2011

The former House Speaker indicated that he would break with longstanding US policy that the region's territorial dispute should ultimately conclude with a two-state solution.

Accusing Barack Obama of “favouring the terrorists” in the region, Mr Gingrich, 68, said his policy would be “pretty close” to that of Benjamin Netanyahu, the hardline Israeli prime minister whose relations with the US president have been frosty.

“I see a much more tougher-minded and much more honest approach to the Middle East in a Gingrich administration,” he said in an interview with The Jewish Channel.

Mr Obama has come under intense pressure in the US since calling in May for a peace deal based on Israel's borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Describing the current peace process as “delusional,” Mr Gingrich said Mr Obama's evenhandedness towards “a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law” and “a group of terrorists firing missiles every day” ultimately meant “favouring the terrorists”.

Emphasising that "the Jewish people have the right to a state,” he dismissed the notion that Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own might be legitimate.

“Remember there was no Palestine as a state,” he said. “We've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places”.

The remarks drew surprise among experts and commentators on the middle east. David Harris, the head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said Mr Gingrich's position was “far to the right” of Mr Netanyahu's own Likud party. Hussein Ibish, a Senior Fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, said: “There was no Israel and no such thing as an 'Israeli people' before 1948”.

Earlier this week Mr Gingrich pledged to appoint John Bolton, George W. Bush's strident former ambassador to the United Nations, as Secretary of State if he were elected president. Mr Bolton has long campaigned for the US to invade Iran to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to protect Israel.

[devesh]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... the_sunnis

Revenge of the Sunnis
What the Arab Spring is really about.

BY EDWARD LUTTWAK

The last decade has been marked by the rise of the Shiites in the Middle East. Through the bullet and the ballot box, Shiite parties have risen to power from Baghdad to Beirut -- thereby extending Iran's reach into the heart of the Arab world. Sunni rulers have viewed with much anxiety the new "Shiite crescent" that extends from Iran all the way to Lebanon.

But as a popular -- and now military -- uprising in Syria becomes more powerful, the Shiite ascendancy is coming to an end. With every day that passes, President Bashar al-Assad's grip on power seems to weaken: The United Nations assessed on Nov. 1 that Syria had entered a state of civil war and the country's economy is projected to contract by a disastrous 12 percent to 20 percent this year. And now, the regional Sunni powers are hoping to exploit the turmoil to launch a counteroffensive that could reverse their losses.

Shiite empowerment in the Middle East began with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which had the perfectly predictable effect of strengthening Iran -- not only its ruling theocracy as such, but also its hegemony over "Twelver" Shiites across the Arab world. In Iraq, most importantly, the Shiites have long outnumbered the Sunnis, but were marginalized and persecuted by the Ottoman Empire and then by all subsequent Arab regimes, down to the initially secular Saddam Hussein, who became a Sunni paladin after launching his war against Iran in 1980. Today by contrast, the U.S.-imposed democratic system virtually guarantees a Shiite-dominated government, with a natural affinity for the fellow Shiites of Iran.

In Lebanon, likewise, the Shiites have long been more numerous than the Christians or the Sunnis, but they were altogether weaker politically -- indeed, for most of Lebanon's history, they were more ignored than opposed. Today, by contrast, it is the emphatically Shiite movement Hezbollah -- which modestly calls itself the "Party of God" -- that is by far the most powerful party in the current Lebanese government, and its armed militia is stronger than the national army.

Then there is the very special case of Syria, where the Sunni majority is subjected by a nominally secular regime run by extremely heretical Muslims, chiefly backed by non-Muslim minorities both Christian and Druze.

The ruling Assad family's control of Syria has been a strategic boon to Iran due to its readiness to act as if they were fellow Shiites -- thereby connecting Iran, Iraq, and southern Lebanon into a contiguous "Shiite crescent," in the words of an alarmed Jordanian King Abdullah II. That is richly ironic, because President Bashar al-Assad and his inner core of followers who dominate the security forces are Nusayris, only re-branded in the 1920s as Alawites ("followers of Ali") to better claim a Muslim identity as Shiites ("partisans" of Ali), but whose very un-Islamic doctrines would expose them to murderous repression in Iran -- just ask a member of the post-Islamic Bahai community.

