West Asia News and Discussions

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 10:35

Suppiah wrote:Johann, from Indian POV, the issue is not whether they are ruled by elected govts., loya jirgas or despots or monarchs or mullas..the issue is incubation of jehadi terrorist, Wahabi fundamentalist ideology, its export and seek to spoil moderate muslims globally and mould them in arabaric flavor, as is happening already in SEA. And of course, funding Pakbarics in their jehadi terrorist campaign against India and using oil as a terrorist weapon.

I see very little of that changing even as regimes come and go. Which is why I also support Israel in all its efforts.

The sequence Unkil appears to be working on appeals to me. Use one barbarian to take out the other, control and manipulate them and destroy their economic fountainhead so that they are never a threat to humanity.

IMHO India has to join that effort. In the meantime, taqiya such as inviting these animals to Republic day celebrations etc., is always ok. provided it does become the only thing we do.

Hopes and prayers are not the answer..

Saudi Arabia, like Pakistan supports extremism for reasons that have everything to with the tiny ruling classes need for legitimacy that does not involve real democracy.

Across the religious and national board, its the lower middle class that often makes the bulk of extremist movements even if the leadership may be from among the privileged. Young men with big ambitions, patchy educations, huge prejudices and outsize frustration.

When you combine solid middle class growth with democratisation and globalisation you generally see a lot of pragmatism because people have something to lose. People tend to want their governments to focus on growth and development.

Saudi Arabia has a youth bulge. The current King Abdullah is putting billions into building educational facilities that are intended to churn out something other than useless Islamic studies majors, and entitled dead-enders with poor work ethics. In that sense Saudi Arabia couldnt be more different from Pakistan. The amounts of money are mind boggling, and India is going to be one of the countries that profits from this spending surge.

Thanks to Saudi Arabia's somewhat unpredictable succession politics it can not be ruled out that a throwback conservative gets in for a while and winds down these projects. However the reason these projects were initiated in the first place was a realisation that given the explosive population growth oil revenue alone simply can not maintain current living standards for the majority. They have to deal with that first and worry about the political impact of educational changes later.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 10:49

Suppiah wrote:Oil era is not the same as gas era. ME has much less control over gas and is much harder to export long distances. In any case, higher energy prices are a necessary side effect of the current western strategy of keeping ME pot constantly on the boil, which is to keep them busy killing each other and not rest of us. IMHO a worthwhile price to pay. A lot of that $$ comes back to Unkil's banks as arms money or in other ways including equity investment...

In any case, barring extremely abnormal spikes, West has learnt to live and prosper with it. It is us poor Indians and the like, that don't have options, that are hit by oil price hike. Their oil usage, particularly ME oil, is declining both absolute and relative scale..time may soon come when oil price hike is same impact as beer price hike (or less in places like Germany)

I'm aware of those facts, but there are larger issues.

- The Americas may become energy independent, but the Middle East is going to continue to make a great deal of money selling to the rest of the world. Less then before, particularly given the growth of internal demand, but still significant.

- The Western share of global GDP and energy consumption continues to shrink. Populations and their energy usage are growing all over the rest of the world.

- Low and even middle income countries in particular are not always going to have the large amounts of capital to rapidly and completely replace existing oil and gas based infrastructure.

- There are absolutely enormous gas reserves in the Middle East. There are also oil reserves likely to become economically feasible with the continuing development of new extraction technologies and maintenance of an viable price floor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2012 13:17

Syrian Rebels Land Deadly Blow to Assad’s Inner Circle
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
A bombing in Damascus reportedly killed at least three of President Bashar al-Assad’s most senior aides, including his minister of defense and brother-in-law.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 19 Jul 2012 14:38

Singha jee where were you?

Johann,

What you say is true, but we are talking here about extraordinary influence ME has over geopolitics and western strategy which will simply no longer be there if oil export from ME is same as barbie doll export from China or motherboard and LCD panel export from Taiwan. A ME at the mercy of China or other smaller consumers, is much less a threat. Moreover, as you have seen in telecom and elsewhere, countries that are behind the technology curve sometimes leapfrog and dont go through all the cycles. China or even India did not go through pagers and so on as much as advanced societies did. Same can happen with alternative energy. We too went straight from old black rotary telephones to mobiles, skipping many steps. Our villages will get wireless 3G even before they see a phone wire or dial up.

Incidentally, China is already way ahead in that respect and may achieve similar levels of energy independence much sooner than we assume, perhaps almost same time as Unkil.

I am happy and somewhat surprised to hear your comment about investment in secular education by KSA but IMHO these countries are a bit late in the game. Building a knowledge based economy and a solid industrial base etc., are 50-60 year affairs. I really doubt if the oil era will last that long to fund such things. Already KSA became near bankrupt when oil price dropped to historic lows..

Be that as it may, if forces, internal or external, make KSA and regional countries into normal countries that we can trade do business with and have cultural exchanges with, that is to be welcomed. After all, the issue is not that they grow beards or worship a particular god, it is just that they fan fanaticism and jehadi terrorism everywhere that too with oil money.

But we should not kid ourselves and see mirages when there is no such thing on the horizon.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 14:54

Johann and Suppiah

You both miss a point. They need that oil due to interdependence. While lets say US is independent, they need the ME oil for their allies.

The GCC are worried about the next generation and they need to create an economy after oil. But they do have a huge pile of cash that they can fall back on. For example, Kuwait is creating the Silk City that will be ready by 2022.

