West Asia News and Discussions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2011 07:05

buddhism and a serious warfare are not mutually exclusive - vietnam, myanmar, thailand, laos, cambodia, korea, sri lanka and japan are proof.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 21 Aug 2011 16:26

Carl wrote:Egypt to withdraw Israel envoy over Sinai shootings

The question is who is calling the shots on Egypt's Israel policy. Most of the core leadership of the army (which used to call shots and still does) has remained the same even after Mubarak's era. Is the Egyptian military pulling a Pakistan by escalating tensions with Israel just to get the Egyptian peoples mind away from political reforms ?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Aug 2011 01:36

Now that Gaddafi is gone. Ask yourselves why now? Why did NATO make the big push now?

Turkey realise that if Syria splits and kurds get autonomy, its oging to cause big problems for them. So they won't go in until, it reaches breaking point i.e. when christian, sunni , druze join protestors. This is where the effort is at the moment. Like I said, there are some already who are not happy and some who have defected (mainly sunni).

Turkey will act in unison with coalition against Syria. What if it goes wrong? NATO will step in to support Turkey (so obviously thats why Gaddafi was finished off first).

The key is winning Aleppo now, traders there are already upset at the alawite elite making all the money. Damascus will be the toughest to win as it has 18 intel agencies.

Turkey was about to invade Syria when Syria was protecting Abdullah Ocalaan of the PKK.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 22 Aug 2011 04:14

India needs to see positively about the development among Arab and Muslim countries particularly democractic aspirations among the common muslims. We do hope also such democractic revolutions will also lead these common Muslims to question the authority of Islamic religious authorities and their abuse of religion and people for their terror purposes. India should see this as a democratically based nation and also values of democracy and freedom to express in public within the constraints be spread also proactively a respect for others (particularly migrants with different religions are also should be respected as part of these democratic changes). This will benefit many Indians who work in these countries.
Somehow many Indians have to get out of the antiWestern sentiments and recognise the realities that Indian economy is indeed in the right path of growth because of our good economic relationship with many Western countries. Indians have become part of many of the Western countries' growth and life and so th simplistic comments about the Western countries' support to Libya or even to Syria need not be seen as taking these countries to bring into Western influence or even to control their oil supplies.Rather it should be seen as some countries in the West are reacting to people's aspirations and requests to bring change and liberate them from dictators and powerful rulers.
When US and Europe called for Assad to go, it means he should stop killing his own people in Syria and also should step down so that people's aspiration of democracy can be respected. But by taking the antiWestern attitude these leaders (who have billions in West by corruption) fall into the trap of invasion by their own.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Aug 2011 12:45

shyamd wrote:Turkey realise that if Syria splits and kurds get autonomy, its oging to cause big problems for them.
....
Turkey was about to invade Syria when Syria was protecting Abdullah Ocalaan of the PKK.

Shyamd ji, it looks like Iran is not averse to openly playing the PKK card.
Article in Turkish Gulenist newspaper Zaman:
Iran pulls the PKK card

It is no coincidence that news reports suggesting Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Murat Karayılan had been captured by Iranian intelligence have attracted a great deal of attention.

On Saturday, Iraqi state television announced that security forces had captured the number two of the PKK in an operation against a group of Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) militants carrying out sabotage attacks in early August.

[...]

By the end of Saturday, the view that Karayılan was not captured had gained in strength. However, by Sunday noon, Iranian state television once more announced the capture of Karayılan. Fars, one of the official Iranian news agencies, argued that the Iranian chairman of the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, had confirmed the reports suggesting that the number two of the PKK had been captured. In response to an inquiry referring to the news that the number two of the PKK was captured, Boroujerdi said: “This information is correct. Iranian intelligence units have captured the number two of this terror organization. Our intelligence forces have done something great by capturing the number two of the PKK.”

[...]

Subsequently, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Turkey's envoy to Tehran have taken the stage. Davutoğlu met with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who told him that they did not have any information confirming the capture of Karayılan. Likewise, Turkey's envoy to Tehran talked to Boroujerdi, who told them, “I did not say Karayılan had been captured; I said it would be better had he been captured.”

Interesting, isn't it?

Be sure that this is not theater play or a diplomatic scandal. A strong state like Iran would not display such an immature attitude towards such a delicate issue. Let us assume that the first day was some sort of misunderstanding and that the PKK's number two figure, Karayılan, was confused with the PJAK's number two, Murat Karasac. But there is no explanation for the announcement of similar reports on the second day as well.

Iran is sending an evil message to Turkey; a message saying it is willing to take action against the PKK in return for concessions by Turkey regarding the Syrian issue. The message that this false report seeks to send can be read as follows:

To Turkey, you have a dominant role in the uprisings in Syria, which is an indispensible ally to us in the region. If you try to put pressure on Syria or start an operation against the Syrian regime, we will be strongly involved in the game with the PKK.

In regards to the PKK issue, we are capable of capturing its leader and eliminating its activities; but we are also capable of making it grow. We have all the control in the Kandil Mountains. If you give up on Syria, we will deal with the PKK together; otherwise, we will become allies with the PKK.

To the PKK, we have in mind to capture Murat Karayılan. We will make Cemil Bayik, known for his hawkish stance, your leader, make you go to war with Turkey, and we will extend support to our neighbor. For this reason, we will be involved in your game with Turkey. If you stay close to us, you will win out of it. You should note that rapprochement between Turkey and Syria did not go well and that Turkey is now against Syria. In this way, you can make an alliance with Bashal al-Assad again. Stand with us against Turkey's policy vis-à-vis Syria.

This is backstage of the game staged last weekend. Iran is a big country. It has played its PKK card in an effort to protect its vital ally, Assad, in the Middle East. This is for sure.

