Hmmm.The presence of #Israel Channel 10 covering #Mosul ops with #Peshmerga created a small storm in #Baghdad #Iraq. pic.twitter.com/1FebFqMTcR— Elijah J. Magnier (@EjmAlrai) October 25, 2016
Labels: Channel 10, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, Mosul
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:14 PM
0 comments
Iraq plans to sue Israel over the 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear site Osirak, the deputy speaker of parliament, Humam Hamoudi, said in a statement.I wonder how they think they're going to get jurisdiction over a sovereign state that's not willing to appear in court. Hmmm.
The announcement, which was reported on Wednesday, comes just days after the 35th anniversary of the attack. Iraq's parliament has been working on initial steps for demanding compensation from Israel for several years.
The 1981 attack was condemned unanimously by the UN Security Council in resolution 487, which noted that the site was approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resolution said Iraq was entitled to "appropriate redress."
Labels: Iraq, nuclear weapons, Osirak
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:49 PM
2 comments
The claim from German reporter Jürgen Todenhöfer, a former member of the German Parliament, came after he spent 10 extraordinary days behind enemy lines in Iraq and Syria, accompanied by his son Frederic. He returned saying the group behind the Paris attacks was “preparing the largest religious cleansing in history” and with a “pessimistic” view on what can be done to combat it.
But the author of My 10 Days in the Islamic State told Jewish News: “The only country ISIS fears is Israel. They told me they know the Israeli army is too strong for them.”
IS branded the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital that claimed 132 lives as “the first of the storm”.
Todenhofer claimed it is part of ISIS’ tactics to lure in Western boots on the ground and capture US and British soldiers. “They think they can defeat US and UK ground troops, who they say they have no experience in city guerrilla or terrorist strategies. But they know the Israelis are very tough as far as fighting against guerrillas and terrorists,” he said.
“They are not scared of the British and the Americans, they are scared of the Israelis and told me the Israeli army is the real danger. We can’t defeat them with our current strategy. These people [the IDF] can fight a guerrilla war.
“In Mosul there are 10,000 fighters living among 1.5 million people in 2,000 apartments, not in one place – so it would be difficult [for western soldiers] to fight them. ISIS fighters are ready to die in a war against a western soldiers.”
...
The journalist – who had contact with ISIS supporters from the media department, judges, fighters and leaders – said the group wants to conquer all the Middle East – except Israel – in the first stage of its fight.
The second stage is conquering the West. “They are a very strong danger for Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Libya, while the West will be subjected to big acts of terrorism instead of a full blown ISIS war because they say they don’t want too many battles at the same time.”Perhaps those who called Prime Minister Netanyahu the leader of the free world were not exaggerating. Hmmm.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, IDF, Iraq, ISIS, Mosul
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:27 PM
0 comments
In a statement issued Saturday night about the Paris terrorism of the previous day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had “instructed Israel’s security and intelligence forces to assist their French counterparts and their counterparts from other European countries in any way possible.”
Israel’s minister of intelligence, Yisrael Katz, later clarified Netanyahu’s statement, telling reporters that intelligence cooperation among Israel, France and other European countries is “ongoing,” but that “intelligence material relevant to what happened has been relayed, and we will also deepen the cooperation.”
Katz added that the information would help the French and other countries deal with the aftermath of the attack and future attacks, Reuters reported.
...
Israel’s Army Radio reported Sunday that some intelligence may have come from Israel’s surveillance of Syria and Iraq, two strongholds of the Islamic State terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.Were it not for the fact that it's an Israeli interest to have these people neutralized, I would be inclined to tell the Europeans, 'you made your mess, now go lie in it.' (As my mother a"h would have said).
Labels: intelligence, Iraq, ISIS, Syria
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:28 PM
0 comments
#BREAKING: Unconfirmed Picture of dead #Baghdadi is circulating pic.twitter.com/51BQKUoHzg @mahe35 @L0gg0l
— Already Happened (@M3t4_tr0n) October 11, 2015
The claim is that he was killed this morning when Iran bombed an ISIS convoy in Iraq. Stay tuned.