For ultra-Sunni Saudi Arabia, as well as its smaller neighbors -- Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates -- the Shiite advance has been most unwelcome. Religious differences have greatly widened in recent years: Shiite devotions, particularly in Iran, have increasingly focused on the hidden Twelfth Imam, whose actively implored world-ending return leaves Muhammad himself by the wayside. Equally, Shiite pilgrimages to the Hassan and Hussein shrines in Iraq -- idolatrous for rigorous Sunnis -- inherently compete with the Mecca pilgrimage.

Least important doctrinally, but perhaps most important in reality, has been the greater visibility of practices and rituals that are suspect or even disgusting to Sunnis. These include the dubious "temporary marriage," invented by Iran's clerics, who use it liberally in lieu of prostitution; the rhythmic Shiite prayer drill that seems un-Islamic and downright menacing to Sunnis; and the more extreme Ashura rituals. They are far from new, but it is only now that many Sunnis are exposed to the spectacle of processions of self-flagellators over pavements slippery with their blood and of Shiite mothers proudly cutting their babies' foreheads with razor-blades to bleed them in memory of the martyrdom of Hassan and Hussein.

It is, however, the crescent's potential to extend southward that has transformed it into a strategic threat to Saudi Arabia and Sunni neighbors. Shiites outnumber Sunnis not only in Bahrain and Kuwait, but also -- and most importantly -- in Saudi Arabia's oil-producing Eastern Province, where the money comes from. New protests have broken out in the region in recent weeks, resulting in the deaths of several protesters.

From the Saudi point of view, the damage inflicted by the United States in 2003 by destroying Saddam's military strength was compounded by the failure to defend deposed President Hosni Mubarak's government in Cairo. The Egyptian regime had other merits for the Al Saud family, including a respectable rate of economic growth, which is now a receding memory. Its chief virtue in Saudi eyes, however, was Mubarak's systematic opposition to Iran and its allies, and even the Shiites as such. Egypt's post-Mubarak rulers are hardly likely to embrace either Iran or its doctrine -- the country is solidly Sunni -- but there is no guarantee that they will emulate Mubarak's very active anti-Iran policy, which was strengthened by pragmatic cooperation with Israel. Indeed, the first act of the post-Mubarak interim regime was to call for the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran -- even if to no great effect so far.

But having greatly damaged the Sunni front by sweeping away Mubarak, the "Arab Spring" is now greatly helping it by weakening the Assad regime in Syria. The rulers of Qatar and of Saudi Arabia are untroubled by the obvious contradictions in their policy toward this year's Arab revolts: They are defending Bahrain's ruling family against the majority Shiite population while loudly criticizing and sanctioning the Assad regime for oppressing its own majority Sunni population. And they are demanding democratic rule in Syria while accepting none of it at home.

Qatar's Al Jazeera television channels have, from the start, sided with Assad's Sunni Arab enemies. But Qatari policy has followed the more cautious Saudi lead. The Saudi and Qatari rulers only demanded action by the Arab League after months of bloody repression in Syria -- when the death toll exceeded 3,500 -- and even then delayed their actions in light of Assad's "promise" to stop using force against his own population.

That was a trap, of course. Assad was left with only two choices: Stop using force, lose control, and at best flee the country; or else suppress the opposition with lethal force, losing Arab League support and provoking increasingly severe sanctions. The latter option was Assad's preference, and the Saudi and Qatari rulers duly reacted by calling for Arab and international sanctions, while probably supplying money to Syrian resisters who happen to be almost entirely Sunni.

It is obvious that the Gulf monarchies of absolute rulers are not in the fight for the sake of a future Syrian democracy. For Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, the purpose of overthrowing Assad is to break the "Shiite crescent": bringing Damascus under Sunni rule, repudiating its alliance with Iran, and cutting off Hezbollah from its logistic base in Syria, thereby allowing Lebanon's Sunnis to regain power along with their Christian allies. A further aim is to provide backing for Iraq's outnumbered Sunnis, just across the border. A broader goal to be achieved by denying Tehran its only Arab ally is to reduce Iran's acceptability to Arab populations everywhere.