The government is facing a tough situation now. It has to deal with both the massacre being committed by a dictator against his own people and the PKK problem. Hopefully, Turkey will take care of these difficult issues through good diplomacy.

Iran has far less to fear from Kurdish independence than others. Just like they temporized and benefitted by the "liberation" of Iraw via their Shi'a links, Iran stands to gain influence at the cost of Turkey and Arabs if Kurds gain control of a larger portion of W. Asia.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Aug 2011 21:20

The Syrian military is in no position to prevent the Turkish armed forces (TSK) from establishing a 10k deep buffer zone. Their reliable units are heavily overstretched just dealing with the internal situation. Establishing Turkish air superiority will be no trouble at all. However, the Syrian-Turkish border is heavily mined in many places, and most Turkish conventional ground units are manned by conscripts, so they may face some initial incidents that will look bad in the news, but will not really affect their objectives.

The Turks don't need to go in along the entire length. So far most of the refugees have come from the province of Idlib, which is sandwiched between Latakia and Aleppo provinces in the West. Interventions in Al-Hasakah, the Kurdish province in the East would be pre-emptive. So far the Syrian military has not had to use the same kind of force in Hasakah - the Kurds rose in 2004 and were massacred, so they're cautious for now.

The Syrians have two cards two deal with a Turkish - reactivating their PKK contacts, and asking Iran to honour the mutual-defence treaty they signed in 2004. Iranian involvement would have to be a mixture of diplomatic, economic and unconventional. They are not in the kind of position where they can deploy conventional forces in support of Syria.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Aug 2011 23:48

Carlji, I had mentioned in my post in the previous page that PKK is backed by Syria.

That is not the first open threat Iran has made in the last 2 months. Trust me when I say these are just empty threat. The west nor Turkey is worried, as you can see.

NATO had originally set a climax date for Sept 1st or the day after eid. Interesting that it was brought forward.

Johannji, thanks. They will go in as a coalition - thats what the Turkish position is. But in any case they will be forced to intervene if Kurds in the area attempt to secede. This is something noone in that region can allow. So Turks are going to go in regardless I think.

Pressure is to use intel support and split the Syrian army and make them join up with protesters like in Benghazi

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Aug 2011 00:53

The best strategy Iran can play is the Kurdish card.

Iran should come out and embrace the "Independence for Iranian Kurdistan"! At the same time, they should prop up their own leaders, in much the same way, the British probably did with Nehru, rather than accept PJAK, which it can crush in a similar way to how the British did to Subhash Chandra Bose!

Iran should then come out and become a solid supporter of Kurdish Independence - all of Kurdistan!

Once Iranian Kurdistan is independent and links up with Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran can build good relations with the Kurdish regions - Iranian Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan, extending their reach all the way to Syria through Kurdistan itself. Due to language and cultural reasons, one can expect that Kurdistan and Iran would have 'brotherly' relations. By becoming a supporter and the patron for Kurdish Independence, Iran gets to have a significant voice in Kurdistan, all of Kurdistan. Since Kurdistan is a land-locked land, Iran can offer Kurdistan still another avenue for international trade. Also Kurds can expect to strengthen their claims on Kirkuk - an Oil rich region, as the Shia Govt. in Baghdad would also approve.

This gives Iran influence deep inside Turkey. Then Iran can take up on PKK's request for support and cause Turkey to burn badly. It would become very difficult for Turkey to prevent incursions from Kurds along such a long border. The fact that all other 3 parts of Kurdistan achieve their unification in a united Kurdistan would alone give the Kurds in Turkey a reason to start an insurrection against the Turks. Also Iran can be assured of a land bridge all the way to Syria through which it can ship arms and other support.

Just the Shia card would not be sufficient for Iran to win its bout with the GCC, Turkey and the West. Iran needs to have the potential to hit deep inside all those who oppose it in the region - GCC and Turkey. Against Turkey, it does not really have much in the way of cards. Iranian support for PKK is neutralized by Western support for PJAK.

If the Kurds really rise up against the Turks, Europe and USA would have a very hard time keeping up their support for Turkey due to violation of human rights. Turks would be seen as a party which is authoritarian, does ethnic cleansing, commits genocide against its own people. The fact that Turkey is so close to Europe, many Europeans go there for their holidays, and so many Turks live in Europe, like in Germany, would mean that the media attention on what happens in Turkey would be intense.

That would mean Turkey would on the one hand be having an insurgency financed and armed by the Iranians, and on the other hand would be abandoned by the West. It would be difficult for Turkey to ask other superpowers for help. Russia is an old adversary of Turkey and at the moment quite close to Iranians. If China comes to Turkish help, then the China-Pakistan-Iran axis for closing off Central Asia to the West and Indians breaks down.

But for such a strategy of course, Iran would have to sever one of its limbs - Iranian Kurdistan.

This is the only thing that may save Iran, otherwise the might of West, Turkey and the Saudis and the acquiescence of Russia, China, India and Pakistan would take Iran down.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Aug 2011 01:52

Closed door meetings today in Doha. Several senior rulers along with top foreign ministry offcials from all over GCC to discuss UN Palestine approach.
So expect pOlicies to be formed and more media attention from today onwards.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2011 12:48

And now (US "Christian" fundoos) they want to convert the Jews!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 42763.html

The strange crusade: Glenn Beck's Holy Land mission
The TV shock-jock's outspoken Zionist views have left many Israelis horrified

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Xcpts:

He was too right-wing for Fox TV, or at least for the 400 advertisers who told the network earlier this year they no longer wanted their commercials on his now-cancelled talk show. He provoked international outrage by saying the Norwegian youth camp where 68 people were massacred in July bore "disturbing similarities" to the Hitler Youth. He has horrified the staunchly pro-Israel and anti-racist Anti-Defamation League with his "bigoted ignorance" in comparing reform Judaism to "radicalised Islam".

