RSS Subscribe
Email Subscribe

Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Blogroll
News
View blog authority
Books

Luis Palau

The Shaping of a Coherent Middle Eastern Policy

I know this report may be a source of disappointment for some such as Harry, but just when all may seem lost in the middle east, emerging according to Stratfor, is an understanding between Syria and Israel and Iran and USA that could confound the naysayer. All are aware that the leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, declared the “Surge” a failure during the mobilization phase and then went on to say that we had lost the war in Iraq. While anyone with any degree of intelligence and fair mindedness realizes that he was wrong on both fronts, this didn’t deter him one bit as he went on to redefine success of the surge as Iraq being able to meet its key benchmarks, which earlier he declared also a failure.

Wrong again………..Iraq is meeting most of the benchmarks and making progress on the others. Revenue sharing arrangements though not complete have reached a new and feasible level of interim operating harmony.

In short the outcome of the “war in Iraq” is now showing success on most all fronts. Those that have complained about the Bush administrations ham handedness in handling the Middle East situation and the overall problem fail to recognize the effective neutralization of Hamas, the real possibility of slicing Syria from the sphere of Iranian influence, the isolation of Hezbollah and the co-opting of Iran for some rapprochement with Iraq de-fanging either’s potential to dominate the other.

I believe the current chest pounding by Iran and Israel may be a back drop of a sideshow while the true negotiations ensue, with the full backing of the moderate middle eastern states such as Jordan and Egypt. As the political season shapes up I hope the Democratic contestants get a sudden dose of reality and clear vision (some have) about what is going on and backs off that mantra of immediate withdrawal and proceed with caution in this area.

If the Democrats had their way with one of the pieces of legislation that Obama voted for, we would have left Iraq this past March. If this success occurs it will greatly trouble the likes of Move On and Code Pink. They are stuck with their sloganeering such as “General Betrayus” and “No sanctions on Iran.” Can you believe that Code Pink is not only against war with Iran (I can accept that), but that we should impose no sanctions? I think it is tantamount to demonstrating their disdain for Israel. I will insert in full the publication by Stratfor for your interest sake. [Please pardon the lack of paragraph distinction below, WordPress problem.]

The New Era

July 9, 2008
By Peter ZeihanAs students of geopolitics, we at Stratfor tend not to get overexcited when this or that plan for regional peace is tabled. Many of the world’s conflicts are geographic in nature, and changes in government or policy only rarely supersede the hard topography that we see as the dominant sculptor of the international system. Island states tend to exist in tension with their continental neighbors. Two countries linked by flat arable land will struggle until one emerges dominant. Land-based empires will clash with maritime cultures, and so on.

Petit vs. Grand Geopolitic

But the grand geopolitic — the framework which rules the interactions of regions with one another — is not the only rule in play. There is also the petit geopolitic that occurs among minor players within a region. Think of the grand geopolitic as the rise and fall of massive powers — the onslaught of the Golden Horde, the imperial clash between England and France, the U.S.-Soviet Cold War. By contrast, think of the petit geopolitic as the smaller powers that swim alongside or within the larger trends — Serbia versus Croatia, Vietnam versus Cambodia, Nicaragua versus Honduras. The same geographic rules apply, just on a smaller scale, with the added complexity of the grand geopolitic as backdrop.The Middle East is a region rife with petit geopolitics. Since the failure of the Ottoman Empire, the region has not hosted an indigenous grand player. Instead, the region serves as a battleground for extra-regional grand powers, all attempting to grind down the local (petit) players to better achieve their own aims. Normally, Stratfor looks at the region in that light: an endless parade of small players and local noise in an environment where most trends worth watching are those implanted and shaped by outside forces. No peace deals are easy, but in the Middle East they require agreement not just from local powers, but also from those grand players beyond the region. The result is, well, the Middle East we all know.All the more notable, then, that a peace deal — and a locally crafted one at that — has moved from the realm of the improbable to not merely the possible, but perhaps even the imminent. Israel and Syria are looking to bury the hatchet, somewhere in the Golan Heights most likely, and they are doing so for their own reasons. Israel has secured deals with Egypt and Jordan already, and the Palestinians — by splitting internally — have defeated themselves as a strategic threat. A deal with Syria would make Israel the most secure it has been in millennia. Syria, poor and ruled by its insecure Alawite minority, needs a basis of legitimacy that resonates with the dominant Sunni population better than its current game plan: issuing a shrill shriek whenever the name “Israel” is mentioned. The Alawites believe there is no guarantee of support better than cash, and their largest and most reliable source of cash is in Lebanon. Getting Lebanon requires an end to Damascus’ regional isolation, and the agreement of Israel. The outline of the deal, then, is surprisingly simple: Israel gains military security from a peace deal in exchange for supporting Syrian primacy in Lebanon. The only local loser would be the entity that poses an economic challenge (in Lebanon) to Syria, and a military challenge (in Lebanon) to Israel — to wit, Hezbollah. Hezbollah, understandably, is more than a little perturbed by the prospect of this tightening noose. Syria is redirecting the flow of Sunni militants from Iraq to Lebanon, likely for use against Hezbollah. Damascus also is working with the exiled leadership of the Palestinian group Hamas as a gesture of goodwill to Israel. The French — looking for a post-de Gaulle diplomatic victory — are re-engaging the Syrians and, to get Damascus on board, are dangling everything from aid and trade deals with Europe to that long-sought stamp of international approval. Oil-rich Sunni Arab states, sensing an opportunity to weaken Shiite Hezbollah, are flooding petrodollars in bribes — that is, investments — into Syria to underwrite a deal with Israel.While the deal is not yet a fait accompli, the pieces are falling into place quite rapidly. Normally we would not be so optimistic, but the hard decisions — on Israel surrendering the Golan Heights and Syria laying preparations for cutting Hezbollah down to size — have already been made. On July 11 the leaders of Israel and Syria will be attending the same event in Paris, and if the French know anything about flair, a handshake may well be on the agenda. It isn’t exactly pretty — and certainly isn’t tidy — but peace really does appear to be breaking out in the Middle East.