----------------------------
Russia's best hope will be to ask Asad to hunker down in the alawite majority areas in the west of the country and create a nation state there. But even this won't help as cordone sanitaire will take effect.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 19 Jul 2012 15:03

Shyam garu, I think Unkil will give a sh.t after a few years about entire ME. There was a time when oil companies practically ran their foreign policy not just because of the importance of oil to their economies but also because they were making a killing. Ironically, the oil producers sealed their own fate by being nationalistic about their reserves. That made the west really focus on reducing dependence as there is nothing to lose..all this talk of 'interdependence' is therefore more of publicity stunt. The only thing west will care post oil (if and when that happens) is protecting Israel. Otherwise they can blow themselves up or kill themselves by the thousands (as Africans do to this day practically every month), Unkil would not even issue a press release..they are too far even to send refugees into the borders..except perhaps for Spain and few other European states.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 15:06

Sir, You miss the point, lets say the oil suddenly shuts off - the US allies will suffer the most and the US relies on these allies for their geopolitical strength and also the US economy. They are all interlinked.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 19 Jul 2012 15:14

Shyam, we are not talking about sudden disruption, we are talking about decline in importance and eventual irrelevance. Even sudden disruption is no longer a big threat it used to be..any wonder why we don't hear these ME folks threaten embargo anymore even as Israels behaviour has gone from bad to worse and much worse things have happened across the Ummah. Even Iran, the most radical and least rational of the lot, is unlikely to do so unless physically attacked, that too after lot of thought..

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 15:24

Suppiah wrote:Shyam, we are not talking about sudden disruption, we are talking about decline in importance and eventual irrelevance.

Of course, this is inevitable, but they still have some time yet, maybe 10-15 years before this starts to play out and other regions like Kurdistan and Iraq become a major powerhouse as well as the huge untapped potential of resources in Iran.

They are preparing for the future. Kuwait for example has Silk City project which will be ready by 2022.

Even sudden disruption is no longer a big threat it used to be..any wonder why we don't hear these ME folks threaten embargo anymore even as Israels behaviour has gone from bad to worse and much worse things have happened across the Ummah. Even Iran, the most radical and least rational of the lot, is unlikely to do so unless physically attacked, that too after lot of thought..

Israel threats is part of the regional strategy.
Iranian oil is being replaced by Libyan, Saudi and Iraqi oil.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 19 Jul 2012 15:32

Shyam-garu, I hope Kuwait and others don't see building another real estate project as the hope for future..how many financial centers does that region need, even with oil money? Perhaps they can make a small start letting their women drive.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 19 Jul 2012 15:35

The two fastest growing consuming countries, China and India have the lowest per capita domestic reserves of oil and gas, so there is no alternative to Middle East imports. Europe may rely for sometime on Russian oil and gas but those reserves are not as great as reserves in shale and oilsands in the US, Canada and Venezuela.

Just as it is now known in the health care business that 95% of all medical expenses occur in the last 5 years of a person's life, similarly I predict that 95% of all the revenues that will be earned by the Middle East oil producers are still ahead of them i.e. in terms of oil revenues, their best days are still in the years ahead. How they will use their revenues is open for debate.

The importance of KSA for the US is that it has historically being the swing producer and not in the amount of oil that is imported, the importance of the Gulf in general is that the USD is the pricing currency for oil. Over the last 5 years with a virtual plateau in global production, the former attribute is no longer relevant, the latter is very much so. That latter attribute e.g. is what allows Chinese balance of payment surpluses to be invested in US government debt which in turn allows the US to live way beyond its current productive capacity. That is what is currently at stake.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 15:37

Suppiah ji, Only KSA has that rule about women driving.

They have one of the largest students number of students being sent abroad and loads of scholarship programs to pay for specialist education. But no jobs when they come back!

Silk city is more than a real estate project - its the future.

But, they are nervous and they know the future is not bright for them unless there is a fundamental change in attitude of the people. You know IRan during Shah days iran used to be the same but people soon changed their ways and realised they had to work. The GCC also have another problem - water.
____________________________
Pentagon speaking to us:

U.S. official: Al-Assad faces 'fight or flight' decision

By Barbara Starr

The killing of three top officials by an explosion on Wednesday has left Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at a "decision point," a senior U.S. official told CNN.

"From an intelligence point of view the regime has to decide: fight or flight," the senior official said.

Another senior official from the Middle East region underscored that assessment, telling CNN the attacks indicate "strong cracks in the regime."

"This is a potential tipping point," the Middle East official said.

The nature of the violence and the proximity to al-Assad's inner circle of power is causing the increased concern from American government officials in the last few days, the American source said. A second senior U.S. official concurred with that assessment.

When asked if the al-Assad regime also believes itself to be at a decision point, the U.S. official the there is at least some information to back up that belief.

But the king of Jordan, whose country borders Syria, warned that despite a "tremendous blow," the regime is not going to give up.

"Damascus has shown its resilience. So I think maybe we need to keep this in perspective, although this is a blow," King Abdullah II said in an interview that aired Wednesday on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. "I'm sure that the regime will continue to show fortitude, at least in the near future.

"I don't think we should jump to any conclusions of writing the regime off in the near future."

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters Wednesday that the Syrian situation is "rapidly spinning out of control," he was reflecting growing concern about the fighting having reaching the Syrian capital and growing worries about Syria's chemical weapons, officials tell CNN.

With the Syrian regime now having moved some of its chemical weapons on at least one recent occasion, the Obama administration is stepping up efforts to conduct an "assessment of intentions" of the Syrian regime to employ that deadly arsenal against its own people, according to the second senior U.S. official who has direct knowledge of the efforts.

At the same time, senior U.S. officials involved in this issue have spoken privately but directly with their Russian counterparts in the past several days to reinforce that any use of the chemical weapons by the Syrians is a so-called "red-line" for the United States.

"This would be a game changer," the official said, who declined to be identified because the sensitivity of the information.