Hospital sources, residents say IS leaders killed in western Iraqi town, but Baghdadi not among them - @Reuters http://t.co/L7ATlCwQbn
— Breaking News (@BreakingNews) October 11, 2015
Labels: Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:47 PM
0 comments
Over the weekend, the Iraqi military’s Joint Operations Command announced that it would enter into an intelligence sharing agreement “about ISIS terrorism” with Syria, Russia and Iran. Exactly what sort of information Iraq agreed to share with Russia, or has shared already, was a matter of some confusion during Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work acknowledged that the Defense Department doesn’t have a firm handle on the sort of communications going on between the Iraqi government and Moscow.
“We were caught by surprise that Iraq entered into this agreement with Syria, Iran and Russia. Obviously, we are not going to share intelligence with either Syria, or Russia, or Iran. So we are in the process of working to try and find out exactly what Iraq has said. Certainly we are not going to provide any classified information that would help those actors on the battlefield.” Work said in response to a question from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Russia was in Syria primarily to bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claims this week that his forces were in Syria to defeat the Islamic State was, Clapper said, “a belated motivation.”
Clapper suggested that mutual mistrust between the parties could limit the scope of the Iraq’s intelligence sharing agreement. “As far as the joint intelligence arrangement is concerned. Can’t go into detail here in this forum … But each of the parties entering into this are a little bit suspicious of just what is entailed here. We will have to see how robust a capability that actually provides.”
U.S. Cyber Command commander and NSA chief Adm. Michael Rogers identified Russia as probably the most capable adversary the United States faces online. The recent breach of the Joint Staff civilian email system, for instance, has been attributed to a Russian affiliated group and affected as many as 4,000 email accounts.
In fiscal 2015, Congress appropriated more than $1.6 billion in train and equip funding for the Iraqi military, including trucks and small arms but also some potentially sensitive pieces of equipment related to improvised explosive device detection. Detailed information about how U.S. troops detect mines and explosive devices on the battlefield could represent a vulnerability for the United States if that equipment were to fall into the wrong hands. And then there are the people, more than 3,550 U.S. troops are in Iraq right now officially serving in train and assist roles. But that’s not all they do. In May, a U.S. Special Forces raid resulted in the death of Abu Sayyaf, an ISIS senior leader in Syria.It's kind of hard to believe that Israel is not sharing intelligence with the US on an area that's quite close to our eastern and northern borders. Was our information shared too?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, cyberwar, intelligence, Iraq, ISIS, James Clapper, Russia, Syrian uprising
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:49 PM
2 comments
Zainab Abbas said Abdullah Kurdi had lied to the world after the image of his dead three-year-old son on a Turkish beach sparked a global outpouring of support for Syrian refugees.
“Yes, it was Abdullah Kurdi driving the boat,” Ms Abbas told Network Ten through her cousin Lara Tahseen today.
Ms Abbas also lost two children when the boat capsized shortly after leaving Bodrum for the Greek islands.
After the tragedy, Mr Kurdi told the media he took over steering the boat after the captain panicked and jumped ship.
But Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was the driver of the boat, and the man she paid to book her passage told her it would be safe because the driver was taking his wife and two children.
“When I lost my kids, I lost my life, how can he lie to the media?” her cousin Ms Tahseen said, translating for Ms Abbas.
“He said, ‘Please don’t dob me in.’ That was in the water.”
Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was speeding in the overcrowded boat, which did not have enough life jackets.
She said her husband told him to be careful just before the boat capsized, reportedly killing at least 12 people.
Ms Abbas is now in Iraq and her family has called on the federal government to include them in the 12,000 refugees Australia has pledged to take in.There are a lot of opportunistic people trying to use this to leave the Middle East for the West. And some of them belong to ISIS. What could go wrong?
Labels: Iraq, Pallywood, Syria, Syrian Kurds, Syrian refugees, Syrian uprising, Turkey
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:47 PM
0 comments
Today the Islamic State is blowing up precious cultural monuments in Palmyra, and half of all Syrians have been displaced — as if, on a proportional basis, 160 million Americans had been made homeless. More than a quarter-million have been killed. Yet the “Save Darfur” signs have not given way to “Save Syria.”