Achieving these aims would add up to a winning "knight's move," restoring the Sunni ascendancy after the setbacks of recent years. And as Assad does not have the mettle of his father -- who silenced his own Sunni-Islamist opponents by massacre -- it is easy enough to predict the victor. Democracy may not be the winner, but the Sunnis certainly will be.

[shyamd]

- Regional situation is very serious - Code Red Alert
- Buffer zone in Syria has been established
- Turkish Army is ready to step in - and are now ready/prepared for any contingency.
- Hezbollah is ready to fire missiles into Israel if Syria falls. Syria said it will transfer SCUDs to hezbollah. However even Khaled Meshaal (the nutcase) is against going to war with Israel now.
- GCC is not ruling out a pre-emptive response with air/ground strike by the Israeli's. Turkey could also conduct a pre-emptive strike in Syria
- GCC focusing on strategic and tactical superiority over the iranians.
- GCC moved to cut off any arms supplies to Shia's in the East.
- Iranians want to have a limited conflict over Syria.
- GCC little cheesed off at the fact that the US top concern is withdrawal from Iraq.
- Iraq is worried about getting caught up in all this and wants to lower tensions.
- In the Riyad conference, Iraqi's emphasised cooperation with GCC
- With the news that Iran is on the brink of nuclear capability without building a warhead, Turkey and Israel are on the same page over removal of Asad.

What I have described here is the worst case scenario. What India should do - I'll let you discuss.

[Pranav]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... the_sunnis

Revenge of the Sunnis
What the Arab Spring is really about.

That theory doesn't apply to Egypt, Bahrain, Libya or Tunisia.

[shyamd]

India has huge stakes in a stable Gulf, says Menon

TNN Dec 7, 2011, 02.50AM IST
Tags:
stable Gulf|Shivshankar Menon
NEW DELHI: India has strong stakes in maintaining stability and security in the Gulf region, national security advisor Shivshankar Menon told a high level audience in Riyadh on Monday.

India's concerns have sharpened as Egypt and Tunisia give themselves up to Islamist governments, Syria and Bahrain teeter dangerously towards chronic instability while Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are a nuclear test away from possible violence.

From being a traditional "touch-me-not" power, India is reconciled to playing a greater role in the stability of this region which is not only India's greatest energy source, but also of remittances. The Gulf region is home to about 6 million Indians and India-GCC trade is touching $100 billion.

Interestingly, India would prefer not to be present in the region under the US umbrella, or be seen as being too closely allied to the US. Also, unlike the US, India doesn't want to be seen to be taking sides in the sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and Shias. Hence, India continues to hold the position that Iran plays an important role in the region. With this in mind, Menon told the Gulf and Globe conference, "India has a stake in issues relating to peace and stability in the wider Gulf region, including Iran and Iraq."

But India has clearly begun an outreach effort in the Gulf region which it believes deeply impacts its security.

Holding out a more cooperative approach, Menon said, "I am sure that working together, the Gulf and India will be able to face the challenges that new geopolitics are throwing up and take advantage of the opportunities that these changes are opening up."

India is looking for new opportunities in this region as the turmoil throws up openings that did not exist a few years ago. While the fact that the string of Islamist regimes in the region -- Tunisia and now Egypt -- sharpens India's concerns, New Delhi is betting that the new regimes will be more open to dealing with India economically, taking advantage of India's economic growth.

Second, the new regimes in these countries are intrinsically opposed to the US. India believes its more independent positioning might stand it in good stead here. As Menon said, "India's own success is increasingly bound to the fate of the rest of the world as we live in an increasingly interdependent world."

He added, "We will therefore work with our international partners, contributing within our own capacity to create an external environment for the domestic transformation of India... and that is what Riyadh and New Delhi have attempted to do together in the G20."