The official emphasized that the U.S. has been watching Syria's chemical and biological weapons sites for months to determine the security of the weapons. But since Assad moved some from a facility recently, the challenge has been to figure out what, if anything, the Syrian leader plans to do with them, he said. "The movement of the chemical weapons has generated additional concern inside the U.S. government."

At a Pentagon press conference, the chief UK defense minister made it clear that both the United States and Britain want to see Russia and China weigh in.

"The regime exists at the moment because it receives tacit support from other powers in the world," said UK Secretary of State for Defense Phillip Hammond. "If those powers are sending clear messages about the limits of their tolerance for the activities of the regime, that will be an effective constraint on the activities of the regime. So our diplomacy has to focus on getting those who have the greatest influence with the regime to ensure that it acts responsibly in relation to chemical weapons."

One challenge is to define inside the Obama administration the specific terms of what the red line may be. Officials have suggested it's the "employment" of weapons that is the red line, but acknowledged at that point it may be too late to stop their actual use. The U.S. is making the case to the Russian that they must once again make clear to al-Assad the implications of using chemical weapons.

"It's our sense even though the Russians are supporting the Assad regime that chemical weapons are a significant concern to them," the official said. "They understand the stakes get much higher and their moral ground gets much lower" if chemical weapons are used.

The Jordanian king also voiced concern about any scenario involving chemical weapons.

"I think at the end of the day, all of us would suffer from that. I'm sure that (the Russians) would be very supportive of international reactions, because at the end of the day, we all pay the price," Abdullah said.

Intervention to get the chem weapons is allowable. But they need to coordinate as a group.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 19 Jul 2012 16:21

Shyam garu, you are for sure more knowledgeable on them..I do hope they reform and change and become another Indonesia (before the Arabs started interfering there, not today's) or Malaysia (same)..

But my limited journeys there, what I read, what I have seen, at various levels has left me with very little hope and with solid negative impressions.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 18:17

They have their challenges. They got some smart brains looking at these issues. Problem is after these unrest, regimes have gone into survival mode - do things in short term interests than long term. Maybe after a year, once things settle, they will focus on long run challenges again.
---------------
Israel cancels all holidays for staff due to Syria situation.Level of alert raised.

Getting ready.

IMO as I said earlier, US & Israel are clearly communicating to Asad indirectly. Make sure those chemical weapons aren't given to any terror groups. Asad is yet to respond - at least publicly.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 18:36

Johann wrote:
The regime is going to lose Damascus sooner rather than later.

Its a Sunni majority area, and with high ranking Sunnis defecting both overtly and covertly, regime control in the capital and capital region (the Ghouta) is dissolving.

We're tipping from the point where regime control was the norm and the rebels operated in pockets to the inverse.

Its the regime that now only has pockets of control.

However those pockets have a firepower advantage ( absent the Libya style air campaign) and can hold out for a while. That is the point when negotiations will be very important in preventing the kind of extremely destructive scorched-earth fighting.

So yes the regime isn't done, but it will soon be done in Damascus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world ... wanted=all

Asad's family has now been evacuated to Latakia, the heart of the Alawite homeland within Syria.

That's the clearest sign of the regime's lack of confidence in its ability to regain control of Damascus or even secure its most important people.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 18:53

Johann wrote:Asad's family has now been evacuated to Latakia, the heart of the Alawite homeland within Syria.

That's the clearest sign of the regime's lack of confidence in its ability to regain control of Damascus or even secure its most important people.

And that is something I spoke of about a year ago!

Is this going to be another - ahead of the curve?

BTW, I think we should post these posts now in the "Syrian Resistance : Strategy and long term implications." Thread.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 19:24

Hi Rajesh,

Well done.

One thing though - despite all the sectarian and communalist tendencies, Alawites, Christians and Sunnis alike are Syrian nationalists. While you may well see Lebanese style self-governing strongholds of various groups, like Lebanon there will be no actual breakup of the country.

Instead like Lebanon some sort of power sharing formula at the centre will have to be brokered, probably by the Arab League. Just as the Maronites in Lebanon leaned on the French and Americans, and the Shiites on the Iranians, and the Sunnis on the Saudis, the Alawites will depend on the Russians first and Iranians second. The Orthodox Christians of Syria will also look to Russia for support in times of crisis and negotiation.

- I would turn that Syria thread into a general Arab Spring thread where Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc can all be followed and discussed. A general Arab Spring topic thread will have much more longevity. Think of what happened to the Libya thread once Gadaffi was dragged out of his pipe.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 19:43

Johann wrote:I would turn that Syria thread into a general Arab Spring thread where Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc can all be followed and discussed. A general Arab Spring topic thread will have much more longevity. Think of what happened to the Libya thread once Gadaffi was dragged out of his pipe.

Johann ji,

there were threads here on

These are threads that come up whenever something big starts brewing!

True we didn't create any separate threads for Egypt and Tunisia, but I guess there wasn't any military conflict there brewing! Anyway, those are already spent cases (for the moment)!

So I would say, whenever a new conflict comes up, somebody would put up a new thread. But if you feel the need right now, well ....

BTW, I don't really think on BRF one really takes the term "Arab Spring" that seriously! It is just a new name for "Color Revolutions" and most are convinced that it is all West-sponsored and West-directed! So it would be a little giggly sort of a name for a thread! Anyway, it is your choice!

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 19:56

I'm fine either way. I'm content to discuss things here and copy them to the Syria thread for archiving, unless the latter takes off with everyone else.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 19 Jul 2012 20:16

Johann, I am sorry that I came on rather strong; your posts are one of the compulsory-readings for me. My perspective is that western agenda conflicts with Indian interests, whereas the reverse is false, in fact I will say the reverse can never be true. So Western half-blind machinations and pronouncements are a source of annoyance and frustration to me. (Of course I don't mean you are in any way a part of those pronouncements, it just means I was pushing to convey that the disdain for the west's role seen here is more than reflexive anti-westernism or naive CT.)