One reason is that Obama — who ran for president on the promise of restoring the United States’ moral stature — has constantly reassured Americans that doing nothing is the smart and moral policy. He has argued, at times, that there was nothing the United States could do, belittling the Syrian opposition as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”
He has argued that we would only make things worse — “I am more mindful probably than most,” he told the New Republic in 2013, “of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.”
He has implied that because we can’t solve every problem, maybe we shouldn’t solve any. “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” he asked (though at the time thousands were not being killed in Congo).
On those rare occasions when political pressure or the horrors of Syrian suffering threatened to overwhelm any excuse for inaction, he promised action, in statements or White House leaks: training for the opposition, a safe zone on the Turkish border. Once public attention moved on, the plans were abandoned or scaled back to meaningless proportions (training 50 soldiers per year, no action on the Turkish border).
Perversely, the worse Syria became, the more justified the president seemed for staying aloof; steps that might have helped in 2012 seemed ineffectual by 2013, and actions that could have saved lives in 2013 would not have been up to the challenge presented by 2014. The fact that the woman who wrote the book on genocide, Samantha Power, and the woman who campaigned to bomb Sudan to save the people of Darfur, Susan Rice, could apparently in good conscience stay on as U.N. ambassador and national security adviser, respectively, lent further moral credibility to U.S. abdication.
Most critically, inaction was sold not as a necessary evil but as a notable achievement: The United States at last was leading with the head, not the heart, and with modesty, not arrogance. “Realists” pointed out that the United States gets into trouble when it lets ideals or emotions rule — when it sends soldiers to feed the hungry in Somalia, for example, only to lose them, as told in “ Black Hawk Down,” and turn tail.
...
When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011 that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe.Unfortunately, there are no longer any easy answers for Syria. Syrians are fleeing to Europe because they don't want to flee to Arab countries (looking at how the 'Palestinians' have been held hostage for more than six decades by their Arab brethren - including in Syria - they have no desire to follow suit) and because Europe is accessible and in some cases - notably Germany, but really all of them because of the Schengen visas - open. I don't expect this to end well. Germany is absorbing 800,000 Syrians, at least some of whom are likely to be Islamic State terrorists. But even if that were not the case, the sheer number of 'refugees' would likely change the entire character of the German population.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Golan Heights, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, Nusra Front, Obama's obsession with Israel, Robert Ford, Syrian refugees, Syrian uprising
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:02 AM
3 comments
Every barrel bomb dropped on defenseless civilians by regime helicopters is a recruiting gift to Baghdadi, the head of a vicious criminal enterprise that combines the worst aspects of al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Baathism. Every Syrian child killed by barrel bombs or starved to death by regime sieges convinces others that if the “international community” can muster nothing but words, perhaps the self-styled caliph can offer protection. Eager to help rid its Syrian client of credible, nationalistic opponents, Iran consciously supports a program of mass murder that only gives Baghdadi power in Syria and in the Sunni Muslim world at large.
For Obama, who has said that his goal is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” an organization known variously as the Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh, Assad’s atrocities ought to provoke a reaction that extends beyond the same tired rhetoric. They do not. This is because Iran — the object of the administration’s courtship — is fully enabling the mass homicide strategy of its Syrian client.
In its single-minded pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran, the Obama administration adopted a Syria policy rich in rhetoric and empty of substantive action. Until June 2014, when the Islamic State used its bases in Syria to overrun much of Iraq, the administration could use the indifference of the U.S. and European publics to Syria’s agony to duck the fact that Assad had continuously undermined the White House’s credibility — ignoring the president’s loose talk about how Assad had lost legitimacy and the chemical “red lines” that ought not be crossed.
Getting a legacy-boosting nuclear deal with Iran was everything for the Obama administration. Nothing should be done in Syria that would offend Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ support for Assad’s mass murder strategy. Offending them — or so the theory went — might cause Iran to walk away from the nuclear talks and forsake a monetary cornucopia in sanctions relief and foreign direct investment.
