Obama lies again: Gulf countries do not support his nuclear sellout, meanwhile Iran releases anti-Arab game
The Heritage Foundation's Luke Coffey writes that - contrary to Obama administration claims -
the Gulf countries do not support the Obama-Kerry nuclear sellout to Iran.
Does Iran pose an existential threat to its neighbors in the Gulf and to regional security?
Without a doubt. And the Gulf Cooperation Council members that do not
say so publicly will certainly say so privately—even Qatar.
The Iranian ruling elite look down on the Gulf States, many of which
they see as nouveau riche artificial Arab states carved out of the
former Persian Empire and propped up by Western powers.
At the root of Arab-Iranian tensions in the Gulf is Tehran’s
ideological drive to export its Islamist revolution and overthrow the
traditional rulers of the Arab monarchs.
This ideological clash has further amplified the longstanding
sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunni Islam and is exacerbated by
several longstanding Iranian territorial claims in the Gulf.
This will only be made worse as a result of the Iran deal.
The Qatari foreign minister can say what he likes about the deal, but
the only voice that matters in the Gulf Cooperation Council is the
voice of Saudi Arabia’s King Salam.
As the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and as the ruler of the
largest and most important Gulf Cooperation Council member, it is his
voice that counts the most on the Arab street.
Until King Salam speaks publicly in support of the deal, you can bet
there are serious concerns privately among the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Stories like the one that follows are not going to make the Gulf countries any more comfortable with a nuclear Iran.
And the
full story in English.
An Iranian website that specializes in electronic games has released a game named “Beat Up and Insult the Arab” and made the game available for free download.
The site that released the game is allegedly registered at the
country's center for regulating Iranian websites, which is linked to the
Ministry of Culture and Guidance. It introduces itself as an
entertainment site that operates based on the rules of the Islamic
Republic. On the site, it states that it will remove any content that
violates Islamic laws.
The game consists of two parts; the first is called “feed the Arab,” and
the second is called “beat up the Arab,” and includes references to
Gulf Arabs.
Many Ahwazi Arabs, whom the Islamic Republic
legally considers Iranian citizens, commented on the game on social
media, labelling it as racist regardless of which exact Arabs the game
intends to poke fun at.
What a nice country. Let's let them have nuclear weapons.... They wouldn't hurt anyone..... Would they?
Labels: Arab-Persian rivalry, Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, lies, Shiites v. Sunnis
This is rich: The safest Arabs in the world
Guess where the safest Arabs in the world live? You guessed it -
the 'West Bank' and Gaza.
But there are other reasons the Palestine issue has lost much of its
luster for many Arabs. One reason was cited the other evening by a
Jordanian businessman, Abu Furas, at a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner in
London. “Today, no Arab feels safe in his country,” he said.
“Ironically, the sole exceptions are Palestinians in the West Bank
because they know Israel will defend them if ISIS attacks. Even in Gaza,
most people secretly believe that Israel is their ultimate protection
against ISIS fighters trying to strike roots in the Sinai.”
Though the idea of Arabs being saved by Israel from massacre by their
own brethren sounds fantastic, events on the ground lend it some
weight.
Palestinians living in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria have been
massacred both by Bashar al-Assad’s troops and throat-cutting mujahideen
from ISIS. The massacre of Christians, Yazidis and Druze minorities by Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq contrasts with the safety those groups enjoy in Israel.
For weeks, Jordan has been bracing itself for an attack by ISIS on
Zarqa, a Palestinian-majority city near Syria. Such a move would bring
ISIS close to the West Bank and Israel proper, in which case, some
Jordanians believe, the Jewish state would stop its spread.
“Today, Arabs see that their own house is on fire,” says a Dubai
businessman. “In such a situation one could hardly think of burning
someone else’s house.”
There is no one else to save the Arabs. The United States? Couldn't care less. Europe? Will run away faster than you can say 'Yazidi.' The Gulf Countries? Don't know how to operate most of their toys. Only Israel will save its Arab population from ISIS.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Gaza, Gulf states, ISIS, Islamic State, Judea and Samaria, Palestinians
Planning for a post-Obama world
A fascinating piece in the American Thinker this morning about how to
clean up the Middle East post-Obama. A couple of highlights.