I don't know much about Syria etc. in any detail. But simply based on general understanding of how these things work, I think there would have been a point in the recent course of Syrian events when western powers would have given a nudge to the Syrian opposition to go ahead and take the plunge. It doesn't mean they are the west's puppets, usually that's just rhetorical talk anyway, everyone has some "agency". Without some sort of a priori assurance the risk to the rebels would have been too great. People would remember what Zia ul Haq did in Hama under Hafez Assad.

I understand what you are saying about Syrian nationalism of Sunnis there. I remain skeptical and for India's sake, deeply nervous. I think that West is being used by KSA to further a globalized ummah empire in which nationalism takes a back seat. As best as I can tell, one of the motivations for West to go along is the protection of Israel from the Iran, but ultimately the Saudi-sunnis are a bigger danger.

I am also skeptical of the urge for freedom on the part of the rebels in Syria and elsewhere. Sure they want freedom but like in Kashmir I think their joy in freedom is to deny it to others. The West is doing great harm by portraying these guys as Luke Skywalker. Why not have a public agreement with them in which they will commit to actively defend individual and minority rights--including Alawi--in exchange for support?

The best agenda for everyone including India would be to subdue Saudi barbarism instead of going to bed with it, either out of blindness or misplaced chanikianness.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 20:20

I dont think he has left to Latakia yet. Rebels are claiming this so could be psyops/deception. I think thats too premature, but he has made contingency measures.

------------
Rus & PRC veto further sanctions on Syria.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2012 20:34

Johann wrote:One thing though - despite all the sectarian and communalist tendencies, Alawites, Christians and Sunnis alike are Syrian nationalists. While you may well see Lebanese style self-governing strongholds of various groups, like Lebanon there will be no actual breakup of the country.

Instead like Lebanon some sort of power sharing formula at the centre will have to be brokered, probably by the Arab League. Just as the Maronites in Lebanon leaned on the French and Americans, and the Shiites on the Iranians, and the Sunnis on the Saudis, the Alawites will depend on the Russians first and Iranians second. The Orthodox Christians of Syria will also look to Russia for support in times of crisis and negotiation.

Johann ji,

Lebanon was easier to control. It is a small place compared to Syria.

Nationalist or not, if Alawites lose power, they will have to do a serious rethink of their future. Sunni ideological center of gravity has changed quite a lot in the last 22-37 years. It is much more under the guidance of Wahhabism, especially now that the Saudis are helping the rebels. The Syrians have seen what kind of terrorism, the Sunnis were able to spread in Iraq. The Christians have seen how they were hounded out of Iraq.

The best choice for Alawites (and Christians) now is to have Latakia as their stronghold and to separate it from the rest of Syria. Without any access to the Mediterranean (Latakia), the Syrian state under Sunnis would remain weak and dependent on Hashemite Jordan or multicultural Lebanon or Alawite Latakia or NATO-member Turkey or Jewish Israel, or Shi'ite-controlled Iraq. That is the way Israel would prefer it. A division of Syria would also mean that the claims of Sunni Syria on Golan too would become almost null and void. In Latakia the secular Alawites and Christians can enjoy more security and can become part of the Mediterranean community.

With Alawites losing power in Damascus, GCC and Israel would have broken the Shi'ite crescent! That was the goal, other than getting an Oil & Gas pipeline from Gulf to Europe! Sunni Syrians can live off that.

Everybody's happy! So why should there NOT be a partition?

Are the Turks scared of Syrian Kurds getting together with Iraqi Kurdistan?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2012 20:52

^^ do you see the similarities to the Christian kingdoms that existed along the coast in 1090?

_______________
Syrian state news just aired photos and video of Asad greeting and taking oath of the new defence minister. Confirms what I said. He is still in the palace

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 19 Jul 2012 23:05

KLNMurthy wrote:Johann, I am sorry that I came on rather strong; your posts are one of the compulsory-readings for me. My perspective is that western agenda conflicts with Indian interests, whereas the reverse is false, in fact I will say the reverse can never be true. So Western half-blind machinations and pronouncements are a source of annoyance and frustration to me. (Of course I don't mean you are in any way a part of those pronouncements, it just means I was pushing to convey that the disdain for the west's role seen here is more than reflexive anti-westernism or naive CT.)

I don't know much about Syria etc. in any detail. But simply based on general understanding of how these things work, I think there would have been a point in the recent course of Syrian events when western powers would have given a nudge to the Syrian opposition to go ahead and take the plunge. It doesn't mean they are the west's puppets, usually that's just rhetorical talk anyway, everyone has some "agency". Without some sort of a priori assurance the risk to the rebels would have been too great. People would remember what Zia ul Haq did in Hama under Hafez Assad.

I understand what you are saying about Syrian nationalism of Sunnis there. I remain skeptical and for India's sake, deeply nervous. I think that West is being used by KSA to further a globalized ummah empire in which nationalism takes a back seat. As best as I can tell, one of the motivations for West to go along is the protection of Israel from the Iran, but ultimately the Saudi-sunnis are a bigger danger.

I am also skeptical of the urge for freedom on the part of the rebels in Syria and elsewhere. Sure they want freedom but like in Kashmir I think their joy in freedom is to deny it to others. The West is doing great harm by portraying these guys as Luke Skywalker. Why not have a public agreement with them in which they will commit to actively defend individual and minority rights--including Alawi--in exchange for support?

The best agenda for everyone including India would be to subdue Saudi barbarism instead of going to bed with it, either out of blindness or misplaced chanikianness.

