West Asia News and Discussions

[member_20317]

Clipping of Iranian Pan Islamic wings. How will that be of help to the Indians. GCC and Iranians cancel each other out well. Turks want to enjoy Uropain culture but also want to have a say around ME. The only ones who get all the fruits are the Israelis but then their security subsidised by the US. Israelis already understand the larger math well that is why they are more interested in US as a source of cultural guarantor and sustainer, even when they are Middle Easterners. Something makes me believe, that this is all a noise and after sometime everybody will be bored by it. Some bombing or covert ops will take place but the Amerikhans are evolving their geostrategy with every intervention so there is hardly a chance of their being any real war. 'Phoney war' comes to mind.

[ramana]

Nightwatch comments for jan 18, 2012

Special comment: It bears repetition that the overthrow of secular governments in Arab states in the past year has led to the ascendancy of Islamist political parties that are anti-US, anti-Israel and anti-non-Islamic religious groups. There are now fewer Christian communities in the Iraq that the US Army liberated.

The record is 100% consistent, although the full consequences have yet to play out. Only the Arab monarchies have held the line against the suppression of diverse cults and minority ethnic groups. In the Sunni Arab world, monarchies have survived, but secular civilian governments have not.

Democracy in the US political philosophy does not carry the same meaning in Arab political philosophy. Fundamentalist imams consider democracy to be un-Islamic. Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan said, famously, democracy is a station stop. Most Arabs do not consider democracy - holding elections - an absolute good in its own right. For many, it is a process that leads to an emirate or a caliphate.

Syria-Russia-China-UN: Russia will give no explanation for weapons deliveries to Syria and, along with China, will block the UN Security Council from approving any military intervention in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on 18 January.

Comment: This is a great power response to some Sunni Arabs' call for armed intervention in Syria. The message is that NATO will not be allowed to execute another Libyan operation in Syria.

So Russia and PRC dont want Syria's Assad to be replaced/Saddamised.

[Samudragupta]

Russian action follows the same model as Byzantine followed against the Crusades....

[shyamd]

Russian warships transferred 80 missiles. I think anti ship gear .

Apparently in the 90s Iran took some help from desh on n program. Good naval cooperation. They had problems with getting their ships air conditioned. We helped fix that for them.

[shyamd]

Source says Sarkozy has gone quiet since ratings downgrade. No one in europe wants to do anything in Syria now due to economy. Obama is all about dollars to improve his image, so lots of deals to help obama in re-election.

Still strategy on to take on Assad.

PRC - KSA sealed a deal to develop N weapons per DNW. Remember KSA already possesses some PRC maal.

[shyamd]

All political parties are joining forces to topple Maliki... Kurds, Sunni's in the west, backed by Turks... GCC effort underway to cancel the F16 order by the Iraqi's. Of course Kurds loving this. Prediction coming true after all.

Syrians are saying that the GCC wants to topple Assad to pump the O&G to europe improving their influence. They dont want to use IRaq due to maliki and also the massive instability. Safer to go through jordan and syria.

[RajeshA]

Syrians are saying that the GCC wants to topple Assad to pump the O&G to europe improving their influence. They dont want to use IRaq due to maliki and also the massive instability. Safer to go through jordan and syria.

This is what I posted on Dec 24, 2011:

For USA and Turkey, it seems the regime change in Syria may have something to do with America's eternal desire to create a pipeline system for providing Europe with its energy requirements.

As Turkmenistan's Gas reserves were brought under Russian control, USA suffered a blow in bringing Central Asian energy to Europe. As Pakistan stopped being a viable route for USA to exert influence in Central Asia, USA stopped looking at Central Asia as the place from where it is going to source energy for Europe. The only other place is the Gulf.

So Jordan has been brought into the GCC. If Syria too should turn Sunni, then the Gulf can meet Europe's energy requirements using pipelines passing through Jordan, Syria, Turkey and into Europe. That is why Russia has sided with the Syrians. The Syrians provide a natural barrier to Gulf energy for Europe, enabling the Russians to corner the European Energy market, and thus political influence in Central Europe.

Iraq is far too much under the control of the Shi'a, and thus Iran, and thus not sufficiently controllable by the West and the Saudis.

Saudis, Turks and Americans feel their interests coincide here. The Turks would want more control over the energy supply to Europe. There are 3.5 million Turks in Germany and Turkey would also want to secure their future and the future of still more Turks who could migrate to Germany. But Turkey also sees itself as an energy corridor for Europe and would want to build upon it. Russia on the other hand wants to "monopolize" the pipeline infrastructure in Europe. The Nord Stream Gas Pipeline joining Russia with Germany went online on 8th November, 2011.

Americans are of course here lining up in support of Turkey for that.

That is the Great Game in West and Central Asia - who supplies Europe with energy and thus controls the polity of Europe - of Germany most importantly. It is a tug of war between America and Russia.

[shyamd]

^^ Well spotted!

[shyamd]

Must read for anyone interested on the Iran subject.
Obama vs. Netanyahu vs. Ahmadinejad

Editor's Note: Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the new book A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

By Trita Parsi - Special to CNN

U.S.-Israeli relations are in a crisis over Iran. It has been in the making for quite some time – arguably since the early 1990s – and edging closer to climax by the minute. The personal chemistry between the leaders is abysmal – Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy recently discussed how they can’t stand Benjamin Netanyahu – and disagreements abound on the Arab uprisings, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on how to deal with Iran.

Publicly, the two sides claim to share a common objective with Iran, though they may assess risks differently. In reality, the divisions are much deeper. Israel is firmly committed to the zero-enrichment objective espoused by the George W. Bush administration, i.e. that the only acceptable way to prevent Iranian bomb is by preventing it from having nuclear technology, period. “Enrichment in Iran is certainly unacceptable,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told me in October 2010.

The Obama administration has left this issue vague, neither rejecting nor accepting this red line. Israel fears that in a final agreement, the Obama White House would accept enrichment in Iran, a fear fueled by the administration’s attempt to exchange Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for a research reactor in Tehran earlier in 2009. Both France and Israel argued that the deal would legitimize Iranian enrichment. In Israel’s view, Obama has made America’s red lines flexible and unreliable.