The chief new reality is the de facto coalition among Israel, Egypt, and the Sunni Gulf states. This comprises a potential new source of stability in the region, a stability that has been lacking since the collapse of the Ottoman imperium. The dream of an Arab equivalent of Europe -- a region of independent nation-states united through ethnicity and religion -- lies in ruins. The possibility that it can revived are minimal. Libya, Syria, and Yemen are all failed states and, left to themselves, the UN, or Europe, will remain that way. The fantasy of nation building was punctured by Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are not only incapable of governing themselves, they are incapable of maintaining a viable social system. This role must be filled by an overarching power, as it was by the Ottomans and the European imperialists.
It must be done because we require order. This is not the 19th century. The Jihadis have clearly demonstrated a global reach. They can get at any target anywhere simply by parasitizing well-established Western communications and transportation systems. The sole way to deny them this capability is through control of the failed states that act as incubators for their mujahedin.
...
The two major goals in the Mideast are the defeat of the Jihadis and the denial of Iranian hegemony. The coalition can encompass both, with support from interested Western powers. Despite all the appeasement rhetoric, the Iranian nuclear threat can be shut down in short order. No one has considered the possibility that Israel might utilize tactical nukes fitted to bunker-buster warheads. These would “drill” deeply into the overhanging mountains before detonating, rendering the Iranian nuclear program unsalvageable with little in the way of fallout or residual radiation. This would a bold step on the part of Israel, but existential challenges encourage that kind of thing. Sanction from the Gulf States is likely to be easily obtained.
Iran would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, but in the age of fracking, this is nowhere near the threat it once was. Fracking could take up a large part of the oil shortfall within months. There would be a serious economic earthquake, but the West has it coming.
Turning to the Jihadis, the long war, which the U.S. and Europe have proven incapable of maintaining, would probably be best fought by nations in the area. Saudi Arabia has valuable knowledge about these people. Israel has one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world. Pooling their efforts should bring results that would difficult for outside actors to match. The current collaboration between the Israelis and the Egyptians could act as a model here.
Failed states such as Syria and Yemen are likely to remain non-nations on the Somalia model. As such, they will have to be controlled. Civilized forces will need to enter these degraded pea-patches on an irregular basis on punitive missions, much the same as the British mounted expeditions into Afghanistan and Somalia during the imperial period. (Libya is different, virtually bordering on the West as it does -- it must be brought under control, the sooner the better.)
This is effectively a form of neocolonialism, one that should be carried out by locals with a deep understanding of the stakes. It could of course, be “better,” in the abstract, if Somalis and Syrians could govern themselves, but they can’t, and that’s the end of it. They are a problem, and a new Mideast coalition offers a solution. Such a coalition will share goals with the West: elimination of the Iranian threat, destruction of ISIS and similar Jihadi gangs, and beyond that, a new status quo. While such a solution is far from perfect, it is the best that can be expected from a horrendous situation.
What would the U.S. role be? Basically, everybody’s benign uncle. To act as an honest broker, mentor, and guide for both sides, to ease the natural conflicts between Jewish and Arab interests, to work out strategies and policies, and nudge either side in the right direction.
Even this is asking too much at this point. Obama has, of course, downgraded the U.S. relationship with Israel even as the new modus vivendi has been working itself out -- a remarkable development that he has ignored. There’s nothing that reveals Obama’s utter fatuity more than this.
Of course, if Hillary Clinton becomes President, things might not be any better. What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: al-Qaeda, Barack Hussein Obama, Egypt, Gulf states, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, Israel, jihad, Libya, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen
Egyptian historian on normalizing relations with Israel: Egypt has to look out for its own interests, not for the 'Palestinians'
It wouldn't surprise me to see Egyptian President Abdelfatah al-Sisi try to normalize relations with Israel. For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me either if 'our friends, the Saudis' and the Gulf States did so as well. Countries don't have relations, they have interests. And it is clearly in the interest of all those who oppose both Iran and Islamism (the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State et al) to join forces with Israel. That leaves the 'Palestinians' - the darlings of both Iran and the Islamists - out in the cold. Or at least it should.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Egypt, Gulf states, Islamic State, normalization with Israel, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia
As if a 'written commitment' from the US is worth the paper
It's a travel day today, so greetings from the @BritishAirways lounge at London Heathrow.