Public indifference toward Syria’s hellish humanitarian crisis still prevails. But by committing the United States to a war against the Islamic State, the administration found its task complicated by the fact that Assad’s atrocities and his lack of legitimacy had created the very vacuum in eastern Syria filled by Baghdadi and his followers. From the beginning of the uprising, Assad had proclaimed himself a bulwark against terrorists: Yet even as his forces gunned down peaceful demonstrators, he ejected extremists from regime prisons, seeking to inject them directly into the bloodstream of the revolution. The Islamic State became the Assad regime’s enemy of choice; an adversary that would supplement regime attacks on nationalist rebels, only engaging regime forces in combat when they sat atop something they wanted, such as an oil field, a military base replete with weapons stockpiles, or a town filled with priceless antiquities.
This symbiotic relationship enabled the Islamic State to sweep through much of Iraq in June 2014, pulling American combat aviation and ground forces back into Mesopotamia and the Levant. Iranian fingerprints were all over the Assad regime’s scorched-earth policies, which enabled this catastrophe. In a diplomatic tactic designed to advance the nuclear talks, the Obama administration pretended that Washington and Tehran were essentially on the same page with respect to the Islamic State. But they were not, and they are not.
Iranian policies in Syria and Iraq have made vast swaths of both countries safe for jihadis. This is an awkward fact for the Obama administration: It now seeks, as part of its strategy to move forward with the nuclear deal it struck with Tehran, to convince Congress that it is not in fact blind to Iranian depredations in Syria and elsewhere in the region. Thus far, the convincing has been all talk, and that is why it is falling short.Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, Islamic State, Nusra Front, Syria, Syrian uprising
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:03 PM
1 comments
The Palestinians in Iraq are now also paying a heavy price. Since 2003, the number of Palestinians there has dropped from 25,000 to 6,000. Palestinian activists say the Iraqis are waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country's Palestinian population.
The activists say that since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, Shiite militias in Iraq have been systematically attacking and intimidating the Palestinian population over the past decade, prompting many to flee.
The Shiites, they say, are opposed to the presence of non-Iraqi Sunnis, including the Palestinians, in their country -- especially in the capital, Baghdad.
In addition, they say, many Sunnis in Iraq who had opposed Saddam Hussein have also been waging war on the Palestinians, in retaliation for their support for him.
Thamer Meshainesh, head of the League for Palestinians in Iraq, was quoted a few days ago as saying that Palestinians were facing "unprecedented violations" and "increasing assaults." He warned that Palestinians in Iraq were being targeted by various militias as part of a systematic policy to expel them from the country.
...
The Palestinians in Iraq are paying the price for meddling in the internal affairs of the country. This is what also happened to Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon and Libya. Palestinians often find themselves involved, both directly and indirectly, in the rivalries that take place inside Arab countries. And when the fire reaches them, they start screaming for help, as is the case today in Iraq.Is that why the 'international community' doesn't care - because the 'Palestinians' interfered in Iraqi affairs and therefore have it coming to them? Umm... no....
But what is most interesting is the complete indifference displayed by international human rights organizations, the media and the Palestinian Authority toward the mistreatment of Palestinians in Arab countries.
The PA, whose leaders are busy inciting against Israel on a daily basis, does not have time to care about its people in the Arab world. PA leaders say they want to press "war crimes" charges against Israel with the International Criminal Court because of last year's war with Hamas and continued construction in West Bank settlements.
However, when it comes to ethnic cleansing and torture of Palestinians in Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority leadership chooses to look the other way.
Similarly, the international media seems to have forgotten that there are tens of thousands of Palestinians living in various Arab countries. The only Palestinians that Western journalists know and care about are those living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
International journalists do not care about the Palestinians in the Arab world because this is not a story that can be blamed on Israel. An Arab killing or torturing an Arab is not an item worth publishing in a major newspaper in the U.S., Canada or Britain. But when a Palestinian in the West Bank complains against the Israeli authorities or Jewish settlers, many Western journalists waste no time rushing to the scene to cover this "major" development.Some might call the differing attitude toward alleged 'Palestinian suffering' in Israel v. the Arab countries anti-Semitism.