Hi KLNM,

As far as the Arab Spring goes, I'm certainly not making any policy recommendations for the Indian Government!

I've simply responded to some of the easy assumptions on this thread about whats going on that have not been based on contact with Arabs from those countries.

This kind of talk been based largely on what left-wing Westerners have to say - some of the most self absorbed people in the world, capable of reducing anything and everything into a conflict between the capitalist West and everyone else.

I certainly agree that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey's governments are pushing a Sunni Islamist agenda. They have far more power to shape the outcome of the Arab Sprign than the West does.

Yet none of this has anything to do with the fundamental question of why tried and tested, decades old regimes that a couple of years back looked unassailable suddenly toppled. It is not the external state players that are key to this - Western, Gulf or Turkish.

My understanding is that technology has fundamentally shifted power away from the state and towards social movements in educated societies, and this has coincided with a big youth bulge demographic. Ham handed, technologically slow, dynastic police states were not prepared for this.

You are skeptical about whether Syrians, Egyptians, Tunisians, etc want 'freedom'. Thats fair enough. I think its important to remember that people were protesting was too much corruption, and not enough assistance from the state against a background of economic stagnation for the majority. It only became about fundamental political change when the state started shooting at them.

In other words the fundamental issue here is quality of governance, particularly the quality and accessibility of service delivery. The Islamists have support because many groups have a track record of delivering social services. If they come to power and don't deliver, they will lose support. Unless and until the technological tide turns, the state, even an Islamist one will face exactly the same kind of protests that brought the military elites down.

These societies are far, far more literate and educated than Pakistan or Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia. There is no one-size-fits all progression for the Muslim world.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 20 Jul 2012 00:01

Johann wrote:You are skeptical about whether Syrians, Egyptians, Tunisians, etc want 'freedom'. Thats fair enough. I think its important to remember that people were protesting was too much corruption, and not enough assistance from the state against a background of economic stagnation for the majority. It only became about fundamental political change when the state started shooting at them.

I'm not sure they are fighting for 'freedom'. The word I hear often is a 'normal' society and country. They want the psychotic relationship with the state to end and there be a normal secular contract with the state. They are not looking for perfection or ideological purity. They want a messy argumentative society that can decide what 'normal' is with out being told what it should be.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 20 Jul 2012 00:55

breaking news; FSA has seized control of main the border crossings with Iraq.

=====

Also been attempts to do the same in the north on the Turkish border.

=======

Bashar Assad's personal movements are in survival mode until his people can work out who can be trusted at the top after the NSC bombing.

The number one target in the regime is not Bashar, but Maher Assad, his brother and Republican Guard commander.

The problem with going to ground is that it disrupts communications and decision making.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2012 01:56

Manaf Tlass back in Damascus. Confirmed by both opposition and government

Big news also that Bandar bin sultan has been appointed as intel chief in KSA. Not sure whether GSS Or GIP

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2012 03:41

Spoke to source: he says he was surprised with Tlass heading to Damascus so early to talk transition! He says this is a typical fog in war where no one know what's going on and what Asad is thinking but the gulf have their estimates on when to expect certain moves.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Jul 2012 07:56

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Johann wrote:You are skeptical about whether Syrians, Egyptians, Tunisians, etc want 'freedom'. Thats fair enough. I think its important to remember that people were protesting was too much corruption, and not enough assistance from the state against a background of economic stagnation for the majority. It only became about fundamental political change when the state started shooting at them.
I'm not sure they are fighting for 'freedom'. The word I hear often is a 'normal' society and country. They want the psychotic relationship with the state to end and there be a normal secular contract with the state. They are not looking for perfection or ideological purity. They want a messy argumentative society that can decide what 'normal' is with out being told what it should be.

This is the vocal minority within the urban elite who hope to have a more liberal life and who try to put up a middle position [some even claim they are secular, and a re a "third way"]. They exist in Egypt too. But they are the ephemeral third front of India, never gathering enough serious popular support behind them to influence the state sufficiently. The sheer demograohic strength required to do this is not there yet in most of ME. The pressure is just about started building up among teh Iranians - but others are far behind. That will need almost a generation or two of modernizing education and access to an intellectual environment where dogmas can be questioned and some degree of free quest is tolerated.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jul 2012 10:55

(X-Posting from Indo-US Thread, as it's relevant here.)

A recent Republican-Democrat spat in the United States Presidential race has cast light on some very curious questions. Questions that we've been wondering about on BRF for a long time, even if they've only just begun to occur to the American public. Indeed, this new eventuality might actually provide us with a key to unlock the puzzle of America's unfolding game plan in West Asia and North Africa.

Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, along with four other Republican representatives, sent letters to several top officials in US intelligence and policymaking circles last week. The gist of these letters was to raise questions about the affiliation of one of Hillary Clinton's top aides at the Department of State, Huma Abedin, with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bachmann, of course, is known as a tea-party Republican of extreme political views; yet, her credibility is not entirely in doubt in this case, because she is also a member of the Congressional Intelligence Committee, and has access to classified information regarding international Islamist movements.

Huma Abedin is a Pakistani-American, married to a left-wing Democrat, former Congressman Anthony Weiner. Her father, born in undivided India, studied at the notoriously Islamist Aligarh Muslim University, and subsequently at the University of Pennsylvania. Her mother, Pakistani by birth, is currently a sociology professor at Dar-el-Hekma College in Jeddah.