Yet tonight Glenn Beck, the American super-shock-jock with views which Tea Party Republicans love, but which many Israeli – as well as US – liberals regard as beyond toxic, will be the undisputed star of a "Restoring Courage" rally in Jerusalem. The event is designed to underline his fierce identification with the Israeli cause, or at least, the Israeli cause as he defines it – a cause for which he says he is will to die.

The organisers speak in slightly less radical terms. They say the rally will call for "unity among all faiths" as well as issuing a call to "all citizens of the world to stand with and declare their support for Israel". Beck is pushing that view to its sentimental limit. In a frequently tearful speech at a warm-up rally in Caesarea on Sunday night, Beck proclaimed: "Let the Jewish people know, no matter what our governments may say... we stand with you."

Beck insisted in a Jerusalem Post interview this week that he is "not here for politics". Many are unconvinced. Joanna Brooks, a US expert on Mormonism, the faith Beck was converted to in 1999, argued in the online magazine Religion Dispatches that Beck sees tonight's rally – at which he will appear with the famously right-wing Hollywood actor Jon Voight – as part of "a latter-day crusade to save the Holy Land from the Palestinians". A flavour of the views he expressed at his packed "Restoring Honour" rally in Washington a year ago shows how far Beck identifies with the pro-settler far-right in Israeli politics.

"There are forces in this land, and forces all over the globe, that are trying to destroy us," he told his ecstatic audience then. "They are going to attack the centre of our faith, our common faith, and that is Jerusalem. And it won't be with bullets and bombs. It will be with a two-state solution that cuts off Jerusalem, the Old City, from the rest of the world."

Jerusalem's secular mayor, Nir Barkat, will attend tonight. His spokesman said yesterday he would "give introductory remarks as he does at almost all events that bring over 1,000 visitors from abroad". A clutch of Knesset members and right-wing religious leaders are also expected.

But many, if not most, of the 1,600-strong audience will be from abroad – mainly American supporters who have flown in for an event which the organisers say has pledges of support from Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman, Mort Zuckerman, the Canadian-born billionaire publisher of the New York Daily News, and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry. They will include representatives of Christian Zionism, whose passionate support for Israel is complicated by a belief among many of its adherents that Jews will have to convert to Christianity before the second coming of the Messiah.

Beck's visit coincides with – though is not linked to – a visit by 26 Republican members of Congress. This is part of a much larger push by pro-Israel lobbyists in the US to bring 81 American legislators of both parties, including half the freshmen Republican Congress members, to Israel and the West Bank. Although such trips happen every year, this one, organised by an educational charity affiliated to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has an added edge because of Palestinian plans to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. The move is strongly opposed by Israel and will be vetoed by the US if it goes ahead. Congressional leaders have already threatened to withhold funding of the Palestinian Authority if it pushes ahead with the plan.

The groups have been scheduled to meet the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, as well Israeli leaders. But their visit is likely to be overshadowed by Beck, who opposes not just the approach to the UN, but the idea of a Palestinian state. Prominent Haaretz blogger Bradley Burston said the irony was that the two-state solution Beck demonises "is probably farther from reality now than it has been at any time in the last 18 years", adding: "But what is irony to a man... for whom most Israelis are not hardline enough and therefore not Israeli enough... a man who knows better than the Jews what Auschwitz means, who Nazis are, what Israel needs, and how Jews figure in the greater plan of God and His Apostle Glenn?"

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Aug 2011 15:38

converting jews has been a mission for the ROL's for centuries
if you wander around london's east end, on many of the churches you'll find plaques commemorating victorian priests who laboured to bring the light and love to the poor yehudis who had migrated there from eastern europe

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 24 Aug 2011 15:55

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14646334

This news report says an Indian MP is also besieged inside Rixos hotel in Tripoli , what was he doing there?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 24 Aug 2011 18:51

Philip wrote:And now (US "Christian" fundoos) they want to convert the Jews!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 42763.html

The strange crusade: Glenn Beck's Holy Land mission
The TV shock-jock's outspoken Zionist views have left many Israelis horrified

Glenn Beck is Mormon, and his views are pretty mainstream for the church of "Latter Day Saints". Mormons are big on Hebrew affiliations, etc. Every initiate is assigned a particular identity with one of the 12 Hebrew tribes in scripture, a sort of gotra.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Aug 2011 18:58

IndraD wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14646334

This news report says an Indian MP is also besieged inside Rixos hotel in Tripoli , what was he doing there?

Is it Mani Shankar Aiyar by any chance.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 24 Aug 2011 22:11

Syria unrest: US and Europe push for UN sanctions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14645641

Syrian Opposition unites to depose Assad
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-24/s ... tion=world

The crisis in Syria is leading the Middle East into uncharted territory
http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east ... gime-assad

Assad should resign and lead a way to a democratic government. Possibly he can win back as a president if people like him. He should give more power to the elected parliament and president in his country not to the military.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 26 Aug 2011 01:05

Iran protests Kuwaiti MP’s attendance at MKO meeting

TEHRAN, Aug. 24 (MNA) – The Iranian Embassy in Kuwait has protested the attendance of a Kuwaiti MP in a meeting organized recently by the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in Paris.

In a note that was handed over to the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry, the embassy protested the move, IRNA reported on Wednesday.

Reportedly the Kuwaiti MP had spoken out against Iran at the meeting and leveled some accusations against the country.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Aug 2011 09:03

The Kingdom of Magical Thinking: Widely assumed to be a fabulously wealthy welfare state, Saudi Arabia is in fact an economic basket case waiting to happen.