A Spoiler-Free Environment

Remember, the deal must please not just the petit players, but the grand ones as well. At this point, those with any interest in disrupting the flow of events normally would step in and do what they could to rock the boat. That, however, is not happening this time around. All of the normal cast members in the Middle Eastern drama are either unwilling to play that game at present, or are otherwise occupied.The country with the most to lose is Iran. A Syria at formal peace with Israel is a Syria that has minimal need for an alliance with Iran, as well as a Syria that has every interest in destroying Hezbollah’s military capabilities. (Never forget that while Hezbollah is Syrian-operated, it is Iranian-founded and -funded.) But using Hezbollah to scupper the Israeli-Syrian talks would come with a cost, and we are not simply highlighting a possible military confrontation between Israel and Iran. Iran is involved in negotiations far more complex and profound than anything that currently occupies Israel and Syria. Tehran and Washington are attempting to forge an understanding about the future of Iraq. The United States wants an Iraq sufficiently strong to restore the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and thus prevent any Iranian military incursion into the oil fields of the Arabian Peninsula. Iran wants an Iraq that is sufficiently weak that it will never again be able to launch an attack on Persia. Such unflinching national interests are proving difficult to reconcile, but do not confuse “difficult” with “impossible” — the positions are not mutually exclusive. After all, while both want influence, neither demands domination. Remarkable progress has been made during the past six months. The two sides have cooperated in bringing down violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level since the aftermath of the 2003 invasion itself. Washington and Tehran also have attacked the problems of rogue Shiite militias from both ends, most notably with the neutering of Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia, the Medhi Army. Meanwhile, that ever-enlarging pot of Sunni Arab oil money has been just as active in Baghdad in drawing various groups to the table as it has been in Damascus. Thus, while the U.S.-Iranian understanding is not final, formal or imminent, it is taking shape with remarkable speed. There are many ways it still could be derailed, but none would be so effective as Iran using Hezbollah to launch another war with Israel. China and Russia both would like to see the Middle East off balance — if not on fire in the case of Russia — although it is hardly because they enjoy the bloodshed. Currently, the United States has the bulk of its ground forces loaded down with Afghan and Iraqi operations. So long as that remains the case — so long as Iran and the United States do not have a meeting of the minds — the United States lacks the military capability to deploy any large-scale ground forces anywhere else in the world. In the past, Moscow and Beijing have used weapons sales or energy deals to bolster Iran’s position, thus delaying any embryonic deal with Washington. But such impediments are not being seeded now. Rising inflation in China has turned the traditional question of the country’s shaky financial system on its head. Mass employment in China is made possible not by a sound economic structure, but by de facto subsidization via ultra-cheap loans. But such massive availability of credit has artificially spiked demand, for 1.3 billion people no less, creating an inflation nightmare that is difficult to solve. Cut the loans to rein in demand and inflation, and you cut business and with it employment. Chinese governments have been toppled by less. Beijing is desperate to keep one step ahead of either an inflationary spiral or a credit meltdown — and wants nothing more than for the Olympics to go off as hitch-free as possible. Tinkering with the Middle East is the furthest thing from Beijing’s preoccupied mind.Meanwhile, Russia is still growing through its leadership “transition,” with the Kremlin power clans still going for each other’s throats. Their war for control of the defense and energy industries still rages, their war for control of the justice and legal systems is only now beginning to rage, and their efforts to curtail the powers of some of Russia’s more independent-minded republics such as Tatarstan has not yet begun to rage. Between a much-needed resettling, and some smacking of out-of-control egos, Russia still needs weeks (or months?) to get its own house in order. The Kremlin can still make small gestures — Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin chatted briefly by phone July 7 with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the topic of the nuclear power plant that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr — but for the most part, the Middle East will have to wait for another day. But by the time Beijing or Moscow have the freedom of movement to do anything, the Middle East may well be as “solved” as it can be.

July 10, 2008 | Filed Under Iran, Israel, War on Terror | 1 Comment

Brilliant ?