And between bombing Iran and an Iranian bomb, Israel prefers the former. But it is not confident Obama shares that preference.

When the two states cannot agree on an objective, tensions over tactics and strategies are to be expected. Nowhere has the disagreements been more stark than on the idea of talking to Iran. Obama entered the White House on a promise to pursue diplomacy with Washington’s foes. While this shift away from Bush’s outlook was welcomed in some quarters, it was met with great dismay in Israel – precisely due to the fear that in a negotiation, Washington would betray Israel’s security interests.

“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue . . . is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said in an interview with Israeli Radio only twenty-four hours after congratulating President-elect Obama on his historic election victory. Asked specifically if she supported discussions between the U.S. and Iran, she left no room for interpretation: “The answer is no,” she declared.

From the very outset, the Netanyahu government sought to steer Washington’s policy away from diplomacy.

On May 18, 2009, Netanyahu came to Washington for a visit that both sides hoped would dispel fears of a crisis, but neither side was in a compromising mood. Netanyahu did not have the appetite for either American diplomacy with Iran or American pressure against Israeli settlements. Going up against the American president, however, would be a dangerous gambit. Obama was immensely popular at the time and enjoyed the political latitude American presidents usually experience only during their first year in office. Clashing with Obama under these circumstances could be very damaging. Still, that was the path Netanyahu chose.

In the weeks prior to his visit to Washington, he intensified the Israeli campaign to weaken Obama’s ability to move forward with diplomacy. The strategy centered on four key areas: securing a tight deadline for diplomacy; tightening sanctions before any diplomacy began; securing American commitment to zero-enrichment; and keeping the military option on the table.

Read: Without renewed diplomacy, war with Iran lies around the corner.

The Israelis argued that diplomacy should not be given more than twelve weeks, otherwise the Iranians could play for time and use the talks to expand their program. Moreover, the only acceptable outcome of talks would be for Iran to completely capitulate and give up its enrichment program. Both requirements would set the bar so high for diplomacy that failure was guaranteed. Privately, the Israelis did not conceal their desire for diplomacy to be pursued solely to demonstrate its failure and boost the efforts to pursue other, more confrontational options. The Political-Military Chief of the Israeli Ministry of Defense Amos Gilad told Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher that engagement is a good idea - "as long as you understand that it will not work."

Netanyahu’s approach did not lack critics back home in Israel. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz warned about the increasing distance between the two countries’ leadership and policies. “While the Americans are actively seeking a way to start a dialogue, Israel is preaching confrontation and the toppling of the government in Tehran,” the daily said in an editorial. “The new government should give Obama’s diplomatic initiative a chance.”

Obama prevailed in the first round. Netanyahu was shocked to find even some of his closest Congressional allies reluctant to challenge Obama’s Iran policy. Even the powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) efforts to pass sanctions through Congress prior to the talks fell short, prompting Andrew Glass of the Politico to write that AIPAC faced some “challenging times.” AIPAC’s failure resulted from the “rough consensus that had formed in Congress to give the Obama administration time and space” to pursue diplomacy, a senior Senate staffer told me. “Supporting Obama meant not supporting sanctions.”

In the end, all of Israel’s pressure against the diplomacy it so feared was for naught. The Iranians, it turned out, would do far more damage to diplomacy than Israel ever could. The massive human rights abuses following Iran’s fraudulent presidential elections significantly reduced Obama’s already compromised space for diplomacy. “After the elections, skepticism in Congress against our strategy turned to outright hostility,” a senior Obama official told me.

By the time diplomacy finally could take place in October 2009, pressure was enormous for instantaneous success. The Obama administration had neither space nor political capital to spend on prolonged talks. The Israeli demand for tight deadlines had de facto been adopted.

Diplomacy rarely yields immediate results, and the talks between the Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran October 2009 were no different. The proposal to swap Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for the Tehran Research Reactor ultimately did not win approval in Tehran, mainly due to infighting within Iran’s political elite. The deal fell “victim to internal Iranian politics,” then-Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom David Miliband told me.

Read: Assassinations to scuttle talks.

The damage to Obama’s gamble on diplomacy was so severe that advantage had now turned to Netanyahu in his next clash with the American president. But the game had shifted; it was no longer about diplomacy, but about sanctions. Would Obama have the time and space to secure sanctions at the U.N. or would Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities first? The Obama administration feared that Israel would start a war that inevitably the U.S. would get dragged into – against its own wishes.

The White House simply could not afford any Israeli adventurism with Iran. To drive the point home, Obama sent an army of high-level officials to Israel with the aim of pressing the Israelis to give Obama the time he needed to get a strong Security Council resolution. Between January and March 2010, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, Undersecretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, CIA director Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jack Lew, and Vice President Joseph Biden were all dispatched to Israel.

Mullen took the unusual step of convening a press conference to send a clear message to the Israeli public: an Israeli strike against Iran would “be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike,” he said.

To make matters worse, in the midst of the jockeying over Iran, a major crisis erupted between Israel and the U.S. over a different issue mid-May 2010. Frustrated with the stalemate in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Biden traveled to Israel to resume negotiations. But on the day that the vice president arrived, the Netanyahu government announced that another 1,600 apartments would be built in a settlement in Arab East Jerusalem.

The Israeli move infuriated the White House, which viewed it as a provocation and an insult. Such a blatant show of defiance by Israel against the U.S. served only to further weaken Washington’s position in the region, the administration believed. Biden himself was infuriated and had an angry exchange with Netanyahu, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace,” he said, linking negative sentiments in the region against the U.S. to Israeli policies.

This enraged the Israelis, who categorically rejected any suggestion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fueled anti-American terrorism. Netanyahu’s brother-in-law Hagai Ben-Artzi even went so far as to accuse Obama on Israeli radio of being an anti-Semite. “When there is an anti-Semitic president in the United States, it is a test for us and we have to say: we will not concede,” he said. “We are a nation dating back 4,000 years, and you in a year or two will be long forgotten. Who will remember you? But Jerusalem will dwell on forever.”