We've already seen that the Kings of
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have announced that they are not coming to President Obama's 'Gulf summit' in Camp David on Thursday.
Now, there's a new crisis. It seems that the President of the United States has made America's word worthless. The Gulf leaders want
guarantees in writing.
As if that would make a difference.
This is from the next to last link.
If anyone was still confused about the aims of the Saudis and their
allies, they’re making it quite explicit. “Persian Gulf leaders, set to
convene at a Camp David summit this week, are pressing President Obama
to strengthen the U.S. security relationship with the region and expand
military assurances to address their growing concerns about Iran, U.S.
and regional officials said,” The Washington Post revealed on Tuesday.
Senior officials from several gulf nations said they
understand that a mutual defense alliance, similar to NATO, is not
possible. At the very least, however, they want a firmer and more
specific U.S. promise to protect them from external threats.
“In the past we have survived with a gentlemen’s agreement with the
United States about security,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, ambassador to
Washington for the United Arab Emirates, one of the six Gulf Cooperation
Council countries participating in the summit. “Today, we need
something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”
The concerns of the Arab states are perfectly valid. The Obama
administration has demonstrated clearly over the course of its tenure
that they have no regard for America’s historic alliances, the United
States’ long-term interests, or any discernable grand strategy.
America’s word is no longer good. “Today, we need something in writing.”
The Gulf Arab states already sought a mutual defense pact with the
United States that was rejected by this White House several weeks ago.
In the absence of American security guarantees, the Gulf states will
provide for their own defense.
In case you missed it, the key sentences there are "The Obama
administration has demonstrated clearly over the course of its tenure
that they have no regard for America’s historic alliances, the United
States’ long-term interests, or any discernable grand strategy.
America’s word is no longer good." That's been true
since the beginning of this administration. It took just a few months after Obama took power.
Will a new administration in Washington return to its traditional allies and demonstrate loyalty and reliability? Twenty months may be too long to wait to find out.
Can the Gulf states defend themselves? That's part of the problem. They have the equipment and they can certainly afford to buy more. But their armies and their operational capabilities
leave a lot to be desired.
Labels: Bahrain, Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, United Arab Emirates
Saudi King Salman to snub Obama
Saudi King Salman may snub President Hussein Obama by not attending the Gulf State's summit that Obama is holding at Camp David this week.
Even before the announcement, Arab media was
panning the upcoming summit.
What can be seen as positive is that Obama decided to address these
concerns and objections at Camp David before any deal is signed with
Iran, in order for Arab Gulf leaders to pose questions about the nature
of the mysterious agreement and its potential repercussions on their
nations. There is also a perception among them that the Camp David
summit is just a marketing tool, from which Obama wants to promote the
deal without making any real commitments or giving any clear answers.
But King Salman, as noted above, isn't planning on coming. Maybe because he doesn't believe he's going to get a
meaningful commitment to defense from Obama.
Publicly, both sides are stressing the need to strengthen the security
cooperation, the common struggle against terrorism, and the imperative
of containing Iran’s destabilizing policies. Ideally, some GCC states
would like to sign binding defense treaties with the United States, but
they know that this is beyond the realm of the possible, given the
strong reluctance of the administration and opposition from Congress to
anything that could conceivably diminish Israel’s qualitative military
edge (QME). Still, some of them will push for a ‘strong, explicit and a
written commitment from the President’, as one official said, that if a
member of the GCC states is attacked by a foreign power, the United
States will come to its defense. But, there is a strong reluctance
within the Obama administration to enter into any long term and legally
binding military commitment in the Gulf region, at a time when the
administration is trying to ‘rebalance’ or ‘pivot’ to Asia, and after
more than six years of setbacks and disillusionments in the region
ranging from the collapsed Palestine-Israel peace efforts, the failed
Libya intervention, the horrendous blunders in Syria, and the unraveling
of the political/security structures that the U.S. had left in Iraq
before its withdrawal. Publicly, U.S. officials say that there are no
plans to reduce America’s high military profile in the Middle East (more
than 35 thousand military personnel), but privately, they say that in
10 to 15 years the U.S. should not have more than few thousand military
advisors, trainers and technicians involved in intelligence gathering
and operating drones.