[Philip]

Tx Shyam for the updates.I feel that the pretenders to the erstwhile Ottoman empire,with their aspirations of imperial grandeur,have made their move a trifle too soon.War -mongering by states finds few friends and especially so in the Middle-East/W.Asia,where the traditional "agressor" has always been Israel.Towar against a fellow Arab state like Syria might provoke some opposite reaction that the Turks might not have anticipated.

The nation that will be the biggest gainer in any spat will be Iran,as its Shiite brethren in Iraq will feel extremely insecure from the warring around them and have no love lost for the Turks and may even invite the Iranians to go into action on their behalf.For Iranmcoming to Syria's aid will in part also be an act of self-preservation,as Iran has few friends amongst the Sunni states who have all plotted gainst it from time to time especially by the Saudis.

What can India do? condemn outside intervention in any action aganst Syria as it violates the UN charter.IN fact,unless there is foreignintervention in Syria,as we saw earlier in LIbya,there will be scant chance for the opposition,which has already based its military HQ in Turkey, to overthrow Assad.The reaction of Russia to any proposed action against Syria would be very ntersting,as Syria is perhaps one oi the last repositories of influence that Russia hs in the region.

[RajeshA]

India should let the Shi'a Crescent break up. Let Syria fall, but not completely.

India should sit down with Assad. Tell him, he should pack up his bags from Damascus and take those bags to Latakia and make his stand there. Turn it into a Helm's Deep!

It does not really matter that much if inland part of Syria falls to the Sunnis, as long as they do not have a coastline onto the Mediterranean, there power would be limited.

Secondly we should ensure that the Alawite Syrian State has a border with the Kurdish Syrian State, and the Arab Sunnis do not cut them off. Turkey should not be allowed to meet up with Arab Sunnis.

This would make the only land route between Iran and Hezbollah to pass through Kurds and Alawi Syrian State. If India invests in Kurdistan politically and economically, India too can get a handle into the politics of West Asia. Perhaps then if Kurds allow Iran some limited access to Hezbollah, Iran may also allow India more access to Afghanistan!

It is only if the Shi'ite Crescent falls, and Iran becomes desperate to retain its position in the world, would Indian support to Iran really be appreciated by Iran. As long as Iran has hopes of attaining the leadership over the Ummah through their allies in the Arab world, it would not give up its slight anti-India line!

[Philip]

News from Kurdistan and the dust that is being raised by .....Exxon! As we said right from the beginning, the Iraq War was entirely about OIL!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74452.html

Exxon's deal with the Kurds inflames Baghdad
The oil giant has defied Iraq's government by signing up to drill in disputed territory

Xcpt:Graphic in the link to see location of tensions:

The great Iraqi oil rush has started to exacerbate dangerous communal tensions after a major oil company ignored the wishes of the central government in Baghdad and decided to do business with its main regional rival.

Click here to view graphic 'Fuelling the tension: where problems lie'
The bombshell exploded last month when Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, defied the instructions of the Baghdad government and signed a deal with the Iraqi Kurds to search for oil in the northern area of Iraq they control. To make matters worse, three of the areas Exxon has signed up to explore are on territory the two authorities dispute. The government must now decide if it will retaliate by kicking Exxon out of a giant oilfield it is developing in the south of Iraq.

Political leaders in Baghdad say the company is putting the unity of their country at risk. Hussain Shahristani, the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of energy matters, told The Independent in an interview in Baghdad that any oil or gas field development contract in Iraq "needs the approval of the federal government, and any contract that has not been presented to the federal government has no standing and the companies are not advised to work on Iraqi territory in breach of Iraqi laws".

Baghdad has had oil disputes before with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), but the present row is far more serious because it is the first time "Big Oil" has moved into Kurdistan, showing that at least one of the major oil companies is prepared to disregard threats from the government of Nouri al-Maliki. Previously, only small independent foreign oil companies, without other interests to protect in the rest of the country, have risked signing contracts with the Kurds.

"Exxon Mobil was aware of the position of the Iraqi government," says Mr Shahristani, a former nuclear scientist who was tortured and imprisoned by Saddam Hussein. "We hear from the American government that they've advised all American companies, including Exxon Mobil, that contracts should not be signed without the approval of the federal government."