Labels: Iraq, Khaled Abu Toameh, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Saddam Hussein, Syria
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:12 AM
0 comments
Due to extreme heat and humidity, Bandar Mahshahr registered an apparent temperature of 154 F (68 C) on Thursday. "That was one of the most incredible temperature observations I have ever seen and it is one of the most extreme readings ever in the world," stated AccuWeather Meteorologist Anthony Sagliani.
However, such an exceptional apparent temperature outdid itself on Friday.
The combination of an actual temperature of 115 F (46 C) and a dew point temperature of 90 F (32 C) pushed the apparent temperature to 163 F (73 C) Friday afternoon local time. This reading would have been even higher if a breeze was not blowing, a factor in the calculation of the apparent temperature.
"A strong ridge of high pressure has persisted over the Middle East through much of July, resulting in the extreme heat wave in what many would consider one of the hottest places in the world," stated Sagliani.
Amid this heat wave, Baghdad experienced its all-time record high on Thursday when temperatures soared to 124 F (51 C).
"Around the Persian Gulf, where water temperatures are in the lower to middle 90s (30s C), the extreme heat combines with incredibly high humidity to produce astounding apparent temperatures," Sagliani continued in regards to the exceptional feeling heat around Bandar Mahshahr.There's no relief expected anytime soon.
Synoptic reports from Baghdad, Iraq indicate that temp hit 51C (123.8F) on 30 July, tying all-time record high. pic.twitter.com/wPJlTmRgBV
— Anthony Sagliani (@anthonywx) July 31, 2015
Stunningly high ground-surface temperatures around Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf & Iraq. As high as 64C (147F). https://t.co/9lqVkqcI3E
— Anthony Sagliani (@anthonywx) July 31, 2015
Hell indeed.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:04 PM
0 comments
“It's frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
Odierno said the fall of large parts of Iraq was not inevitable, reiterating concerns about the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal there.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” he said. “I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
In 2009, while still the top commander in Iraq, Odierno recommended keeping 30,000-35,000 U.S. troops after the end of 2011, when the U.S. was scheduled to pull out. The recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” Odierno said, when asked if it was a mistake to pull out.
Further, when ISIS took over large portions of Iraq last year including its second-largest city, Mosul, the White House apparently didn’t reach out to the Army officer who had spent more time commanding U.S. forces than anyone else.
“All my work was given to [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Martin] Dempsey,” Odiernio said. “I never talked directly to the president about it at that time, but I talked to the secretary of defense and I'm sure he relayed all of my thoughts,” he added.
Odierno, though, is most worried about the deep cuts to the Army over the past four years – from 570,000 troops in 2010 to near 490,000 today, a reduction of 14 percent. And the cuts are getting deeper.
“In my mind, we don't have the ability to deter. The reason we have a military is to deter conflict and prevent wars. And if people believe we are not big enough to respond, they miscalculate,” Odierno said.
Earlier this month, the Army announced an additional cut of 40,000 troops, which would take the Army down to 450,000 soldiers -- or pre-9/11 levels -- the result of a decision taken two years ago.
"I believed at the time we could do that,” said Odierno. “But I said we were on the razor’s edge that we could actually do our mission at 450.”
He added: “Two years ago, we didn’t think we had a problem in Europe. … [Now] Russia is reasserting themselves. We didn’t think we’d have a problem again in Iraq and ISIS has emerged.
“So, with Russia becoming more of a threat, with ISIS becoming more of a threat, in my mind, we are on a dangerous balancing act right now with capability.”
“When we go to 450, we are going to have to stop doing something," said Odierno.What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, Syria, US Army
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:02 PM
0 comments
Two senior administration officials confirmed to us that U.S. soldiers and Shiite militia groups are both using the Taqqadum military base in Anbar, the same Iraqi base where President Obama is sending an additional 450 U.S. military personnel to help train the local forces fighting against the Islamic State. Some of the Iran-backed Shiite militias at the base have killed American soldiers in the past.
Some inside the Obama administration fear that sharing the base puts U.S. soldiers at risk. The U.S. intelligence community has reported back to Washington that representatives of some of the more extreme militias have been spying on U.S. operations at Taqqadum, one senior administration official told us. That could be calamitous if the fragile relationship between the U.S. military and the Shiite militias comes apart and Iran-backed forces decide to again target U.S. troops.