And while the Arab media place much of the blame for their states' inability to get a commitment to their defense on Israel,
the real reason why Obama won't commit to defending the Gulf States is much simpler.
But even “something in writing” wouldn't address the Persian Gulf
states' biggest problems. Iran isn't going to launch a conventional
military attack; the mullahs in Tehran have never invaded any of their
neighbors.
Instead, the real threats to their stability —
and thus their ability to counter Iran — include their own sluggish
economies; the recruitment of young gulf Arabs by terrorist groups such
as Islamic State; and the spillover effects of nearby wars in Syria,
Iraq and Yemen. Those problems can't be solved with security guarantees,
missile sales or tough statements.
Oh and by the way, what does it mean to say that you'll defend the Gulf countries if Iran attacks them with nuclear weapons? That isn't really going to deter the Iranians, is it?
More
here.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
In case you didn't notice, it's not just about Israel
Israel is not the only US ally that is concerned about developments in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear capability. In case you
hadn't noticed, the Gulf States are
not exactly jumping for joy either (Hat Tip:
Eli Tabori).
The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President
Barack Obama
over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may
have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies
across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab
Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that
Benjamin Netanyahu
was offered in Congress.
...
“A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the
bus,” said Mishaal al-Gergawi, managing director of the Delma Institute
in Abu Dhabi and a prominent Emirati political commentator. “The Gulf
thought it was in a monogamous relationship with the West, and now it
realizes it’s being cheated on because the U.S. was in an open
relationship with it.”
Trying to assuage such concerns, Secretary of State
John Kerry
flew Wednesday to Saudi Arabia. There, he is slated to discuss
with King Salman and foreign ministers of other Gulf nations their
worries that the nuclear deal may enable Iran to dominate the region.
...
Even before the revolution, Iran tried to dominate the Gulf, laying
claim to Shiite-majority Bahrain and seizing disputed islands claimed by
the U.A.E.
Taking advantage of the Obama administration’s
attempt to pivot away from the region, Tehran in recent years asserted
its influence in Baghdad and solidified its control in Damascus and
Beirut. Last month, pro-Iranian Houthi Shiite militias seized power in
Yemen’s capital San’a and ousted that country’s U.S.-backed president.
The
Sunni Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia that are engaged in proxy
conflicts with Tehran in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Lebanon view this
confrontation as an existential zero-sum game—and interpret any American
opening to Iran, and any relaxation of the economic sanctions that have
hobbled Iran’s ability to project power, as succor to the enemy.
“Some
of these countries are more worried about the consequences of the deal,
about how it will change the balance of power in the region, rather
than the actual contents of the deal,” explained
Ali Vaez,
Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. These
fears are overblown, he said: “The reality is that the U.S. may have a
tactical overlap in its interests in the region with Iran, but
strategically it sees the region in a very different way.”
That
may be true, but this tactical overlap has already created strategic
consequences in the crucial battlefields of Syria and Iraq, cementing
Iran’s sway in both nations.
Read the whole thing. Will the Gulf States decide that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Free Syrian Army, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Islamic State, John Kerry, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Shiites v. Sunnis, Syria
Gulf media bracing for 'Islam is a religion of peace' articles
In the Persian Gulf media, they're bracing for '
Islam is a religion of peace' articles.
“We can expect almost every publication in the region to be clogged
up with ‘Islam is Peaceful’ opinion pieces in the wake of the massacre,”
said Middle East expert Bella Cockpit. “These are expected to last for
at least the next two weeks. The public cannot say it hasn’t been
warned.”
Sources suggested that every regional broadsheet will point out in
leader columns that “The Prophet (PBUH) was a man of peace”, “These
people don’t represent us” and “I have many Muslim friends and none of
them are extremists.”