After Tripoli, what is a petro-ruler to do? And what is China to do?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Aug 2011 02:35

Here are some of the drawings that landed Ali Farzat in the hospital.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Aug 2011 05:30

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Kingdom of Magical Thinking: Widely assumed to be a fabulously wealthy welfare state, Saudi Arabia is in fact an economic basket case waiting to happen.

....

Robert Bauer also says the same thing about KSA in his book "Sleeping with the devil" that they are ripe for an uprising of sorts.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Aug 2011 22:15

Ok 2 weeks up. Did someone forget to tell the Turks that the invasion has to begin???

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Aug 2011 07:31

Iraq's Maliki threatens Kuwait over Kuwaiti moves to build port Mubarak...

Iraq and Kuwait, two countries that share a small border and big history of mutual suspicion and war, are at it again. This time they are arguing about Kuwaiti plans to build a mammoth port that Iraq claims interferes with its shipping lanes in the Gulf.

Although it seems unlikely the tiff could escalate into another conflict, the remarks are disturbingly reminiscent of the recriminations that preceded Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iraq in 1990 and point to the uneasy relationship that has persisted long after Saddam's ouster.

[...]

Kuwait and other Gulf Arab states are deeply worried about widening Iranian influence in the Arab world, particularly Tehran's close ties with Iraq's Shiite-led government. Iran made its views on the port known through Kataib Hezbollah, a Shiite militia group funded and controlled by Iran that operates in Iraq. The group in July warned companies working on the port to stop and said the project would "besiege the Iraqi economy."

But it's not just Shiites who oppose the plan. Politicians across Iraq's political spectrum have rallied against it — reflecting fears that Iraq's access to the lucrative Gulf shipping trade will be cut off just as the country is regaining its economic footing.

Iraq's only sea access is through a narrow strip of water going from the Gulf to the port of Umm Qasr. Iraqis question why Kuwait with its hundreds of miles of coastline positioned its port where it directly juts into Iraq's only access to the sea.

And its getting serious:
Rocket attack on Iraq-Kuwait border escalates tensions

Tensions between Iraq and Kuwait appear to have escalated to violence after several rockets struck the border area between the two countries, where a controversial new mega-port project is under construction.

[...]

Three Katyusha rockets hit the border area in the early hours of Friday morning last week, Al-Arabiya television reported. The rockets reportedly landed in Iraqi territory without reaching Kuwait.

While Iraqi officials have denied that the port was targeted, the Iraqi Shia militia Kata'ib Hezbollah had earlier threatened the South Korean consortium working on the project unless it stopped.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 29 Aug 2011 19:46

^^^ So Kuwait sends a representative to an MKO (MeK) meeting, and now Iranian proxies in Iraq try to rocket Kuwait over the port issue.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Aug 2011 18:03

Is Iran's use of the PKK to intimidate Erdogan working? Its worth considering that Iran is not scared of losing it's own portion of Kurdistan by supporting Kurdish freedom fighters in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. In the past they have supported Kurds against Saddam and against Turkey. It may be that at this point of time they believe that there is more political benefit in relations with the Erdogan regime (to wean him away from the West) than in relations with the PKK.

Also, a likely candidate for Iran's next president is Qalibaf, an Iranian Kurd. so Iran is beginning to play the Kurdish card more and more in its West Asian strategy.

X-post from Iran thread:

MKB with some interesting tidbits in this blog entry:
The Iran-Russia tango over missiles

Strange are the ways of Persian diplomacy. Two things struck me this morning. First, the case of the Russians breaking the contract for sale of S-300 missiles to Iran. Moscow came under sustained American pressure in the heydays of the US-Russia ‘reset’ to jettison its military ties with Tehran. Although UN sanctions didn’t prohibit the S-300 deal worth several hundred millions of dollars, Moscow caved in. Tehran understood it became a ‘victim’ of US-Russia reset. It had the option to sue Moscow for damage, but it didn’t. For, that would have accelerated the ‘cooling’ of Iran’s ties with Russia.

So, Tehran waited - until ties with Moscow improved. As Moscow made overtures to Tehran to improve relations, Iranians feel encouraged to sue the Russians at the International Court of Justice. This might seem theatre of the absurd. But it has a greater logic. If Iran wins the case, it opens the way to ‘liberate’ Russia from the bondage of the ‘reset’ with the US. Moscow will be left with the choice to pay heavy damages to Tehran or take the easy course of reviving the S-300 deal. In short, as Iran’s ambassador to Russia put it, Tehran hopes that ICJ ruling “would help Russia carry out the supplies.”

What a subtle use of Persian language to hint Iran’s ICJ suit is a joint Russian-Iranian venture. It comes after FM Ali Akbar Salehi’s visit to Moscow ten days ago. The crisis over Syria has brought about Russian-Iranian proximity. The two countries have common viewpoints on Syria. Again, who do you think President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had at home last evening in Tehran to break the Ramadan fast?

The Qatari emir, Sheikh Hamad Khalifa Al Thani! Yes, the same gentleman who is bankrolling the Libyan operations by the european countries and who is burning midnight oil to bring democracy to Syria by overthrowing the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, Iran’s closest ally in the region. Could Hamad be the harbinger of tidings from the opposite camp?

Hamad is perfectly capable of selling the same camel to two buyers simultaneously and then keeping it to himself at the end of the day. The big question is whether he brought some conciliatory message from Saudi Arabia. After all, with Turkey finding itself in a quagmire in the Kurdish mountains, it would have no appetite for an intervention in Syria. That would give Assad a breather and the Saudis an itch to do some rethink.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 31 Aug 2011 06:08

http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/20Qu ... ?id=225440

Interesting comments by former Israeli ambassador to Turkey...