The drama escalated further a week later during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. The visit coincided with AIPAC’s annual policy conference. In just three days AIPAC coordinated a letter signed by a whopping 326 members of Congress and sent to Secretary Clinton, asserting that “it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.” And a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers spoke aggressively against the administration and in favor of the Israeli position at the conference itself. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a close Obama ally, added to the anti-Obama chorus at the conference.

At the same time, only a few blocks away at the White House, Obama and Netanyahu were staring each other down. Obama had presented Netanyahu with a list of thirteen demands designed to end the feud. But Netanyahu would not yield, prompting Obama to abruptly rise from his seat and declare: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”

Obama did leave the Israeli leader with an opening, though, telling him that he would still be available if Netanyahu were to change his mind. Netanyahu and his aides stayed in the Roosevelt Room in the White House for about an hour to prepare a response to Obama’s demands. But no resolution was found. The tensions with Israel and the debate inside the White House got so heated that leaks suggesting dual loyalty among some senior Obama administration officials emerged.

Fast-forward till today, and the crisis is even more acute. The Obama White House has pursued a strategy of maximizing pressure on Iran both through sanctions and by creating a credible military threat. The belief is that Iran only yields under such levels of pressure. The danger, however, is that Obama cannot control the Iranian reactions – and the risk of Tehran misreading Washington’s moves. After all, Obama is not seeking war, he is only signaling his readiness to go to war if Tehran doesn’t capitulate. Nor does Obama have the ability – or the political strength – to control Israel. All that is needed is a single spark and a major war can be triggered.

Whether Israel was behind the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran last week or not, much indicates that the Obama administration fears that the intent was to spiral things out of control by goading Iranian retaliation. This might explain the unprecedented step by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to – in person – quickly condemn the act and categorically deny any American involvement.

Clinton’s swift move might have saved the U.S. and the region from war for now, but it shows how risky the Obama administration’s Iran policy at this stage and its susceptibility to manipulation by hardliners in Israel, Iran – Washington.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

[nachiket]

“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue . . . is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni...

We live in a similar neighborhood.

[shyamd]

Bollywood star Madhavan wows Saudi fans

[brihaspati]

Clipping of Iranian Pan Islamic wings. How will that be of help to the Indians. GCC and Iranians cancel each other out well. Turks want to enjoy Uropain culture but also want to have a say around ME. The only ones who get all the fruits are the Israelis but then their security subsidised by the US. Israelis already understand the larger math well that is why they are more interested in US as a source of cultural guarantor and sustainer, even when they are Middle Easterners. Something makes me believe, that this is all a noise and after sometime everybody will be bored by it. Some bombing or covert ops will take place but the Amerikhans are evolving their geostrategy with every intervention so there is hardly a chance of their being any real war. 'Phoney war' comes to mind.

Over India, neither has any long term interests of benefiting non-Muslims of India. Iran and Saudis essentially see India as a proxy theatre of their ethno-cultural war. They cooperate or use India only upto the point that their respective regional dominance interests primarily, and secondarily their respective dreams of leading the pan-Islamism stuff - are helped along.

Both have helped Islamic militancy around the subcontinent, without any care as to what those Islamic militants mean in the long run for the subcontinent. These are both powers that live in their medieval imperial dreams - combined with the dream of dominating global Islam - and are equally dangerous for India [well I guess not for those who shout about the trillions of investments and billions equivalent of oil security and gazillions in supposed prosperity or the life and limb of expat virtual hostage populations].

We have to realize that in the long run, the historical conflicts of interest between the Persian empire, Arab peninsula and India over the control of the east-west trade - has not died off.

[abhischekcc]

Over India, neither has any long term interests of benefiting non-Muslims of India.

Why would they? They are muslim countries, so why should they seek to benefit non-muslims?

Iran and Saudis essentially see India as a proxy theatre of their ethno-cultural war. They cooperate or use India only upto the point that their respective regional dominance interests primarily, and secondarily their respective dreams of leading the pan-Islamism stuff - are helped along.

They use India as India uses them. The long term interests of India lie in keeping them separate, and to keep shifting our stance between each, to maximize benefits from both sides. There is no other interest of India in ME/Persia. What is of more importance is to prevent either of them from building long term links within India. Unfortunately that is happening wrt KSA.

We have to realize that in the long run, the historical conflicts of interest between the Persian empire, Arab peninsula and India over the control of the east-west trade - has not died off.

What trade control? In the earlier centuries, no one power could control the trade, only the localized pathways. India kingdoms could only control the trade path going through or India. Same for Iran and Arabia. Transportation was not developed well enough one power, no matter how dominant, to take control of the trade links from SEA to Nile (seaway) or Bosporus (land link). And by the time that developed, the Europeans came in. After the exit of Europeans, the Americans came in. Only now, when the Americans are leaving, and there is no caucasian power in sight, that we have a situation where local powers can slug it out.

Having said that, Arabs (esp Saudis) are non-existent from any trading activity. Iranians certainly have trading traditions, but that does not mean they can challenge us at sea.

[shyamd]

Syria Update - Arab league mission extended by 1month. March - you will start hearing Erdogan saying strange things - climax is going to begin post March I think. Intelligence saying - that the Syrian Generals are waiting for the right price forthe coup.
They are not sending it to UNSC yet.

Clear indication that US is not ready fora fight until after Obama re-elections.
Shapiro: US, Israel are in coordination on Iran

By JPOST.COM STAFF AND REUTERS
01/19/2012 14:03

Dempsey arrives for talks with Netanyahu and Gantz; senior IAEA team to visit Tehran.
Talkbacks (10)


As Gen. Martin Dempsey, America’s senior military officer, arrived in Israel on Thursday for talks on Iran, US Ambassador Daniel Shapiro said Washington and Jerusalem were in complete coordination in efforts to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Dempsey is to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

While speaking at an event in Haifa, Shapiro said the US and Israel were “focused on the same goal,” the prevention of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Sanctions to reduce the revenue the Islamic Republic receives from its oil industry were “getting stronger every day,” he said.

The US envoy alluded to the possibility of military action against Iran, saying “all other options are still available,” but he added that there was still a lot of progress to be made on stopping Iran’s nuclear program through sanctions.