Bachmann has raised questions about the established connections of Abedin's family members, including her father, mother and brother, to the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of Bachmann's suspicions, voiced in the letters she issued last week, appear to be corroborated by former members of the MB.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawes ... rotherhood

http://www.shoebat.com/documents/secretConnections.htm

In election season, of course, this has become a political football, with many Democrats lambasting Bachmann for going on a "witch hunt against Maw-slums." What is undeniable, however, is the extreme closeness between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. The Pakistani-American has been a top Clinton aide since 1996, and Hillary has publicly stated: "I only have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

BRF-ites will recall a few things about the Clinton era: Bill Clinton's last-minute decision to include Pakistan on his "South Asia" tour itinerary in 2000, has been attributed to Hillary's influence. Moreover, during that same visit, Pakistani terrorists murdered 36 Sikh villagers at Chittisinghpora... an atrocity that Bill Clinton inexplicably ascribed to "Hindu Militants" in his introduction to Madeline Albright's autobiography.

Back then, was Hillary's "second daughter" partially responsible for Mr. Clinton's persistent tilt towards a nation whose closeness to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban had already become an open secret in Washington? Today... does Huma Abedin have a role in the persistent denial of a US visa to Narendra Modi by the US State Department, despite the overwhelming number of American corporate interests who would love to do business in Gujarat?

But these aren't the only questions. On a geopolitical scale, what is perhaps far more significant is the manner in which the American-led West has steadfastly supported Islamist groups in overthrowing the governments of several Arab states over the past few years.

Inevitably, we've been treated to Western apologist propaganda on this forum by our resident Opinion Manager, to the effect:

Who was the Americans preference for Mubarak's successor? The first choice on the hard security side was Omar Suleiman, head of Egyptian intelligence whom the CIA trusted almost completely since 1993, and whom the Israelis had confidence in.

On the liberal, State Department side the preference was for either El-Baradei, formerly of the IAEA, and then Amr Moussa, former secretary of the Arab League.

However, the Egyptian people themselves appear to be quite convinced that the candidate of choice for the US State Dept. was indeed Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... _blog.html

In Egypt, Clinton reaffirmed Washington's "strong" support for Egyptian democracy, and met with newly-elected President Mohamed Morsi. The Egyptian protests came amid suspicions that Washington meddled in the election, even if Morsi, a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood, wouldn’t have been America’s first choice.

Given the concerns expressed about the Pakistani-American "second daughter" of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, how sure can we be that the MB was *not*, in fact, the US-led West's first choice to lead Egypt? And that the Syrian MB isn't Washington's candidate of choice to lead Syria?

Honestly, this is how it looks to me.

1) The US and West have not, by any means, given up on the idea that the best way to manage the North African/West Asian (NAWA) Muslim ummah is by nurturing and backing Sunni Islamist proxies.

This technique has worked for them in the past and they are convinced that it is the best option for them in future. It is the nationalist, Russia-leaning Arab leaders whom the West has always had a problem with: Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Gaddhafi and now Basher al Assad.

2) Sunni Islamism only became an urgent problem for the West with the rise of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was a former Western proxy that had spun out of control; most dramatically in Afghanistan, East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but with with a propensity to cannibalize North African movements like the Algerian GIA as well.

Al-Qaeda, therefore, had to be replaced by a more pliant sort of transnational Islamist network, one that was more susceptible to Western manipulation.

Thanks to people like Huma Abedin, Washington may well have begun to view the Muslim Brotherhood as a perfect candidate to advance this strategy. The MB represents the "Trotskyite" equivalent to a "Leninist" Al-Qaeda... willing to work through existing political systems, such as by contesting elections, while also organizing violent uprisings as a means to Islamic revolution. There is also significant factional bitterness between the MB and the pure Salafist/Wahhabandi leaders of Al Qaeda; so that any victory for the MB in terms of capturing Sunni Islamist mind-share on the Arab Street, represents a corresponding loss of influence for Al Qaeda.

At least one obvious British connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is easy to identify. The UK-based Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, which counts many British Pakistanis among its members, was initially founded by Omar Bakri Mohammed, an exiled member of the Saudi MB. Clearly the British fancy themselves sufficient masters of "divide and rule" to champion an ascendancy of the international Muslim Brotherhood at Al Qaeda's expense... yielding an advantage that could subsequently help London accrue greater influence in Pakistan via the MB's Al Muhajiroun affiliates.

The endgame of this would be to "rehabilitate" Pakistan as an Islamist rentier state for the West... except that the "bad Islamists" (Al-Qaeda-pasand Wahhabandis) would be sidelined in favour of "good Islamists" (MB-pasand Huma Abedin types) in the ranks of the TSPA and ISI.

All things considered, we shouldn't be surprised that the West (chiefly the US and UK) have been propping up a series of MB putsches against North African and West Asian regimes resistant to Western poodle-dom. The idea is that MB will gain at Al-Qaeda's expense in a zero-sum game, and hence provide a bulwark against the flagrantly anti-Western Al-Qaeda affiliates while serving all the useful purposes of an Islamist proxy for the West.

3) In accordance with the above: nearly all "Arab Spring" movements have ended up, or are tending towards, replacing a relatively independent nationalist leader with MB proxies... Morsi in Egypt, Jebbali in Tunisia, and currently the al-Ikhwan in Syria. It's no coincidence. This is exactly what the West wanted. The sole exception so far has been Libya, where a shaky coalition known as National Forces Alliance claimed a tentative electoral victory over the local MB... but knowing what we know of the Arab Street (and the sources of the funds, weapons and provocateurs who populate it)... this is hardly likely to last. And you can bet the West won't intervene when the Libyan MB shows the National Forces Alliance to the lamp-posts!