-> Netanyahu and Lieberman are following a policy that would only lead to one state solution that would be terrible
-> UN resolution on Palestine this month can be positive - a wake up call to Israel and Palestinians..agreement has to come from outside.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 01 Sep 2011 17:48

AToI has this lead today: Author suggests Iran's "anti-Zionist/US resistance philosophy" may be outdated now that a democratic Arab bloc is forming...
Re-imagining the resistance axis

By Mahan Abedin

As the street-level opposition to the Syrian regime shows no signs of abating, there is growing pressure on strategic planners in Tehran to prepare for all scenarios, including one that doesn't involve current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the lynchpin of Syrian politics.

The perceived gravity of the problem, reinforced by region-wide changes, should force the entire Iranian foreign policymaking establishment to re-think and re-imagine the deepest dimensions of the country's regional diplomacy, including the very idea of the so-called "resistance axis".

There are deep fears in Tehran that the downfall or emasculation of Assad and the Alawite-led Ba'athist regime in Damascus will at the very least complicate the intricate set of relations that Iran maintains with Lebanese and Palestinian non-state actors, notably Hezbollah and Hamas, and effectively set the Islamic Republic on the back foot in the great strategic rivalry with the United States over influence and hegemony in the Middle East.

While this anxiety is understandable and partly reflects the genuine balance of forces and interests on the ground, it is ultimately myopic and the product of unimaginative strategic thinking. The partial and (in the case of Libya) total collapse of several Arab regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, is a harbinger for a profound re-alignment of the strategic map of the region, and specifically one where diplomacy is set to become more complex and entail greater involvement by indigenous powers.

In this scenario, the so-called "resistance axis" will have to be re-configured to respond to more complex diplomatic and strategic challenges, for while it may not be rendered totally redundant, its rhetorical power may not be so easily invoked to reduce all regional dynamics to a competition between Iran and the United States.

Defining the resistance axis
In the journalistic and increasingly academic discourse, the resistance axis in the Middle East is generally defined as an anti-Israeli and to some extent anti-American political, military and diplomatic alliance between key states and highly capable non-state political-military organizations.

The non-state actors, chiefly in the form of Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, assume the frontline burden of the nexus by directly confronting Israel and heightening the Jewish state's threat perception; thus undermining its ability to respond to more subtle and long-term challenges.

Syria is often described as the state with the most proximate relationship with these groups and the country which forms their primary line of defense. Syria in turn is described as being sustained and supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose material, political and spiritual support is all-important to the preservation of the resistance axis.

From this point of view, both the software and hardware resides in Tehran, and it is the Islamic Republic's political, economic and ideological might that enables and empowers this nexus of resistance.

Most analysts describe the ultimate functionality of this resistance axis as a proxy war between Iran and Israel and a suitable vehicle for both states to avoid direct confrontation. More astute observers see it as a great game between Iran and the United States, to determine the political and ideological direction of the region.

What is remarkable is that Iranian, Arab and Western analysts are united in their description of the form, nature and functionality of the resistance axis.

The most immediate consequence of this unity of perception and analysis is that it skews understanding of the wider and deeper diplomatic nuances and dynamics of the region by ignoring several existing and emerging factors that shape regional diplomacy, including demographics, shifting public opinion and democratization.

The notion of a resistance axis - and by extension a counter-axis - reduces the region's diverse political and ideological forces to neatly defined pro-Iranian and anti-American camps.

While there is more than just a kernel of truth to this description - and there is no denying the fierce rivalry between Iran and the United States - the region's political future is determined by a wider range of factors and state actors like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even the tiny Persian Gulf states cannot be viewed solely as enablers of American foreign policy.

The Arab Spring, and the expected resulting shift in political and diplomatic orientation, will bring the notion of a resistance axis, and the analytical frameworks that sustain it, under greater scrutiny. In particular, the gradual emergence of Egypt as a political, diplomatic and possibly even ideological power in its own right will significantly complicate regional diplomacy and might conceivably lead to the re-definition of the relationship between Iran and America.

Strategic planning requires a clear definition of goals and means. In this case, the most important question is why does the Islamic Republic of Iran support non-state actors in the region? Officially, Iran supports Lebanese Hezbollah and to a lesser extent Palestinian Hamas for primarily ideological motives and as part of a broader ethical foreign policy which prioritizes values over interests.

Unofficially, Tehran-based foreign policy experts produce a more sophisticated and comprehensive defense of this policy, and one that takes sufficient stock of the balance of power in the region, and the extent to which popular non-state actors can tilt that balance in Iran's favor.

But the gradual emergence of more independent-minded regional powers, and by extension the relative decline of American influence, call into question the wisdom of extending considerable support to non-state actors indefinitely.

Rethinking regional diplomacy
As the noose gradually tightens around Assad's neck, there is increasing indication that influential voices in Tehran are beginning to think about contingency planning. But the essential problem remains Iran's inability to imagine a Syria without the existing power structures and supporting ideology.

A recent interview with the well-informed and well-travelled Iranian lawmaker Sirous Borna Baldaji, which appeared in the influential Iranian Diplomacy website, is indicative of the depth of confusion that prevails in Tehran. Entitled "If Assad goes the Salafis will seize power", the interview is based on Baldaji's extensive recent field research in Syria.

The latter's insinuation that the cutting edge - if not the controlling brain - of the Syrian demonstrators are hardline Salafi extremists, is not only indicative of poor research but lack of imagination in terms of viewing a post-Assad Syria.

Baldaji's argument appears to be that once these so-called Salafis seize control of the reins of power in Damascus they will proceed to limit ties with Iran and cut off the vital support line to Hezbollah. It is an argument that is not only devoid of a deep understanding of Syria's strategic profile, but one that takes insufficient stock of broader regional dynamics.