Dempsey, who is expected to focus on convincing Israel to give diplomacy and sanctions more time, is scheduled to be met on Friday morning by an honor guard at the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Vice Premier Dan Meridor addressed US strategic policy on Iran on Thursday, saying the United States’ leadership role within the international community is being threatened.

Speaking in an interview with Army Radio, he said. It is imperative that “international pressure on Iran continues until the country realizes that the price that it is paying [in pursuit of its nuclear agenda] is too high,” Meridor said.

In Vienna, the UN nuclear watchdog’s chief said it was his duty to warn the world about suspected Iranian activities that point to plans to develop atomic bombs, maintaining pressure on Tehran ahead of rare talks between Iran and his agency expected this month.

Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made clear in an interview with Financial Times Deutschland that the UN body would press for full cooperation in meetings with Iranian officials in Tehran.

“What we know suggests the development of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in German on Thursday, adding that Iran had failed to clarify allegations of military links to its nuclear program. “We want to check over everything that could have a military dimension.”

An IAEA delegation, to be headed by deputy director-general Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information indicating Iran has engaged in research and development applicable to nuclear weapons.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Wednesday that Iran, the world’s fifth biggest oil exporter, was in touch with world powers to reopen talks that he expected to be held soon.

Washington and the EU quickly denied this, saying they are still waiting for Iran to show it wants serious negotiations addressing fears that it trying to master ways to build atom bombs behind the facade of a civilian nuclear energy program.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said after meeting Salehi that all sides were willing to resume talks but the time and place need to be settled.

“I will tell Ms. Ashton about the talks today,” he told reporters, referring to the EU foreign policy chief who represents the powers on Iran.

“We have always said we are ready for dialogue,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé told reporters in Paris. “Ashton has made concrete offers, but sadly until today Iran has not committed transparently or cooperatively to this discussion process.”

He added: “It’s for this reason that to avoid an irreparable military option we have to strengthen sanctions.”

Iran has wanted to discuss only broader international security issues, not its nuclear program, in meetings with the powers held sporadically over the past five years.

Iranian politicians said US President Barack Obama had expressed readiness to negotiate in a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“In this letter it was said that closing the Strait of Hormuz is our [the US’s] ‘red line’ and also asked for direct negotiations,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted lawmaker Ali Mottahari as saying.

Salehi added the United States should make clear that it was open for negotiations with Tehran without conditions.

Israel is saying the IDF is prepped and ready with operational plans for striking Iran, just waiting on political go-ahead.

[Suppiah]

A quick win in Iran will make Obama's win a forgone conclusion. Win means destruction of Iranian regime, complete devasatation of their army and end of mulla regime. That is very much within US army reach, as they are not looking at nation building or holding land..

This could be part of taqiya game to keep Nutjob+mullas on edge and fray their nerves..

[shyamd]

^^ They dont have the will power nor the money to do that - they arent prepared to take casualties either and Iran wants a limited fight too. They dont think Obama is with Israel/GCC on Iran issue. Peoples uprising or a coup of some sort isthe hope.

Source is so confident that the GCC is right now worried about the collapse of the iranian system and not vice e versa. as GCC will have to prepare for refugees and what comes after - give them money to get them back up on their feet.

[ramana]

Rats worrying about the cat's demise?

[brihaspati]

No immediate war on Iran. There is likely to be a further erosion of the personal power base of Khomeini. Some liberalizations, but no drastic change in either direction. The real changes will be much further down the line - of the order of 15-20 years at the least. When Iran turns against the theocratic presence in gov, it will be violent and extremely so. But it will not be now.

Iran is backing up the Talebs - and this sort of proxy war will increase around the Gulf. In fact AFPak is likely to become the proxy war arena for all four forces involved - Saudi centrics, Iran centrics (including Rus), "west" and China. Afghanistan should be interesting soon - over summer.

I am finding favourable responses to my points on a rethink on the Israel-Palestine issue in certain circles. My sense is that over summer we will see a less assured support for Palestinian sovereignty than the decibel level it was going on around as. A lot of the decision influence-rs seem to have been deliberately kept away from the Islamic designs both from GCC as well as Iranian side - behind the Palestine movement. I am coming to understand why there is such a great insistence on not studying or discussing past Islamic behaviour and precedences. Those who do insist - know very well that those precedences serve as iconic models for current mullah thoughts, and hence non-Muslims should not get a glimpse into the current mindset of the Islamics. I am glad that at least a beginning has been made.

If India really wanted to play the game, it should have allowed Iran to crush the GCC [which it has the means to do in spite of the US] temporarily and then let the USA come after them. Until any mullah remains in that extended domain India will never be safe.

Abhischekcc ji,
where India is concerned - it may have gazillions of naval superiority - which will all prove clay feet because of political hesitation in appearing to hurt "Islamic" sentiments - on the most undefined, vague and all-spanning all -inclusive definitions.

[devesh]

brihaspati ji,

what's to stop the mullahcracy from doing what they did in Turkey? they went under for a few generations but eventually reemerged starting in the 80's and 90's. Gulen is a good example. the same can happen in Iran. any anti-Islamist movement might be successful only temporarily, with the Mullahs taking control within 50-60 years all over again.

[shyamd]

Indias position has not changed on Palestine even during NDA times. Some people have short memories. They also seem to forget that it's india's money cia trade that is only growing and now co-developments that help to protect both indian and Israeli civilians.

The people in Iran don't want to sacrifice their lives as was shown in the last elections, but the problem is the current regime hasn't got much to show its people. And with more sanctions the people will feel the pain even more. Or at least that's the hope

[RajeshA]

brihaspati ji,

what's to stop the mullahcracy from doing what they did in Turkey? they went under for a few generations but eventually reemerged starting in the 80's and 90's. Gulen is a good example. the same can happen in Iran. any anti-Islamist movement might be successful only temporarily, with the Mullahs taking control within 50-60 years all over again.

People need to read a lot more comics on Braniac and Ultron! Then they will understand this principle better!