DEBKAfile is reporting with a breaking exclusive that the US is planning to put an airbase in Lebanon 22 miles from the Syrian border. This would represent the first return of U.S. military to Lebanon since they were withdrawn by Reagan in 1983. Some of you that are familiar with Debka may scoff at their reporting, but after following their reports for a number of years now I would say that their accuracy is much, much higher than is popularly reported.

This could be the “check and mate” regarding Syria’s strong arm pressure on Lebanon, occasionally removing a head of state as they may desire. This also would take Hezbollah off balance and jeopardize their military supply lines. This could be just what the doctor ordered. I wonder if this has anything to do with Sec. Rice’s meeting with Syria’s Prime Minister Saniora in June or the pledge of $770 million of U.S. Aid in January. We’ll just have to stay tuned for further developments in this area.

October 10, 2007 | Filed Under Israel, War on Terror | 3 Comments

Syria’s War Plans Against Israel

DEBKAfile reports that it looks like Syria’s intentions for a Summer war against Israel has been delayed until November. Olmert first tipped this off when he commented this past Tuesday (7/31) that he believed this Summer and Fall would be less “hot” than expected. According to military sources this evaluation reached Jerusalem via Washington last week.

The belief is that the scope of the initial thrust will be to test Israel’s military response to a series of cross-border raids. According to DEBKA, President Assad and his inner circle (including his brother-in-law) have designed this plan and it hasn’t been widely disseminated throughout Syrian offices. Of course Syria has denied any intentions of going to war against Israel. I sure hope Olmert’s administration is up to this challenge, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in this particular crowd.

July 31, 2007 | Filed Under Israel, War on Terror | 7 Comments

Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran

A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo,” right out of the mouth of the Guardian HERE and I guess that Administration reports suggest that Iran will continue the negotiations dance and it will be still in process with no end in view in January, 2009. They are obviously playing out the clock looking for a more fertile administration to intimidate. Bush doesn’t trust any of the candidates in either party to deal with them. So we may well see if Iran has those 600 missiles actually aimed at Israel or if Israel has 5 aimed at Iran. You got to appreciate the fact that Bush is not making decisions based on their latest internal polls like a few of the candidates are (at least one). But I suppose most grown-ups really do understand that Iran cannot be left to continue with this pursuit of nuclear arms and festering a war in the Middle East with Israel and their surrogates Hezbollah, and now Hamas as well as Syria. If the Iranians really want to head this thing off I’d say now is the time for “Regime Change.” Now don’t get too excited, it looks like no action will be taken till 2008.

This is really going to PO the leadership party in Congress. I guess it was Clinton, Pelosi and Reed that said that Bush shouldn’t attack Iran before he gets permission from Congress. Now that is one bet you can make and win if you put your money on the “I don’t think so” side of the wager. We’ll just have to stay tuned.

July 16, 2007 | Filed Under Israel, Politics, The Left, War on Terror | 22 Comments

Fifteen Million Iranians Should Do It

According to Haaretz.com HERE The Qatari Newspaper Al Watan is reporting today that Iran has “locked on” 600 targets in Israel. Accordingly they are threatening to hit the Jewish state with a massive missile strike if either Israel or the US attack the Islamic Republic or its’ ally Syria. I assume this is a large list of buildings that represent commercial and military interests in Israel along with some populated neighborhoods. Israeli military experts are predicting a full scale war with Syria in the next six months set off by cross border military action precipitated by Hezbollah. Apparently Iran believes it can equip and finance Syria to support Hezbollah and Hamas in its constant attacks on Israel and should be free from expectation of retaliation. Makes sense in the “Radical Islamic” manner of reasoning doesn’t it?

I think It’s Israel’s turn and they should publish the following:

“Israel has ‘locked on’ five Iranian targets as follows: Tehran 8.6 million, Mashad 2.3 million, Isfahan 1.5 million, Tabriz 1.4 million, Shiraz 1.3 million.” I wonder if 15 million Iranians would get the message?

July 16, 2007 | Filed Under Israel, War on Terror | 12 Comments

Hamas Provokes Israel Again

In the past 16 days the “Palestinians” (Hamas) in the Gaza strip have fired 310 Qassam missiles into Sderot, Israel as the Israeli Government continues with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “strategy” of not approving the IDF’s (Israel Defense Force) request (demand) to allow ground troops to go into Gaza and put down this menace. Wow, I guess the Palestinians should be happy that Olmert is the Prime Minster and not me. It takes a lot of patience to not respond adequately and protect your own people. This barrage of attacks has turned 23,000 residents of Sderot into Read more

May 31, 2007 | Filed Under Israel, Muslim/Islam | 13 Comments

Holocaust Denial

There is a recent email circulating that evokes at first the thought of “Urban Legend” or “Hoax” and seems initially as though it should be disregarded as nonsense. So a trip to snopes.com reveals that it is in at least part very true. The subject concerns the schools in the United Kingdom discontinuing teaching about the Holocaust because Read more