In view of these regional dynamics, namely the empowerment of potentially pro-Iranian Islamists in Cairo and the emergence of a volatile and inexperienced regime in Tripoli, Iran should look to cultivating deeper ties with these states and by extension de-emphasizing the relationship with non-state actors.

The resistance axis needs to be rethought and reconfigured to adapt to emerging political and strategic developments and ultimately tied to a more lucid definition of Iranian national interests.

If Iran's primary national interest in the region is the expulsion of foreign military forces from the Persian Gulf area, then the emergence of more democratic regimes, whose chief sensitivity is their own public opinion, is supportive of this long-term strategic goal.

From this point of view, the downfall of Assad, however unlikely it may appear at this stage, is not necessarily the disaster imagined by many in Tehran's policymaking circles.

Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2011 14:23

More evidence of US war crimes in Iraq.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47843.html

US troops did execute Iraqi civilians, leaked letter claims

WikiLeaks exposé casts doubt on American military's version of events in March 2006
By Donald Macintyre and Jerome Taylor

More than five years after the American military denied claims that its troops had executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians in cold blood, new evidence has emerged in a WikiLeaks diplomatic cable casting serious doubt on the US version of events.

A UN complaint contained in the latest batch of cables published by the whistle-blowing organisation suggests that in 2006 US troops killed at least 10 civilians, including five children and an elderly woman, in the central town of Ishaqi before ordering an air strike which destroyed the house where the alleged killings took place.

The incident is raised in a letter from Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Mr Alston's letter to US officials, which went unanswered, challenges the American military version of events. It says that autopsies carried out in the nearby city of Tikrit showed the victims had been handcuffed and shot in the head. They included a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old. The US military had said that the troops seized an al-Qa'ida suspect from a first floor room after fierce fighting left the house in ruins. US officials originally said five people had been killed, although they later accepted a higher toll of 11.

McClatchy said the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Sep 2011 15:24

Jihadi friendly AKP regime in Turkey downgrades relations with Israel, decides to expel ambassador when the UN report on last year's boat incident turns out to be not so favorable to Turkey and in fact justifies Israels Gaza blockade as legal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14762475

One more common thread that runs thru' Islamic fanatics and Commie murderers - deep discomfort with, or even a hatred for truth.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 19:27

X-posted from "Syrian Resistance : Strategy and long term implications." Thread

Especially now, when Egypt has started looking at its foreign policy anew, with respect to Israel and Iran, what one does not want is that Egypt has a partner in the East Mediterranean as well.

After Sadat's turn-around and Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, Egypt and Syria were in two different camps. Syria still had Golan Heights to recover from Israel, whereas Egypt had moved on. This did not sit well with Syria, so their they did not have the best of relations since then.

Now when Egypt looks anew at its policies towards Israel, a Alawite-led Syria aligned with Iran, can be dangerous for Israel, as Egypt and Alawite Syria could cooperate, giving Iran far more latitude in West Asia. If Syria turns Sunni completely if the Sunni-led Resistance comes to power, even then Egypt and Sunni-led Syria would again be allies, putting pressure on Israel. Only this time, Saudi Arabia would be the winners, who would be the ones dictating pressure on Israel. With Jordan part of GCC, the borders of GCC would be reaching all the way to Syria, and the influence of the Saudis will increase. This would create a complete encircling of Israel by the Sunnis.

So if Syria remains united, regardless of whether it is under Sunnis or Alawites, the issue of Golan Heights would remain ever present, and so would be the pressure on Israel.

A division of Syria would break that connect. If the Alawites retreat to Latakia or North-West Syria in general along the Mediterranean Coast, then neither can the Iranians create their Shi'a crescent extending all the way to Mediterranean and put pressure on Israel in coalition with Egypt, as the Sunni Central Syria and Kurdistan would interrupt that; nor can the Saudis extend their influence all the way to the Mediterranean, thereby encircling Israel, as Alawite Latakia would put interrupt that.

That is good for Israel.

What about India?

For India it is good when neither the Sunni bloc becomes too strong nor the Shi'a bloc. We also don't want Israel to fall in West Asia, because if it does, we will become the next target of Ummah!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 02 Sep 2011 20:13

^^^ X-posting my reply:

RajeshA wrote:This would create a complete encircling of Israel by the Sunnis.

Breaking up Iran is a far fetched dream at this point, especially when Iraq and Afghan misadventures have not been very successful. But there are some things can open up and transform Iran:

1. Failure to form and strengthen the Shi'ite Crescent.
2. Losing leadership of the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
3. Rise of Arab nationalism and pan-Turkism as well.

In the event that Israel is encircled by Sunnis and Iran loses its wedge in WA, there is every possibility that Iran will open up to more co-operation with India and even covertly with Israel. Secondly, having lost the lone anti-Zionist jihadi status, an internal constituency will be disillusioned, especially when pan-Arab nationalism clearly derogates Iran. So the "implosion" and reform of the Iranian regime from within begins. Moreover, TSP will hitch itself as a sidekick to the Sunni pan-Arab rise, so that again boxes Iran in.

In such an event only can Iran be reformed into a more useful ally for India. If it takes those steps, then it opens up the door for the liberation of Balochistan. Lastly, only with a reformed Iran that has relinquished its dreams of pan-Islamic leadership is it viable to carve and unite Kurdish territories out of Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Then those Kurdish territories will unite under a pan-Iranic/Indo-Aryan umbrella identity (Kurds are not homogenous in terms of religious sects). Otherwise, as Theo ji said, Kurdistan will sooner or later become another jihadi leader. Fethullah Gulen does have some Kurdish Turks in his following. Remember, the lionized anti-Crusader Saladin was probably Kurdish.