[Aditya_V]

Indias position has not changed on Palestine even during NDA times. Some people have short memories. They also seem to forget that it's india's money cia trade that is only growing and now co-developments that help to protect both indian and Israeli civilians.

The people in Iran don't want to sacrifice their lives as was shown in the last elections, but the problem is the current regime hasn't got much to show its people. And with more sanctions the people will feel the pain even more. Or at least that's the hope

Not true, India relationship with Isreal improved with a lot of visits, arms deals and business relationships established during NDA rule.

[shyamd]

Indias position has not changed on Palestine even during NDA times.

Not true, India relationship with Isreal improved with a lot of visits, arms deals and business relationships established during NDA rule.

Yes and Congress opened up covert relations with Israel back in the late 60s, then opened up formally in the early 90s. UPA 1 and 2 have continued to grow the relationship. But anyway the point that I was making was that NDAs position on Palestine did not change -

Just FYI
We fully support Palestinian cause, says Vajpayee

In response to a question whether the Prime Minister spoke specifically about ending the occupation of the Golan Heights, Mr. Sinha said that when India spoke of withdrawal from "occupied territories" this included the Golan Heights, taken by the Israelis in 1967.

"India has been consistently of the view that Israel has to vacate the occupied lands. So, it does not have to be reiterated again and again. It was sufficient for the Prime Minister to say that India was in favour of withdrawal of Israel from the occupied lands."

Congress govt as the NDA did, is just continuing the lip service.

[brihaspati]

A big problem with pro-GCC Indian sentiments who also feel a softness for congrez -but do not want to be openly identified as congrez sympathizers (for fear they would lose the power of neutral pretensions), is that they always assume that any opposition to Palestinian shenanigans == bashing up congrez over Israel policy == the need to show UPA==NDA.

Who cares what subtle difference existed or not between NDA or congez! Issue is whether Palestinian demands are aligned to our interests or not. It is there that, as to what "our" means or defines - that the elephant in the room walks around.

Islamophile interests, and purely monetary profits above all else - viewpoints will always be forced to be hesitant over GCC and Iran and Israel.

[Samudragupta]

The Bomb: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan
By Pervez Hoodbhoy

Once upon a time Iran was Pakistan’s close ally — probably its closest one. In 1947, Iran was the first to recognise the newly independent Pakistan. In the 1965 war with India, Pakistani fighter jets flew to Iranian bases in Zahedan and Mehrabad for protection and refuelling. Both countries were members of the US-led Seato and Cento defence pacts, Iran opened wide its universities to Pakistani students, and the Shah of Iran was considered Pakistan’s great friend and benefactor. Sometime around 1960, thousands of flag-waving school children lined the streets of Karachi to greet him. I was one of them.

The friendship has soured, replaced by low-level hostility and suspicion. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomenei’s Islamic revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, set major realignments in motion. As Iran exited the US orbit, Pakistan joined the Americans to fight the Soviets. With Saudi money, they together created and armed the hyper-religious Pashtun mujahideen. Iran too supported the mujahideen — but those of the Tajik Northern Alliance. But as religion assumed centrality in matters of state in both Pakistan and Iran, doctrinal rifts widened.

These rifts are likely to widen as the US prepares for its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Iranians cannot forget that in 1996, following the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over Kabul and began a selective killing of Shias. This was followed by a massacre of more than 5,000 Shias in Bamiyan province. Iran soon amassed 300,000 troops at the Afghan border and threatened to attack the Pakistan-supported Taliban government. Today, Iran accuses Pakistan of harbouring terrorist anti-Iran groups like Jundullah on its soil and freely allowing Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and its associates to ravage Pakistan’s Shia minority. Symptomatic of the grassroot-level change, Farsi is no longer taught in Pakistani schools.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s footprint in Pakistan has grown steadily since the early 1970s. Pakistani leaders, political and military, frequently travel to the Kingdom to pay homage or seek refuge. The dependency on Saudi money grew. After India had tested its Bomb in May 1998 and Pakistan was mulling over the appropriate response, the Kingdom’s grant of 50,000 barrels of free oil a day helped Pakistan decide in favour of a tit-for-tat response and cushioned the impact of sanctions subsequently imposed by the US and Europe. The Saudi defence minister, Prince Sultan, was a VIP guest at Kahuta, where he toured its nuclear and missile facilities just before the tests. Years earlier Benazir Bhutto, the then serving prime minister, had been denied entry.

The quid pro quo for the Kingdom’s oil largesse has been soldiers, airmen, and military expertise. Saudi officers are trained at Pakistan’s national defence colleges. The Pakistan Air Force, with a high degree of professional training, helped create the Royal Saudi Air Force and Pakistani pilots flew combat missions against South Yemen in the 1970s. Saudi Arabia is said to have purchased ballistic missiles produced in Pakistan.

So what happens if Iran goes nuclear, and Saudi Arabia wants to follow?

For all its wealth, Saudi Arabia does not have the technical and scientific base to create a nuclear infrastructure. Too weak to defend itself and too rich to be left alone, the country has always been surrounded by those who eye its wealth. It has many universities staffed by highly paid expatriates and tens of thousands of Saudi students have been sent to universities overseas. But because of an ideological attitude unsuited to the acquisition of modern scientific skills, there has been little success in producing a significant number of accomplished Saudi engineers and scientists.

Perforce, Saudi Arabia will turn to Pakistan for nuclear help. This does not mean outright transfer of nuclear weapons by Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. One cannot put credence on rumours that the Saudis have purchased nuclear warheads stocked at Kamra air force base, to be flown out at the opportune time. Surely, this would certainly lead to extreme reaction from the US and Europe, with no support offered by China or Russia. Moreover, even if a few weapons were smuggled out, Saudi Arabia could not claim to have them. Thus they could not serve as a nuclear deterrent.

Instead, the Kingdom’s route to nuclear weapons is likely to be circuitous, beginning with the acquisition of nuclear reactors for electricity generation. The spent fuel from reactors can be processed for plutonium. Like Iran, it will have to find creative ways by which to skirt around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which forbids reprocessing spent fuel. But it doubtless takes heart from the fact that the US forgave India for its nuclear testing in 1998, and eventually ended rewarding it with a nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia had unwillingly signed on to the NPT in 1988. Its position then was that it would be happy to sign up but only if Israel did the same. That, of course, never happened. But Saudi Arabia had no option but to follow the US diktat.