Whatever the prospects of finding oil in the north of Iraq, observers are surprised that Exxon is prepared to hang its future in Iraq on the outcome of the power struggle between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government. Control of the right to explore for oil and exploit it is crucial to the authorities on both sides since they have virtually no other source of revenue.

The Kurds have won a degree of autonomy close to independence since the fall of Saddam, and the ability to sign oil contracts without reference to Baghdad will be another step towards practical independence and the break-up of Iraq. A parallel would be if the Scottish government were to sign exploration contracts in the North Sea without consulting London.

What makes the Exxon-KRG deal particularly inflammatory, says Mr Shahristani, is that three of the six blocs where Exxon is planning to drill are understood to be "across the blue line – that is outside the border of the KRG". This means they are in the large areas in northern Iraq disputed between Arabs and Kurds since 2003, but where the Kurds have military control.

The government must now decide if it will make good on its threats and replace Exxon at a mammoth oil field called West Qurna 1 at the other end of the country, north of Basra. Iraqi oil officials hint that Royal Dutch Shell might replace the American company.

Both sides have much at stake. The Iraqi government is totally reliant on its oil revenues to pay its soldiers, police force and civilian officials. It needs vast sums to rebuild the country after 30 years of war, civil war and sanctions. In 2009, it began to expand its oil industry by signing contracts with firms such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon to boost production in under-exploited and poorly maintained fields.

These companies thereby gained access to some of the largest fields in the world, each with reserves of more than five billion barrels. Vast sums are being invested, mostly around Basra in the south of Iraq. Oil output, now at 2.9 million barrels a day, is due to rise to a production capacity of 12 million b/d by 2017, potentially putting Iraq on a par with Saudi Arabia as an oil exporter.

Mr Shahristani is pleased with progress so far, saying that what "we are doing in Basra is at least five times larger than the largest oil projects in the history of the oil industry so far."

Sitting in his vast office in a cavernous palace originally designed for one of Saddam's senior lieutenants, he holds up a chart showing the surging production from the Rumaila oilfield of 1.4 million b/d, more than Britain's entire current output of crude from the North Sea.

Iraqis are split on whether Exxon is being cunning or naive. One explanation is that the oil company feels so powerful, or so essential to Iraqi oil development, that it can disregard the Iraqi government. An alternative argument is that Exxon is dissatisfied with the West Qurna 1 deal and so does not mind walking away from it and looking for oil elsewhere. A third is that the company got suckered by the Kurds.

Iraqi Arabs know that the Iraqi Kurds want to control as much of Iraq's oil reserves as possible to buttress their independence. Less easy to understand is why Exxon should willingly make its activities a central issue in the Arab-Kurdish confrontation which has for so long destabilised Iraq.

Flashpoint: Iraqi military bases

The transfer of Iraq's military bases to local control is another flashpoint between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Baghdad, and some fear the dispute may boil over when US forces pull out at the end of the year.

Last month saw a tense standoff between the Iraqi army and local Kurdish forces at a US airbase in the northern city of Kirkuk, an oil-rich area long a point of dispute. The Kurdish police force reportedly blocked an army team from entering the base for an official handover from the US, unhappy that it was being transferred to Baghdad.

In an effort to calm the drama, the US ambassador, James Jeffrey, met Kirkuk's Governor, Najmaldin Karim, and Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in the capital.

"We did not want a situation where we ended up shooting at each other," said Mr Karim.

The situation was defused when the central government made assurances that the base would be used for civilian aircraft only, a key demand of the Kurds.

However, once the base is handed over to Iraqi control, Washington will have little control over whether Baghdad sticks by its verbal agreement. Indeed, Ali Ghaidan, the commander of Iraq's ground forces who led the army team that eventually entered the base, has since publicly ruled out the possibility of the base being turned into a civilian airport – saying it is of too much strategic importance to Iraqi forces.

Reports of Kurdish security forces, known as peshmerga, bolstering their presence in Kirkuk have raised questions over how long the lid can be kept on this simmering conflict

[shyamd]

Philip ji. Turkish moves are backed by the GCC - This is not about empires, they have an interest in keeping Kurdish separatism at bay - so does Iraq and Iran. The first western special forces have already landed in Syria.