So RajeshA ji, the scenario you painted is best for Israel, but not India. The above scenario may be best for India, but not Israel. Though Israel will become more dependent on India's (and the West's) favour IMHO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2011 22:16

I think Turkey is bolstering its Islamist credentials by downgrading relations with Israel as a prelude to attacking Syria.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 02 Sep 2011 23:29

RajeshA wrote:For India it is good when neither the Sunni bloc becomes too strong nor the Shi'a bloc. We also don't want Israel to fall in West Asia, because if it does, we will become the next target of Ummah!

We should support for one main reason, that it is the human thing to do. They have suffered enough because one religion or the other wants to steal the legacy of Jews.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 03 Sep 2011 01:26

^^^
there are a lot of things that are "human". we can't do them all. as for Israel, we will support them when it's in our interest. no need to feel guilty, when we didn't do anything to feel guilty for. we don't hate them for their religion or language or culture. but before India's relations with Israel are truly solidified, Israel needs to be divorced from the Anglo-American order. as long as this bonhomie continues, it would be dangerous for India to get too entangled with Israel. I don't have any "inside" info, but I would think that India needs better covert capabilities to handle situations like Israel.

there are a lot of games we can play under the table. this would be a good way to build trust and friendship. a true alliance where both partners don't do anything against each others' interests is far away for India and Israel. I suspect it will happen sometime in this century. but before it happens, Israel needs a reminder of Christianity's stellar record when it comes to the Jews. and it will come from a most unsuspecting "corner": the same people who are its most fervent supporters today.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 03 Sep 2011 04:34

abhischekcc wrote:We should support for one main reason, that it is the human thing to do. They have suffered enough because one religion or the other wants to steal the legacy of Jews.

Hmm? We wish more religions had stolen our legacy. There would be more peaceful co-existence in the world for a start...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Sep 2011 12:58

could be ramana.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Sep 2011 22:56

ramana wrote:I think Turkey is bolstering its Islamist credentials by downgrading relations with Israel as a prelude to attacking Syria.

Yup they are playing to the arab street. Intel cooperation is still going on though. Hence why they didn't withdraw relations fully.

Intel cooperation has been going on since June. More and more naval buildup is going on. Israel has deployed its nuke subs. 1 is in the IOR, another off the coast off syria. another is in the Red sea.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 04 Sep 2011 05:31

Turkey seems to be punching in the heavy weight class. Dunno if they have the weight required to really compete at that level. Time will tell, I guess.

They're spoiling for a fight and for leadership of the 'muslim world', whatever that means. Heck, I sometimes think a Turkey as the pivot of the sunni world's better than a KSA at the helm. But I shudder to think what 'we're normal only' taqiya that Turkey can pull off but KSA never could, and an injection of vision, strategy, patience and long-termism that Tuirkey can bring that KSA can't will do to advance the ummah cause...

Meanwhile, would be awfully nice if events call their bluff (if indeed it is bluff).

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 04 Sep 2011 13:48

There is a lot of debate within the strategic establishment on creating a covert nuclear program in KSA. Bandar, Turki and Def minister Sultan's side are in support of it. Bandar has made discrete visits to central asia for uranium purchases. However there is still a divide. The US is doing some diplomacy on it. US DoE have been to riyadh for talks.

THe Sultan family are currently in Geneva as the Crown prince's first wife died of cancer.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2011 13:54

As we approach another anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks,Robert Fisk asks the Q,why is the US still fudging the reason for the attacks,which is the Palestinian Q and unflinching support by the US for Israel which in the opinion of his and many others,has been the stumbling block to a negotitated peaceful settlement.

The recent expulsion by Turkey of the US ambassador for Israel's refusal to apologise for the Gaza relief boat attack,where several Turkish nationals were killed by Israeli commandos who stromed the vessel,that too after the UN inquiry found that Israel used excessive force,has lost Israel Turkey's invaluable military and diplomatic support.Add to this Egypt's new pro-Palestinian attitude,replacing Mubarak's indifference to the Palestinians,and Israel has multiplying problems.The Turkish "Ottoman" resurgence has serious implications for Israel,as a growing Islamic identity is also growing within.One wonders whether Bibi's refusal to apologise,with just one word,"sorry",is going to cost Israel very dearly in the long run.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 48438.html

Robert Fisk: For 10 years, we've lied to ourselves to avoid asking the one real question.

Xcpts:

By their books, ye shall know them.

I'm talking about the volumes, the libraries – nay, the very halls of literature – which the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 have spawned. Many are spavined with pseudo-patriotism and self-regard, others rotten with the hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits, a few (from the Muslim world, alas) even referring to the killers as "boys", almost all avoiding the one thing which any cop looks for after a street crime: the motive.

Why so, I ask myself, after 10 years of war, hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, lies and hypocrisy and betrayal and sadistic torture by the Americans – our MI5 chaps just heard, understood, maybe looked, of course no touchy-touchy nonsense – and the Taliban? Have we managed to silence ourselves as well as the world with our own fears? Are we still not able to say those three sentences: The 19 murderers of 9/11 claimed they were Muslims. They came from a place called the Middle East. Is there a problem out there?

American publishers first went to war in 2001 with massive photo-memorial volumes. Their titles spoke for themselves: Above Hallowed Ground, So Others Might Live, Strong of Heart, What We Saw, The Final Frontier, A Fury for God, The Shadow of Swords... Seeing this stuff piled on newsstands across America, who could doubt that the US was going to go to war? And long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, another pile of tomes arrived to justify the war after the war. Most prominent among them was ex-CIA spook Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm – and didn't we all remember Churchill's The Gathering Storm? – which, needless to say, compared the forthcoming battle against Saddam with the crisis faced by Britain and France in 1938.