The Kingdom’s first steps towards making nuclear weapons are being contemplated. In June 2011, it said that 16 nuclear reactors were to be built over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $300 billion, each reactor costing around $7 billion. Arrangements are being made to offer the project for international bidding and the winning company should “satisfy the Kingdom’s needs for modern technology”. To create, run and maintain the resulting nuclear infrastructure will require importing large numbers of technical workers. Some will be brought over from western countries, as well as Russia and former Soviet Union countries.

But Saudi Arabia will likely find engineering and scientific skills from Pakistan particularly desirable. Since many are Sunni Muslims, the Pakistanis would presumably be sympathetic with the Kingdom’s larger goals. Having been in the business of producing nuclear weapons for nearly 30 years under difficult circumstances, they would also be familiar with supplier chains for hard-to-get items needed in a weapons programme. And because salaries in Saudi Arabia far exceed those in Pakistan, many qualified people could well ask for leave from their parent institutions at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Kahuta Research Laboratories, and National Development Complex.

Good sense dictates that Iran stops its pursuit of the Bomb. But whether it does or not, Pakistan should stay out of the Iran-Saudi nuclear rivalry. Over and above all this, Israel and the United States must stop threatening to bomb Iran.

[shyamd]

It seems some of the supposed 'nationalists' who are deep down don't believe in democracy and want socialist state similar to the Taliban (but they are afraid of openly admitting it for fear of being laughed at) and want Indians to be turned into an isolated state and play the victim card. These individuals think they are doing the nation a favour but will cause instability with their divisive politics that will weaken the state by allowing the situation to be exploited by external powers. Perhaps they are backed by the British or external interests.

They are so blinded that they can't see that most decisions on foreign policy are made in national interests and geopolitical situations regardless of who is in power. But support for Palestine if done by a congress govt is somehow 'islamofile' but if done by NDA is sound decision making. Reminds me of those who called ABV weak for not crossing the LoC. But only after the war they realise it was a smart move.

Now one must ask why India pays token lip service to Palestine but continue to contribute heavily to the Israeli defences - so much so that you have a congrez govt subsidising a missile program for the safety of Israeli civilians. Unfortunately this program is a bit of a failure but hey....

Anyway, there are pro- business interests that want to stop defence purchases from Russia altogether due to their poor track record/serviceability. But yet the Indian govt wants to buy Russian. Is it because India maybe seen as pro-US and cause russia and others to back china or is it because the politicians are corrupt and will take money from anyone - the russians pay the best rates on kickbacks?

Those same sources say India shouldn't care about development of its people and focus on defence. Isn't that similar rhetoric used in north Korea where they say they are surrounded by external threats?

[Agnimitra]

shyamd ji I agree with your post in general.

Now one must ask why India pays token lip service to Palestine but continue to contribute heavily to the Israeli defences - so much so that you have a congrez govt subsidising a missile program for the safety of Israeli civilians. Unfortunately this program is a bit of a failure but hey....

Could you say more about this? TIA.

[brihaspati]

One wonders as to why whenever supporting Palestinian demands are bracketed with Islamophile behaviour - some self-proclaimed true patriots immediately jump and down in conclusion that

(1) congrez is being attacked
(2) one must immediately make an == between NDA and congrez
(3) when pointed out that congrez/NDA etc is not being mentioned at all go on ranting about ABV+LOC
(4) from there make the fantastic jumps about critics of support to Palestinian demands and declare that such critics want "Talibani socialism"

Most interestingly these wonderfully sensitive minds appear to think of Taleban as socialists - and forget that "socialist" is an ascription attached to India, formally, constitutionally by the very congrez they are so sensitive about! Then again maybe is a Freudian slip - after all they admire Talebs so much - that they wish they could bring Talebs to rule India after all?

(5) Basically criticizing Palestinian moves must be equated to not believing in democracy, and wanting Taleban and socialist state. Well, well, well, a sympathizer and defender of congrez [some of the people who are criticized by the sympathizer actually never defended ABV or BJP or NDA!!! but hey why acknowledge all that stuff, after all pro-GCC/Islamist-lobbyists and congrez sympathizers never need to show that sort of honesty or integrity] claims all that after holding aloft dynastic bootlicking and courtiership and claims its democracy! They have to deliberately suppress the fact that both their much lobbyied for GCC and the Taleban want an independent Palestine that also eventually erases Israel. So in that case what they want and Talebs want are the same thing - yet it is others who are supposed to want Palestine!


(6) these brilliant pro-GCC-Islamist lobbyists also claim that very old congrez card and actually a British logic given from the time of Linlithgow [these brains always loudly demand that old history should not be brought up - maybe for these reasons!] that anything done to hurt Islamic sentiments will turn India into an "isolated state".

Naturally those who benefited from or callously made statements that dismissed the loss and pain of millions of non-Muslims at Muslim hands, must have enjoyed the "victimhood" of others or of their political enemies - and have always since claimed that any protest against Islamism is == victimhood!! Only total shamelessness and the deepest of sadism can lead to such ==.

These sadistic inner thought processes also think that they can hide the real mindsets and long term goals of islamism as consistently and continuously proved by Islamism everywhere in the modern world, by repeating the old shrill cries of "any criticism of islamism" "anywhere in the world" or criticizing supporting Palestine - will cause "instability and weakening of state with divisive politics"!!!

In their infinite arrogance they never stop to think why such venom is needed from their side whenever Palestine is criticized? Do they even stop and think what they are effectively saying ? that criticizing support for Palestine will create "instability" and "weaken Indian state" and "caused by divisive politics". So they are declaring that Palestinian interests are Indian interests of key national stability importance and that Indian state has no power to prevent the backlash from merely appearing not to support Palestine.

It is a pity that they also forget that the Palestinian demand is most strongly supported and aired by the British for quite some time now - so the pro-Palestinian lobby in India must be in cahoots with the external interests and the Brits - by their own logic!