“Pointing out the painfully obvious is expected to continue well into
next month,” said Gulf media analyst Prof. Tim Meyer. “After all, The
Prophet was a man of peace, and these people don’t represent the average
Muslim and I have many Muslim friends and none of them are extremists,”
he explained.
Meanwhile, several publications have warned that their stockpiles of
‘Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’ articles were running dangerously low.
“With five scheduled each day for the next week, our supplies almost
depleted. We need at least another 20 pieces pointing out that Islam is a
religion of peace and that these people don’t’ represent the average
Muslim to see us through,” said The Daily Gulf’s regional editor, Sam
Saltan. “The thing we all need to realise is that all of us here in the
Middle East have Muslim friends and none of them are extremists,” he
noted.
Not just in the Gulf... in the US and Europe too.
Oh - by the way - the article is a satire....
Labels: Charlie Hebdo, France, Gulf states, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Paris, Persian Gulf, Religion of Peace, satire
Europeans looking dumber by the minute
In the Gulf States, they don't mess around. Unlike Europe,
they know terrorists when they see them.
Saudi Arabian paper Al-Watan, which cited an unnamed source, wrote that the GCC views Hezbollah as a
monolithic organization and “does not differentiate between Hezbollah’s military
and political wings.”
In light of the council’s decision not to separate
Hezbollah into distinct parts, the source said the GCC’s sanctions are slated to
be “more comprehensive than the EU’s decision.”
According to Al-Watan,
lines of diplomatic communication took place “between the GCC and some European
and international countries in a bid to clamp down on Hezbollah and its
members.”
The six GCC members are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates. They are already “studying” counterterrorism methods
for cracking down on Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia has deported supporters of
Hezbollah from its territory, while Bahrain declared the organization to be a
terrorist entity in April, making it the first Arab country to outlaw the
Lebanese-based group.
Only the Europeans insist on maintaining a difference between Hezullah's 'military' and 'political' wings.
What could go wrong?
Labels: designated terror organization, Gulf states, Hezbullah
Inspector Tamim gets one right
I'm sure that many of you remember
Inspector Tamim from Dubai. Tamim regularly warns about the
Muslim Brotherhood trying to undermine the governments of the Gulf state countries. Now, his warnings are becoming
increasingly urgent.
"The
Brotherhood as a ruling party in Egypt has no right to interfere with
other countries. They are no longer a political party and should respect
the independence of other countries," Khalfan told Reuters in an
interview this week.
He reiterated charges that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was linked to an
alleged plot to topple the UAE government, saying the group's ultimate
goal was Islamist rule in all Gulf states.
Khalfan, who
has often railed against the Brotherhood on his Twitter account, is one
of only a few UAE officials to speak publicly about politics.
While
he says his tweets are personal views, diplomats say they reflect
concerns among the UAE ruling elite about the regional popularity of
Islamists and the possibility that the West will engage with them.
Khalfan complained that the West "sympathies, adopts and supports" the Brotherhood, saying he did not understand why.
We westerners don't understand why either.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Dubai, Gulf states, Inspector Tamim, Muslim Brotherhood, United Arab Emirates
Arab countries withholding money from PA because it refuses to negotiate with Israel
Reports in 'Palestinian' media indicate that Arab countries are
withholding contributions from the 'Palestinian Authority' because it refuses to negotiate with Israel.
Informed Palestinian sources said yesterday that several Arab
countries offered ‘advice’ to President Mahmoud Abbas on a number of
occasions and meetings to step down from his post and set a date soon
for presidential and legislative elections.
The sources told Quds Net that Abu Mazen was facing pressures from
Arab countries to step down, attributing this pressure on him to Abu
Mazen’s ‘firm stances towards negotiations with Israel and his adherence
to his basic conditions for resuming the negotiations process.”
The sources revealed that Abbas has turned down several Arab offers,
saying that the financial siege from which the PA is suffering is
unfortunately from a number of ‘heavyweight’ Arab countries.