RajeshA ji. Apparently preparations are underway to move into fortified tunnels/caves in the mountains in the East near latakia, if the situation in damascus gets worse.. Satellites have picked up activity. Back in the day the Shah's generals had advised the Shah to hunker down in the Northern mountains - he refused to fight his people and left.

Gaddafi tried to pull a similar stunt - didn't work. NATO and friends armed the militia and guided them to seize the enclave. The territorial integrity is key for all nations in that region.

[RajeshA]

shyamd ji,

perhaps you may have insight into this! If there is heightened tensions between Iran and the Sunnis, Iraqi Shi'a may tilt somewhat to the Iranians. Iraqi Sunnis in the other direction. What happens then to Kirkuk? Would the Iraqi Shi'a support the Kurds in getting control over Kirkuk and its Oil or not, in order to deny the Iraqi Arab Sunnis any Oil?

[shyamd]

Iraqi' Shia as far as the GCC is concerned is Iran. KRG is GCC allied - and also close with the Sunni's of the west. Iraq NEEDS to keep control of KRG territory, to keep control of the oil and therefore get money to spend on development. There will be a coup there in the summer if Maliki doesn't fall in line with the GCC and legalise oil contracts. He needs the money badly. Maliki is scared of the GCC hence is making plays to the GCC like we saw in the Riyadh conference. The US was withdrawing from a kurdish base and the Iraqi's were meant to take over, and tensions were raised.

Kirkuk is currently under the control of Kurds and the iraqi Army. Kurds claiming it as theirs, Iraq claiming it as theirs for obvious reasons.

Iraqi militia are being armed and professionalised on the lines of hezbollah. The expectation is once Asad falls, the Iranian reprisals will be in the GCC. They know it and are expecting it. Kuwait in particular will face the brunt of it.

[ramana]

Luttwak's analysis of Arab Spring doesn't explain the Bahrain situation. I think he is misreading the facts.

[Agnimitra]

Curiously, Iran is rooting for the Salafists in Egypt, who are separate from the MB. The Salafists have no interest in Turkish-style "Islamic democracy". So we may see increasingly bizarre scenarios of Irani Shi'ite regime and Arab Salafists becoming bedfellows against the Anglo-Saxon Islamic democracy project.

[Agnimitra]

Overview of syria related developments, please add or correct:

In the Kurdish regions alternative governments and councils have been created all over, in every city, village and neighbourhood now, and PKK forces have started moving in as per Iranian sources. They are expecting the Arab-on-Arab civil war to reach a point in which they cannot deal with the Kurds anymore, any moment now and are preparing to secede.

In case of intervention, the Turks will not only have to deal with the Kurds, the Allawis and the Christians (which include the largest Armenian population in ME) but also Arab Nationalists, both Sunni and Shi'a, many of whom will resist occupation, as they did in Iraq.

Then among Sunnis, the Iranians will hope that al-Qaeda and Wahabi/Salafi groups will probably surge like has been happening in Yemen since 2009, and happened in Iraq from 2003-2007/8, they will fight everybody: the old regime, the new regime, the Shi'as and also the Turks. The only ones which will support the Turks are a certain portion of moderate Sunni Islamists, and Iran will hope that this section does not have a sufficient base. However, from what I hear, Syria is an Arab country in the ME which Wahabbism has not yet penetrated.

Also the Turks could be hit at home, through Kurdish groups, Allawi groups - and recent attacks have given some warning of this. Kurds are over 25% of Turkish population, Allawis and Shi'as 20% (which includes significant amounth of Kurds), in total over 40% of Turkey's population are Kurdish or Shi'a (mainly Allawi), and they can also be hit through Sunni Islamist groups, including Kurdish Islamist groups. Some are predicting a backlash from Erdogan's promotion of Islamism among Kurds in hope to weaken the PKK's support base, similar to what happened to Saleh after promoting Salafi Jihadism in Southern Yemen or Israel by initially allowing free supplies and funds to reach Hamas in hope to weaken the PLO). Also Turkish Sunni groups may flare up, since some allegedly have links with Iran in the past.