Again it is inexplicable why the need to always do an == between NDA and congrez or bring in ABV and always find justifications in anything that does not lead to territorial or H&D loss to Islamists as the ideal behaviour to be copied and followed by all Indian governments! Before barking, maybe a stop is needed to see whether the contrary opinions are at all supporting NDA in any form!

Yes, maybe it is time to look into what India is apparently doing as lip-service to the Palestinian cause! And what altruistic purpose and pro-Israeli sentiments lay in supposedly subsidizing Isarelis to defend themselves! And what the results speak for themselves as to motivations!

Russians pay kickbacks to corrupt politicos. Okay! So then these politicos must be out and away from the formal gov, I suppose? Because otherwise congrez mostly [because it was there most of the time] and BJP slightly [because it was there onlee for a short while] as gov, were getting these kickbacks as corrupt politicians in a position to decide things that would be worth "kickbacks". Now people who can be corrupt even on issues of national importance are declared to be doing all decisions in "national interest" onlee!!


But anyway, when you are on a roll - why stop at merely being blissfully ignorant of what is coming out as a totally illogical stream of agitprop - extend it to also declaring that those who criticize supporting Palestine are also those who dont want to care about India's development and want to spend on defence onlee!!!

Islamists hate communists - for being competitive on the same domain, so no wonder a lot of vitriol would be poured on "socialist" and "north Korea" - but then forgetting that congrez talks of "socialism" too, (when it suits rhetorics) and that those who are likely to support the NDA are likely to hate North Korea too - is a bit too much of a stretch!

[Rahul M]

Russian warships transferred 80 missiles. I think anti ship gear .

Apparently in the 90s Iran took some help from desh on n program. Good naval cooperation. They had problems with getting their ships air conditioned. We helped fix that for them.

training and some maintenance/spares for kilo class subs.

[brihaspati]

Do we have any final report on the alleged bribery allegations against IAI during George Fernandez's term? Similarly the MRSAM in UPA term in 2009? Just trying to find out why dealings had not been cancelled with the Israeli firms in spite of ongoing investigations.

So could motivations be really about kickbacks - and Russians/Israelis do not really matter as long as they pay the right people?

[abhishek_sharma]

It's neither perfect nor pretty, but the Arab Spring proves that neoconservatives were right all along.

Why won't Saudi Arabia write down its laws?

[Philip]

There was some controversy about acquisition of Barak-1.Why no other SR SAMs were tested/considered .The DRDO reportedly was touting Trishul-which repeatedly failed and consequently B-1 was acquired.B-8 is now a JV but again no other SAM was considered,why,when we have contests for other eqpt./systems?

Iran has reportedly developed a little "6.6lb" mini remote sub that does 30ft. per second.

Russia is selling Syria ....:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... t=hs&or=si

Xcpts:
Russia 'sells Syria 36 military jets'
Published: Jan. 23, 2012

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 23 (UPI) -- In its third display of support for Syria's embattled regime in recent weeks, Russia has reportedly signed a $550 million deal to provide Syria with 36 Yak-130 advanced training jets that can also be used for ground-attack missions.

There are persistent reports that Russia, Syria's main arms supplier and the principal diplomatic ally of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, has been supplying light arms to Syrian security forces who have been battling an uprising to topple one of the harshest dictatorships in the Middle East for 10 months.

The deal for the combat trainers, signed in December, was reported Monday by the Russian business daily Kommersant, quoting sources close to the state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport.

PS:Russia is also believed to have sold Syria dozens of Yakhont missiles,along with the Bastion shore based anti-ship launcheing system,Pantsir mobile SR SAMs,and 8 MIG-29 SMTs.Syria also wants Iskander-E SSMs,highly accurate,supply of which which the US and Israel have thus far stymied.

[ramana]

Devesh, Try to look at birth rates and demographics in the Islamic Middle East.

[Agnimitra]

Devesh, Try to look at birth rates and demographics in the Islamic Middle East.

ramana ji, I believe these projections are slightly over-rated. Fact is that for Iran they are based on very recent, current generational trends, which came after a major baby-boom generation. Even if the current trend of single child, etc continues, Iran's population will hit close to 90 million before it tapers off. The same holds true for Turkey and some N. African communities. And in the case of their expats in Europe, there is an explosive trendline. Following is a quote from Koenraad Elst blog:

And in cases where Muslims do follow Christians (or, most ahead, the Japanese) to a fertility figure below replacement level, a threshold recently crossed in Iran and in Bosnia, the fact that it happened much later among Muslims assures further comparative demographic gains before a net population decline sets in. Thus, in Iran the number of children including girls has grown rapidly in the preceding decades, so now the number of young mothers is still rising and even with fewer than 2.1 births per woman, the number of births also continues to rise. And when that number finally starts to decline, it will still for many years be higher than that of elderly Iranians dying, so in the authors’ estimate, Iran’s population will still rise another 20 million or so before levelling off. Even if the reproductive conduct of Muslim societies cannot be described as “demographic aggression”, it does lead to a steady rise in Muslim percentage in practically every country concerned.

[shyamd]

shyamd ji I agree with your post in general.

Now one must ask why India pays token lip service to Palestine but continue to contribute heavily to the Israeli defences - so much so that you have a congrez govt subsidising a missile program for the safety of Israeli civilians. Unfortunately this program is a bit of a failure but hey....

Could you say more about this? TIA.

Iron Dome.

[ramana]

ShyamD,
Have you been paying attention to Egypt lately!

Nightwatch 24 jan 2012

Egypt: In a rambling ten minute public statement, Field Marshal Husayn Tantawi, head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, on the occasion of the Egyptian revolution's first anniversary announced, …"Now that the people have stated their opinion and chosen their MPs in the People's Assembly to assume legislative and monitoring tasks, I have taken a decision to end the state of emergency in the entire republic, except in confronting crimes of thuggery. This decision will take effect as of 25 January 2012."