These countries have refused to transfer funds to the PA and are
towing the US and Israeli line in trying to undermine Abu Mazen’s
authorities and embarrass him in front of his people, all so that he
would back down from his conditions and accept solutions being put on
the table.
According to these sources, “Arab and Gulf states” informed Abbas
literally that they would not support the PA as long as his positions
did not change.
Hmmm.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Gulf states, Palestinian Authority donors, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome
Inspector Tamim: Muslim Brotherhood plotting to overthrow Gulf Arab governments
I'm sure that many of you remember Inspector Tamim, the Dubai police inspector who
accused the Mossad of liquidating Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel in January 2010.
It's been a while, but Inspector Tamim (that's the last name of the man described in this article) is back with a theory that might not be quite so wild. Inspector Tamim claims that
the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking the overthrow of the Gulf Arab governments.
"There's an international plot against Gulf states in particular and Arab countries in general...This is preplanned to take over our fortunes," Khalfan told reporters at a gathering late on Wednesday marking the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
"The bigger our sovereign wealth funds and the more money we put in the banks of Western countries, the bigger the plot to take over our countries...The brothers and their governments in Damascus and North Africa have to know that the Gulf is a red line, not only for Iran but also for the Brothers as well."
Dubai has arrested 20 Islamists since April.
Enjoy the shadows Inspector! And yes, you've already
blocked my blog in Dubai. Heh.
Labels: Dubai, Gulf states, Inspector Tamim, Muslim Brotherhood
Iran threatens Gulf States
Iran has threatened the Gulf States with '
unpredictable' consequences should they replace embargoed Iranian oil on the European markets.
Iran warned its Arab neighbors on Sunday not to raise crude output to replace Iranian oil in the event of an embargo by the European Union, Tehran's OPEC Governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi was quoted as saying.
"The consequences of this issue are unpredictable. Therefore, our Arab neighbor countries should not cooperate with these adventurers and should adopt wise policies," Khatibi said in an interview with the Sharq newspaper.
I wonder how 'our friends the Saudis' feel about taking Iran's nuclear program out. Oops.
I don't need to wonder, do I?
Labels: Gulf states, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat
What's a poor Sheikh to do?
As you will all recall from Wikileaks, the Gulf Arab countries are scared out of their minds about an Iranian nuclear weapon, and would like the United States to do something about it. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be on President Obama's agenda. Israel would like to do something about Iran, but especially in light of the 'Arab spring' (which Obama is backing), the Arab countries fear being labeled as Zionists if they support an Israeli action.
What's a poor Sheikh to do?
“In the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, Arab countries said across the board that they were against the invasion, then one by one each crumbled and fell in behind the US,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“The difference is that it isn’t the US leading the charge here, but the Israelis – that creates a different problem.
None of these states want to be the one that openly allowed the Israelis to have overflight rights.
“At the end of the day the Iraq coalition of Arab states was relatively easy despite the posturing. This time... though most of these states want to see an attack, the danger is being branded a traitor and siding with the Zionist entity” he said. “These states travel in herds, in packs – when one breaks, the others feel more comfortable breaking as well.
“I suspect we’ll see a quiet, almost invisible coalition that provides any assistance Israel needs but in such a way that provides them cover and plausible deniability,” Schanzer said.
Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, agreed.
“The threat posed by a nuclear Iran is not strictly an Israeli issue. Many regional states are deeply apprehensive over Iran’s nuclear program, and are likely to approve of decisive action against it. As a result, a military strike on Iran may not ignite a regional conflagration, or create greater sympathy for the Iranian regime. Arab states could, simply, look the other way,” he said.
“The longer Iran’s nuclear program is allowed to progress without serious penalties, the more convinced regional states will become of two things. The first is that they need to erect their own strategic counterweights to Iran, likely in the form of a nuclear capability,” Berman said. “The second is that they can do so with impunity since, if the West hasn’t punished Iran for its nuclear advances, they won’t be [punished] either. The result will be a multi-nuclear Middle East – and a security nightmare for both the United States and Israel.”
These analyses are on point. So why can't the Arab countries make the US see it?
Caroline Glick argues that we have to
wait Obama out.