Then you've got Leftist groups (which are generally very anti-US and are the only ones who have killed US troops on Turkish soil) which can be revived to an extent -- and note they were usually strongest in Allawi regions -- and possibly even the rift between the Gulenists and the old-school Kemalists and radicals like MHP supporters, can be exploited. Russian support may be important here. There are as many Turks worked up about Erdo as there are rednecks worked up about Obama and the facist in Turkey have a strong militant culture.

Syrian rebels have not yet taken a single town. There is violence, yes, but at the moment they are no more likely to topple the Assad regime in Damascus than Iraqi insurgents are likely to topple Maliki regime in Baghdad, at the moment.

So IMHO the situation looks pretty sticky, and there's no guarantee that cracking open syria will open another can of worms and that Iran and Russia will not benefit from the ensuing chaos.

[Agnimitra]

Also looking at Iran's possible gains and losses in the ME, w.r.t. Iraq, Kurdish situation, etc:

It's not just the Kurds who want to secede from Iraq now, the Sunnis too are clamoring. But Maliki isn't having any of it and he has decided to openly violate the Iraqi constitution by refusing to allow referendums in Salahaddin and Diyala -- even though this was requested by over 2/3rd of their local councils, which according to the Iraqi constitution compells the government to hold a referendum. But Maliki, who feels he has the backing of Iran and of all major Shi'a factions at the moment, feels strong enough to just say "no" and defy the law.

Meanwhile the US had promised that 75% of the Sunni tribal militias created in 2007 to fight al-Qaeda ("awakening militias" they were called) would be incorporated in the Iraqi security forces. However, although Maliki approved this in 2008, he has decided to just not follow through with it, and has instead fired most of these ex-insurgents and allowed thousands of Sadr-ist militiamen to come back from Iran, and has started filling the local police forces with them. And he released all Shi'a POWs that were taken by US and handed to Iraq. In fact, Shi'as are being brought into all unelected positions in Sunni governorates right now.

The Iraqi Kurds are realising that with the US leaving, their main possible allies lie in Iran and Syria, whom they need for survival. As for Syrian Kurds, most domestic organisations are preparing to secede after Assad falls, but the PKK is trying to use the uprising instead to gain support against Turkey (rather than seceding from Syria). Plus, a third of their members are Syrian (although only about 7% of Kurds world wide live in Syria), while Iraqi central government under Maliki is supporting Assad.

If Iran loses Syria but gains Iraq it is still a win. But Iran has been working to get an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon bloc in the Middle East for years. This year they gained Lebanon and Iraq is about to be vacated by US troops. They cannot let the uprising in Syria screw up something that has been so carefully planned for decades. Strategically, Iran likes to take its time with everything, while US always rushing things (which is why they screw them up), so the Iranians will be hoping that it is still likely they fail in Syria. OTOH, the Americans hope that the Iranian regime is working against a timeline to produce dramatic success which it can show to its disaffected people.

[Philip]

Carl,Shyam,due to see a possibility,however remote that Iran will actually come to Assad's assistance via Iraq-with the Iraqi govt. also openly assisting Assad? What will the reaction of Russia be if and when the Turks invade/enter Syrian territory to set up a separate "free state" of Syria? The Kurds are encompassed by Iraq,Syria,Turkey,the motley ex-Russian republics of Armenia,Georgia,etc., and Iran.How will they get their logistic support if they go independent? After the Syrian spat is resolved ,the Turks,Iraqis and Iranians will turn their undivided attention to the Kurds.

[shyamd]

Basically western Iraq - may secede to the new Syria (since they have the same sunni tribes). You heard it first here.

Philip - the Iranians are already aiding Assad - economically, militarily - police forces who dealt with the iranian election protests, hezbollah are all there fighting. On the ground reports are that, people with beards are firing at the people - and the syrian army dont allow beards, only moushtashes.

Russia can't do much. They know what the Turks are doing is in their interests. Kurds will not gain independence for the same reasons you have said, its in the interests of every nation there not to create a separate nation.