There were two themes to this work by Pollack – "one of the world's leading experts on Iraq," the blurb told readers, among whom was Fareed Zakaria ("one of the most important books on American foreign policy in years," he drivelled) – the first of which was a detailed account of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; none of which, as we know, actually existed. The second theme was the opportunity to sever the "linkage" between "the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict".

The Palestinians, deprived of the support of powerful Iraq, went the narrative, would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack referred to the Palestinians' "vicious terrorist campaign" – but without any criticism of Israel. He wrote of "weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses (sic)", the standard Israeli version of events. America's bias towards Israel was no more than an Arab "belief". Well, at least the egregious Pollack had worked out, in however slovenly a fashion, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had something to do with 9/11, even if Saddam had not.

In the years since, of course, we've been deluged with a rich literature of post-9/11 trauma, from the eloquent The Looming Tower of Lawrence Wright to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose supporters have told us that the plane wreckage outside the Pentagon was dropped by a C-130, that the jets that hit the World Trade Centre were remotely guided, that United 93 was shot down by a US missile, etc. Given the secretive, obtuse and sometimes dishonest account presented by the White House – not to mention the initial hoodwinking of the official 9/11 commission staff – I am not surprised that millions of Americans believe some of this, let alone the biggest government lie: that Saddam was behind 9/11. Leon Panetta, the CIA's newly appointed autocrat, repeated this same lie in Baghdad only this year.

There have been movies, too. Flight 93 re-imagined what may (or may not) have happened aboard the plane which fell into a Pennsylvania wood. Another told a highly romanticised story, in which the New York authorities oddly managed to prevent almost all filming on the actual streets of the city. And now we're being deluged with TV specials, all of which have accepted the lie that 9/11 did actually change the world – it was the Bush/Blair repetition of this dangerous notion that allowed their thugs to indulge in murderous invasions and torture – without for a moment asking why the press and television went along with the idea. So far, not one of these programmes has mentioned the word "Israel" – and Brian Lapping's Thursday night ITV offering mentioned "Iraq" once, without explaining the degree to which 11 September 2001 provided the excuse for this 2003 war crime. How many died on 9/11? Almost 3,000. How many died in the Iraq war? Who cares?

Publication of the official 9/11 report – in 2004, but read the new edition of 2011 – is indeed worth study, if only for the realities it does present, although its opening sentences read more like those of a novel than of a government inquiry. "Tuesday ... dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States... For those heading to an airport, weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey. Among the travellers were Mohamed Atta..." Were these guys, I ask myself, interns at Time magazine?

But I'm drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. "All the evidence ... indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level," they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on "the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel". Palestine, the authors state, "was certainly the principal political grievance ... driving the young Arabs (who had lived) in Hamburg".

The motivation for the attacks was "ducked" even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this "issue" – cliché code word for "problem" – and its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: "This was sensitive ground ...Commissioners who argued that al-Qa'ida was motivated by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... In their view, listing US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa'ida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." And there you have it.

So what happened? The commissioners, Summers and Swan state, "settled on vague language that circumvented the issue of motive". There's a hint in the official report – but only in a footnote which, of course, few read. In other words, we still haven't told the truth about the crime which – we are supposed to believe – "changed the world for ever". Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I'm really not surprised.

When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, the American people are not going to be told the answer to the most important and "sensitive" question of 9/11: why?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Sep 2011 14:01

Philip wrote:One wnders whether Bibi's refusal to apologise,just one word,"sorry" is going to cost Isael very dearly in the long run.

Turkey had already set a new Islamist Foreign Policy course, which was to distance itself from Israel, so that Turkey could play a more prominent role in the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and in the Horn of Africa.

Turkey wanted Israel to give it an excuse to distance itself from Israel. Israel's sorry or no sorry would not have changed a thing.

You don't say sorry to bullies! A sorry is a step in the wrong direction, and once you start walking it, you will be lost in the jungle of fear, compromise, 'accommodation', surrender.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2011 14:41

"Sorry" Rajesh,I don't accept that thesis! Turkey was Israel's closest friend in the Muslim world,with close military cooperation.It legitimised Israel's stand that the Jewish state could have good relations with a Muslim country,even militayry cooperation.The UN inquiry has found that Israel's stopping the Gaza flotilla was legitimate but its use of force excessive.Some who were killed were shot at close range and there are many unanswered Qs which Israel has not been cooperative enough.Unfortunately,this action was a collossal shot in the foot by Israel.The action ignited a Turkish nation,uniting it in anger against Israel for the first time ever.I ask you,if you consider somone your friend and this unfortunate incident happens,would you not say sorry to him? After all,the flotilla was not an official Turkish govt. entity.Israel has now lost Turkey.This is a major setback for it.The Turks could now adopt a softer approach to Syria allowing that embattled regime in dire straits nough support to survive.

The plight of the Palestinians in Gaza has been an open secret for years.They struggle to survive and their miserable plight has seen them join Hamas in droves,only enlargening the ranks of the anti-Israeli terror factions within the Palestinian groups.These groups have still not reconciled themselves to the legitimacy of the Israeli state and thrive on the plight of the Palestinians.They use a network of tunnels into Sinai to smuggle in arms,even vehicles into Gaza with the connivance of Egyptians who now will do so more openly.Israel has adopted the hardest stance thus far towards life in the Palestinian enclaves.It hasnot produced any softening of the Palestinian stand,in fact hardening it further.As well-wishers of Israel,why not it try even a small % in ameliorating the difficulties of the Palestinians,it might pay peace dividends.After all,it is worth trying.It could seek international cooperation if need be.If it doesn't work Israel can always apply pressure later on.