At least until the US presidential elections next year, Israel’s best bet may be to simply step up its covert efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
The goal of these efforts should be to slow down Iran’s nuclear progress sufficiently to prevent it from developing a nuclear arsenal or moving its nuclear project to hardened locations until after the US presidential elections.
In the meantime, Israel should continue to develop its independent capacity to attack Iran. It should also take military action to weaken Iran’s terror proxies in order to limit their capacity to wage war against Israel in the aftermath of an eventual, post-presidential election Israeli or US strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Obviously, it would be a mistake to assume that Obama will lose his reelection bid. But even if he wins, as a lame duck, second term president, he will have less power to harm Israel than he will as a first term president poised for reelection.
I disagree with Caroline's last sentence. Israel could be devastated by a four-year lame duck Obama. Unencumbered by the need to face reelection, all his Jew-hatred and Israel-hatred could come out into the open.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat
Iran to deploy submarine and warship in Gulf of Aden and Red Sea
Iran is planning to deploy its 15th fleet, consisting of a
submarine and a warship, in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea (see map).
Iran is planning to send its 15th fleet, comprised of a submarine and a warship, to the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, semi-official news agency Press TV quoted Iranian naval commander Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying on Tuesday.
The announcement came after the IDF modified the operational doctrine of the Navy Command Center in Eilat which is responsible for protecting southern Israel from threats originating in the Red Sea. On Monday, two large Navy corvettes were seen docked in Eilat, likely for anti-terror and smuggling operations in the Red Sea.
Sayari stated that the purpose of the Iranian deployment is to patrol in the high seas and display the great capabilities of the Islamic Republic. He added that the fleet would combat pirates as well.
The Iranian naval commander said that Iran's presence in the Red Sea would tighten security for all countries.
“The presence of Iran's Army in the high seas will convey the message of peace and friendship to all countries,” he said.
Of course, the Iranians don't consider the 'Zionist entity' a country, but one has to wonder how 'our friends the Saudis' feel about this. They're probably not too thrilled, but I doubt that they would openly cooperate with Israel even on this. Hmmm.
Labels: Gulf of Aden, Gulf states, Iranian nuclear threat, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia
Another Wikileaks non-surprise: Israel negotiated with Gulf countries
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Israel has been rumored to be negotiating with the Gulf States for years. And now it's
confirmed (Hat Tip:
Daily Alert).
A classified 2009 diplomatic cable disclosed this week provides a rare glimpse into the secret and often high-level diplomacy between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, all countries that officially do not recognize the Jewish state.
Contrary to the condemnatory rhetoric opposing Israel in public, Arab diplomats behind the scenes have asked Israel to carry messages to the U.S. government and urged tougher action on Iran.
The March 19, 2009, cable quotes Yacov Hadas, deputy director of Israels Foreign Ministry, as telling an American diplomat: "The Gulf Arabs believe in Israel's role because of their perception of Israel's close relationship with the U.S., but also due to their sense that they can count on Israel against Iran."
Mr. Hadas then says, "They believe Israel can work magic."
...
Aaron David Miller, who has been a senior Middle East adviser to six secretaries of state, said every Arab country with the exception of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya has had some diplomatic channel to Israel.
...
Israel has had access to the highest levels of the Qatari government. The memo discloses, for example, that Israel has contacts with Qatar's emir, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, also known as Prince Hamad.
"Prince Hamad had told the Israelis in October 2006 that he believed Iran was determined to develop a nuclear bomb no matter the cost," the cable says. "According to Hadas, Hamad complained at the time that he felt the U.S. would not listen to him and tended to believe what it heard from Iran."
The leaked cable says former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had "good personal relations" with Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Mr. Hadas said the UAE was "increasingly hostile" to Iran, but also noted that the Emirates allowed Iran to launder its money and had extensive financial dealings with the country. The Emiratis are "not ready to do publicly what they say in private," the cable quotes Mr. Hadas as saying.
In February, the police chief of Dubai, an emirate in the UAE, publicly accused Israel's Mossad of assassinating a Hamas arms dealer named Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
Read it all.
Labels: Gulf states, Israel, secret diplomacy, Wikileaks