Of course, Bahrain had to remain untouched... the uprising there was by Shia Arabs, no friends of the MB, and besides-- Washington bases its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

4) All these events have left certain WA governments... like the Saudis and the UAE... very uncomfortable indeed. This is an important reason for the increased overtures by the GCC for better relations with India, that ShyamD has been alluding to for more than a year. The Saudis are happy to see Al-Qaeda contained, but they don't like the MB either (Bakri of the MB attempted a coup against the Saudi govt. in 1982, and has since then found comfortable asylum in Britain.) Riyadh is equally unhappy with its unmanageable relationship with Pakistan, and the growing numbers of MB-affiliated regime changes being foisted on neighbouring countries by the West.

5) India should keep in mind the danger posed by the West's machinations in NAWA. MB is at least as virulently Islamist as Al-Qaeda itself; their stated objective is an Ummah empire from Spain to Indonesia, and they are as murderous in their intentions towards Kafirs as anyone else.

The West's sponsorship of MB as an alternative Islamist proxy to replace Al-Qaeda only means that India will once again find itself on the hazardous side of this equation. Global Islamism in its MB avatar will be more conducive to Western manipulation than it was in its Al-Qaeda avatar... the nasty little lovers' quarrel between the West and Islamism which plagued the 1996-2014 era will soon be a thing of the past, and both sides will be cosy with each other once again. Pakistan's Islamist institutions, the Army and ISI, will be brought back into the Western fold by replacing their Wahhabandi-leaning ideologues with MB-friendly ideologues. From the Western point of view Pakistan will become "rehabilitated"... from our point of view, Pakistan will only become more virulent.

And inevitably, "Hindoo India" will once again become a target for Islamists with Western backing.

In West Asia, as in every other arena; in the Arab Spring, as in every other season of our history... India finds her security menaced once again by the stratagems of the US-led West, whose interests remain diametrically opposed to our own.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2012 12:49

assuming some sort of regime change (sunni takeover) or partition of syria in say 4 months time, question is who is next for this "reform" - is there a chance that lebanon and jordan will be set on fire? or will it one of the islampasand Stans like turkmenistan?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2012 13:38

With Russia and China stonewalling the west at the UN,wait and see if the Israelis decide to take matters into their own hands at the opportune moment.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 20 Jul 2012 15:52

Hisham Ikhtiar is dead.
shyamd
What could be the status of chemical weapons in Damascus?
Altair

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2012 16:01

Rudradev ji,

As always, a very good and insightful post!

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 20 Jul 2012 16:51

Rudradev, quite an insightful post but a few points not clear...MB goes way back to when Huma was not even born so why does unkil need someone like her to work MB? Also how do you explain the GCC regimes open embrace of western agendas in Libya, Syria etc, if they know it eventually threatens them too? Mind you they are not just accepting it, they can leading it in many ways..

If I can put it this way, MB has more influence in non oil arab than oil parts. So why does unkil even care? Also how does that reconcile with Unkils deep seated desire to protect Israel unless you are saying MB has also agreed to something on that front, though there are no indications of that? I am simply finding it hard to believe Unkil will travel this far in a tight shoe just to make life miserable for yeevil yindoos. Even if we are a collateral damage, pray explain what's the main benefit? Oil? Isn't the status quo a better bet on that front? After all even the crazies mulla in Iran wants to sell oil doesn't he?

For India, the entire Ummah is a threat unless and until religion is completely kept out of public domain and statecraft as in Turkey under generals or Azerbaijan (?) etc, where even growing a beard is a crime. Even the Malaysia kind of fake-moderate regimes are a threat.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2012 16:58

Rudradev ji , good post. I'll post comments a little later. But initially, I'd like to say that the MB has been trying to have a revolution in the GCC for a very long time. The US has backed them indirectly. The SD negotiated for 3 years with the Tunisian group. The US see's this as a 25 year horizon project. Dubai police chief says US wants MB in power all across the ME by 2016

Altair ji
No one knows. Depots are all over the country. The one's have moved from Aleppo to another place - this triggered the leaks to the press. He has used some in Homs. Intervention plans are on the ready and IDF MUST act. But its too big for just IDF to do on its own, it needs the support of regional states. More later

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 20 Jul 2012 18:45

Rdev,

The Huma Abedin episode is a wingnut 'death by association' FUD attack on Clinton. Note how it was noted wingnut Bachman who spearheads it and not the originator. This nothing more than McCarthism. In wingnut circles women on women attacks are kosher.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Jul 2012 19:24

X-posting from strat scenario in reply to Johann:

Johann,
all the factors you mention :
(a) popular dissent against ruling regime
(b) dissent coalescing into street demo/uprisings
(c) apparent commitment even to die for the cause of the dissent
(d) ruling regime forming an extended kinship in the coercive wings
(e) ruthlessness shown by the extended kinship in the military against the dissenting masses

were there before also. Think of it, this was how the Baathists of the Syrian/Jordanian-Egyptian sector came to power. But f you go deeper, you can see that their coming to power coincided with a certain political viewpoint from the west, especially the "realpolitik" section of US establishment.

The Baathist dominance in ME - from Iraq to Syria, and for a time, Egypt [to an extent the Baathist undertone underlay the foundations of Nasser, Sadat, and therefore Mubaraks] came about in the backdrop of US/British perceived need to stop the "Marxist" leanings growing in the so-called Arab-socialist movement.

Remember how the Iraqi "Marxist" leader of the coup was dispatched under the "Baathist" correction of course? Its not so easily available publicly, but the subsequent analysis of events and connecting the dots have revealed the foreign policy initiatives from the west that facilitated the Baathist transition.

what people do not compare and study is the track record of the failed "uprisings" besides the success stories. If you see, and I have posted on the west asia thread long ago - there has been a consistent trend of agrarian discontent based dissent against ruling regimes in ME. From time to time it has been used by various dissenting factions of the urban elite, for their own power games, but they never succeeded if the commoner uprising was not aligned with western interests and transnational big biz interests [including of course oil and drugs] in changing regimes.