Comment: The Egyptian Army appears to be moving with deliberate speed to fade into the political background without relinquishing ultimate power. Its vast business interests and economic sinecures require the active duty leadership maintain vigilance against inroads by would-be populist leaders among the Islamist politicians. Nevertheless, Tantawi and the cohorts of active duty and retired Egyptian officers engaged in business seek to avoid appearing as obstacles to the democratic impulses they have unleashed and which threaten to devour them in the future.


The low profile strategy will not save an economy that is insolvent. As Spengler reported in Asia Times Online, less than a third of the government bond sale was purchased, although the yield was 16%. Egypt suffers from food shortages, fuel shortages, job shortages and significant capital flight.

These are conditions that make it impossible for employed Egyptians to make ends meet. That is the flashpoint for civil disorder leading to violent protests. The Army generals prefer that the newly elected parliamentary government take responsibility for managing the coming storm of civil disorders.

Any outside support to Egypt at this time only buys time before default on sovereign debt. Economic conditions are portents for a return of authoritarian political leadership by public acclamation … such as elections. The Army leadership appears agnostic about authoritarian or Islamist government, provided the vast Army economic holdings are not affected.

So how is the micro-economy doing in Egypt. Is he reporting correctly? Does it mean Egypt is on verge of becoming a bigger Somalia?

[shyamd]

On the ground it seems public services are badly affected. Things arent the same aswhat it used to be in Mubaraks days. For Tantawi, Obama, Sarkozy its all the same - there is nothing much you can do to improve the economic situation. Their economy will probably be dead soon unless someone like KSA comes in with massive funds/marshll plan to rebuild or gives them a lifeline. But why would they? MB is the anti thesis of salafism (KSAs belief).

They need the tourists to keep coming too. If MB start imposing no bikini's, all wear hijab burqa etc, then there is serious trouble for egyptians economically. I dont think MB are that stupid though. KSA will have to step in if its heading the somalia way as they are probably worried Iran or someone else will step in and start causing trouble for Saudi - KSA has pipelines planning to exit in the red sea.

Btw check mail.

[abhishek_sharma]

Supremely Irrelevant: Iran tried to take advantage of the Arab Spring. It failed, miserably.

FP Expert Survey: The Arab Spring: One year later, how has the Arab world changed?

[Surya]

huh !!!!

shyamd wrote:
Now one must ask why India pays token lip service to Palestine but continue to contribute heavily to the Israeli defences - so much so that you have a congrez govt subsidising a missile program for the safety of Israeli civilians. Unfortunately this program is a bit of a failure but hey....

This is when people start believing their own myths and go off the deep end!!!

Hell why stop at that

[ramana]

ShyamD, Most likely Mubarak's dream of reviving the Fatimid Egypt will come true.

Meanwhile for Carl:

Islamic Civilization is Dying

A briefing by David P. Goldman
November 15, 2011

http://www.meforum.org/3156/islamic-civ ... n-is-dying

David P. Goldman is best known for his "Spengler" column at Asia Times Online, which draws a million readers a month. He headed global bond research for Bank of America as well as other Wall Street research groups. Trained in music theory as well as economics at City University of New York and the London School of Economics respectively, he has written extensively on music, mathematics, religion, and the cultural heritage of the West, in Forbes, The Tablet, First Things, and Pajamas Media. His "Ankara's 'Economic Miracle' Collapses" is featured in the Winter 2012 Middle East Quarterly.

Mr. Goldman opened his talk by highlighting the widespread disappointment with the deterioration of the "Arab Spring" into an Islamist resurgence. He cautioned that the U.S. must learn to live with instability, as nothing in its power would enable it to stabilize the Middle East, yet noted that this was not necessarily the end of the world; Ronald Reagan was able to exploit it for the national interest in the case of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Rather than focus on Islamism and its conflict with modernity as chief culprit for this instability, Mr. Goldman pointed to the massive decline in Muslim birthrates attending the growing education of women. Iranian women, for example, used to bear 7 children on average; now the rate has fallen to 1.5, with the most highly educated subgroup approaching a fertility rate of 1.0. Such an inverted population pyramid means that fewer and fewer young people will be forced to support a growing but aging populace. This is not some pipe dream of Western demographers; President Ahmadinejad himself has called the decision by Iranian youth not to have children an act of genocide against the Iranian nation.

Turkey, which also boasts a high literacy rate, including among its women, has seen the fertility rate among ethnic Turks declining to 1.5 children per woman. At the same time, Turkey's restive Kurdish population is now some 20% of the citizenry, with Kurdish women averaging 4.5 children. If this trend continues, and there seems to be no reason it will not, the inverting Turkish population pyramid will be overwhelmed by the "normal" Kurdish one, in essence creating a Kurdistan within the borders of Turkey, a situation fraught with the potential for intensified conflict.

The population decline of these two Muslim countries is to be contrasted with Egypt with its 45% illiteracy rate, and where two thirds of the population lives in rural areas relatively untouched by education or opportunities for women. Combine Egypt's burgeoning population with its diploma mill universities (producing essentially unemployable graduates), its reliance on imports for half its caloric consumption, and its drawn-down of hard currency reserves and one has what can be viewed as a "perfect storm" for upheaval and potential chaos.

Besides bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power, Tahrir Square has decimated the tourist industry; the camels upon which vacationers used to ride around the pyramids are now being slaughtered for meat. There has been massive capitol flight and the generals seem to be stealing everything not nailed down. Egypt is now facing economic collapse and is in danger of becoming another Somalia, filled with starving people.

Does the impending collapse of the nation-states of the Middle East ruled by plutocrats, dictators and mullahs offer an opportunity for the West? Unfortunately not, according to Goldman.

The hard truth is that countries that feel they have no future will take extreme steps because they have nothing to lose. Tehran does not behave rationally, at least not in the Western sense, and poses an existential threat to Israel; it will use its nuclear weapons once they are developed.

Goldman's advice then is to bomb Iran and take out its nuclear capability, despite the collateral damage that will likely ensue. In countries roiled by the Arab uprisings which are slipping into Islamist hands, hostile to U.S. interests, American policy should be to destabilize them through various measures.

So some thing is afoot. Note the date of his speech and now Nightwatch acknowledges it.

What impact will a Somalified Egypt mean for India?