Iraq's position is one that is caught partly by Iran and the GCC. Both sides have Maliki by the balls and you can imagine his situation at the moment.

Interestingly, the GCC guys are saying they DO NOT want an invasion or collapse of Iran, but a replacement of the government. This is because the GCC will bare the brunt of re-development expenditure and taking care of refugees. So, these guys are worried for the long term.

[Philip]

Tx Shyam,but won't a division of Iraq be resisted by the Shiites creating a crisis elsewhere? The whole region is truly one big melting pot and all the states are desperate to jump in!
Your analysis is ineresting in that you feel that Russia is beginning to support the Turks nevertheless, despite its traditional support for Syria.Is that becauise it sees an opportunity to further wean away the Turks from the EU/NATO,now that the Euro has gone kaput,along with its great ancient enemy Greece,and the Turks least intersted now in joning the EU!

[RajeshA]

shyamd ji,

Sunni Arab Iraq joining up with Sunni Arab Syria could be okay as long as they don't join up with Turkey or are allowed access to the Mediterranean.

Syrian Kurds in the Northeast have to find a land corridor to the Alawis in the Northwest on the Mediterranean. That should be the price of Bashar al-Assad giving up power - a partition of Syria.

[Agnimitra]

Interestingly, the GCC guys are saying they DO NOT want an invasion or collapse of Iran, but a replacement of the government. This is because the GCC will bare the brunt of re-development expenditure and taking care of refugees. So, these guys are worried for the long term.

That would be in India's interests also -- finish off the Islamist regime in Iran by effecting an implosion while maintaining the integrity of the state, and allow the people to replace their regime with an India-friendly, preferably non-Islamic, Persian nationalist system.

However, I have my doubts about how well the US/NATO will play this round. The US is ultimately responsible for all the initiatives taken via its proxies in WANA, and regimes like Erdogan and King Abdullah are just acting as stooges for the Empire. But the fact is that the US has a record of failure and gross incompetance when it comes to such things. In fact, even when they have short term success, their policies usually result in long term failure. If you look at the previous revolutions they created:
- In Ukraine the protests they created forced Yanukovych step aside for Yushchenko in 2004, only for Yushchenko to suffer a disasterous defeat receiving only 5% of the vote in 2010 and now Yanukovych has become President anyway.
- In Georgia, Sakashvilli's rule turned into a disaster, they lost control of large parts of Ossetia and Abkhazia which they previously held and practically all of the army US spent built for him since he came to power, was destroyed.
- In Lebanon, Hariri was eventually politically outmanouvered by the same people his American Cedar revolution overthrew, and he was cast aside for Hezbollah government.
- Then if you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the regime change didn't work out very well either.

Actually if you look at the last 10 years hardly any of the US's gains have been permanent, or remotely worthwhile. They are as incompetent as the Saudis in many ways. Iran has played a much better game, outsmarting the US in many theaters over the last 10 years. Who is to say the same won't happen in Syria? IMHO it revolves around how the Iranians play the Kurdish card. I keep repeating here that "all" nationalities in the region are not "equally opposed" to Kurdish self-determination. Iran is a covert supporter and will most likely gain the most from Kurdish emergence. Several Kurdish nationalist elements have been drawing closer to Iran over the recent past.

[Philip]

In retrospect,they could've even cut a deal with Saddam post GW1,but Dubya wanted to eject the man who insulted his papa!

The US has this great ability to intervene militarily,with the excuse of doing so with "good intentions",but leaving the country devastated, well on the road to hell when it retreats.What is also incomprehensible is that they seek to dislodge Islamic state rulers who have more secular credentials than their Saudi cronies,who have such strong business ties with the Bush family,who had such good ties with the Nazis too! The Q now is,has the US anointed the Turks as the next strongman in the region,a replacement for erstwhile Saddam,to counter Iran and not harm Israeli interests-the incident involving the aid ships notwithstanding?

[Prem]

With Exxon in Kurdistan, USA is not leaving the territory at all. They will stay and keep "Independent" Kurds under control. Kurds want and need Massa.