I think I was one of the earliest among forumites to predict that the ME, Islamic world would not last forever in Islamism, and that our calculatiosn based on a very long surviving Islamist ME would be wrong. I however expected that transition earliest in Iran, and I still believe so.

For me, there are two antagonistic trends within ME, and it has always been there since the invention of agriculture. Its that fight over control over means of production, in more agrarian times - land and water, and now, more over energy and minerals - again land based resources, that drives the political dynamic of conflict within ME societies.

Islamist clergy - like other theologies in the past - have survived by using that popular hunger against previously existing ruling powers, and then selling off the popular discontent as part of a new compromise ruling setup. It is for thsi reason, my projection was that more the theologians directly came into power- their real role in suppressing or repressing that popular hunger would be exposed and come in conflict with their formal theological pretensions.

I am very hopeful about ME, but that stage has to be gone through in steps not yet taken in most of ME: a popular discontent that is also seen by the west as a good smokescreen to change rulers living beyond their shelf life or becoming too costly to maintain. What is crucial is to get the Islamists into power. Only direct use of state power by Islamists, and theologians - ultimately exposes the whol theological establishment.

The west does not want this to happen, becuase then it loses the only remaining handle it has on ME societies - the theologiacal establishment of Islamism itself. The western states within states, the secret sections, have always been in cahoots with the theologians and their institutions as the springboards of control and trigger mechanisms as and when needed.

Do not assume, that just because there are official loud protests against Islamists or "extremism" that the west is really against them. It might be worthwhile to consider that Indian theological institutions, play practically the same role.

ADDED:

Rudradev ji,
I have always contended that even the Egyptian promotion of MB was taking place under Mubarak - since the assassination of his predecessor. Contrary to claims, Mubarak did not suppress the foundation of MB - the clerical networks, but all that he did was eliminate the more aggressive or independent elements of MB. This indicates that those who were too uncomfortable for western perspectives, or in terms of western control - were eliminated.

This does not necessarily mean that MB was the sole handling mechanism being considered, or that specific US political connections to MB helped. More likely is that MB was found to be the best tool for manipulation under the given circumstances among the array of Islamist alternatives available.

In the future, when MB runs out of its utility or a better or more pliable Islamist alternative is available, they will drop MB too.

Islamists on the other hand realize that their very civilizational or societal approach puts them at a disadvantage of more open/questions-allowed/technologically oriented societies in tehc urrent setup. They are dependent on the UK+US to make up for this deficiency, and thus avoid the possibility of being made mincemeat of by non-western non-Islamic neighbouring forces. Neither Russia, nor China, nor India [ inspite of WKK's and p-secs or Gulf-financial-flow promoters] are entirely friendly at a societal level. Given quarter of a chance, these forces will encroach on Harb-land and political space.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 20 Jul 2012 21:18

Suppiah wrote:Rudradev, quite an insightful post but a few points not clear...

1) MB goes way back to when Huma was not even born so why does unkil need someone like her to work MB?

2)Also how do you explain the GCC regimes open embrace of western agendas in Libya, Syria etc, if they know it eventually threatens them too? Mind you they are not just accepting it, they can leading it in many ways..

3) If I can put it this way, MB has more influence in non oil arab than oil parts. So why does unkil even care? Also how does that reconcile with Unkils deep seated desire to protect Israel unless you are saying MB has also agreed to something on that front, though there are no indications of that?

4) I am simply finding it hard to believe Unkil will travel this far in a tight shoe just to make life miserable for yeevil yindoos. Even if we are a collateral damage, pray explain what's the main benefit? Oil? Isn't the status quo a better bet on that front? After all even the crazies mulla in Iran wants to sell oil doesn't he?

5) For India, the entire Ummah is a threat unless and until religion is completely kept out of public domain and statecraft as in Turkey under generals or Azerbaijan (?) etc, where even growing a beard is a crime. Even the Malaysia kind of fake-moderate regimes are a threat.

Let me take a stab

1) MB was born way before Huma, but Huma can influence now that's what matters. It also keeps a communication channel. in the mode of David Hadley.

2) GCC etc is convinced of the unkils control and manipulative power over the New MB (just like the pre Soviet withdrawal control over OBL groups, Blind Sheikh in NYC, recall the Blind Sheikh who was practicing and preaching Islam was hosted by Unkil and was MB indoctrinated) Also note how the newly elected Egypt asked for his release.

3) To bring them into the orbit Oil rich sunni regimes and thereby exercise control over MB in non oil Arab countries. This is not the first time that Unkil is aligning with Islamist extremists, precedents exists in Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan and even in Iran during Iran Iraq war.

4) Not oil any more, the US and Canada are destined to be surpassing the current oil producers with Fracking of Shale. It is perceived threat of a major developing country as rival.

5) Serves a purpose to meddle in affairs hence its unkils interest to perpetuate the status quo for Islam to be in political arena. As shiv put its the best impediment to the progress believers.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 20 Jul 2012 21:20

shyamd wrote: Altair ji
No one knows. Depots are all over the country. The one's have moved from Aleppo to another place - this triggered the leaks to the press. He has used some in Homs. Intervention plans are on the ready and IDF MUST act. But its too big for just IDF to do on its own, it needs the support of regional states. More later

I am worried some of it ending up in hands of LeT/ISI. LeT has tried to acquire Chemical WMD before and this "Going out of Business"/"Garage sale" is too tempting.Once it ends in their hands it will end up in Mumbai. We cannot count on IDF alone to stop them. CIA/MI6 wouldnt care if it ends up in Mumbai. We need our OWN eyes and ears. How good is our presence on ground to stop such an eventuality