American critics of this growing cooperation between the U.S. military and the Iranian-backed militias call it a betrayal of the U.S. personnel who fought against the militias during the 10-year U.S. occupation of Iraq.
“It’s an insult to the families of the American soldiers that were wounded and killed in battles in which the Shia militias were the enemy,” Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain told us. “Now, providing arms to them and supporting them, it’s very hard for those families to understand.”
The U.S. is not directly training Shiite units of what are known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, which include tens of thousands of Iraqis who have volunteered to fight against the Islamic State as well as thousands of hardened militants who ultimately answer to militia leaders loyal to Tehran. But the U.S. is flying close air support missions for those forces.
The U.S. gives weapons directly only to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Security Forces, but the lines between them and the militias are blurry. U.S. weapons often fall into the hands of militias like Iraqi Hezbollah. Sometimes the military cooperation is even more explicit. Commanders of some of the hardline militias sit in on U.S. military briefings on operations that were meant for the government-controlled Iraqi Security Forces, a senior administration official said.In an email, Omri Ceren of The Israel Project adds:
A parade of horribles. From a political perspective, the U.S. is sharing a base with Iran-backed Shiite militias that killed American troops, which will be toxic publicly and on the Hill. From a military perspective, the U.S. is allowing itself to be spied on by groups that could use that intelligence if they're unleashed on American troops by Iran, which may deter the Obama administration from pressuring Tehran. And from a diplomatic perspective, the scoop will confirm fears across the region that the U.S. is realigning with Iran – or that, at the very least, Washington is literally and figuratively providing fuel for Iran's expansionist campaign across the region:Read the whole thing.
The U.S. is not directly training Shiite units of what are known as the Popular Mobilization Forces... but the U.S. is flying close air support missions for those forces. The U.S. gives weapons directly only to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Security Forces, but the lines between them and the militias are blurry. U.S. weapons often fall into the hands of militias like Iraqi Hezbollah. Sometimes the military cooperation is even more explicit. Commanders of some of the hardline militias sit in on U.S. military briefings on operations that were meant for the government-controlled Iraqi Security Forces, a senior administration official said... “There’s no real command and control from the central government,” one senior administration official said. “Even if these guys don’t attack us... Iran is ushering in a new Hezbollah era in Iraq, and we will have aided and abetted it.”The fears have straightforward implications for the viability of any nuclear agreement with Iran.
Everything - everything - relies on Saudi Arabia not nuclearizing in the aftermath of an agreement later this month. If the Saudis take a pass, then maybe a deal can hold for a time. If they purchase a weapon from Pakistan or build a bomb over the medium term, then no force in the world short of a military campaign could prevent the IRGC from matching their capabilities. No one pretends that the Iranians will sit on the sidelines while the Saudis go nuclear. That scenario then becomes the worst of all worlds: the administration will have seeded a polynuclear Middle East, detonated Washington's alliances with its traditional allies, and shredded the sanctions regime - and it won't even have a denuclearized Iran to show for it.
The Saudis have been very clear about their decision calculus: they'll go nuclear not when Iran goes nuclear, but when Riyadh concludes that it's inevitable that the Iranians will go nuclear. They're not going to wait.
The Obama administration has rolled out three arguments for why that's not going to happen, at the risk of losing the ability to rationalize the JCPOA. The first is that the Saudis are too poor to go nuclear, which is difficult to square with the existence of the North Korean program. The second is that the Saudis are too afraid of an international oil embargo to go nuclear, which is an argument that - generously - does not immediately strike analysts as in line with geopolitics as it works in our reality.
The third is that American security assurances to the Gulf - specifically, that Washington will continue to push back against Iranian regional expansionism - will sufficiently reassure that Arab states that they don't have to chart their own course. But those security assurances can't survive revelations that we're aiding Iran in creating the “Hezbollah era in Iran [I think that should be "Hezbollah era in Iraq. CiJ].” And when they do fail the Saudis will go nuclear and the Iranians will back out of the JCPOA to match. Instead of a status quo of no deal and no nukes, it'll be a Middle East of no deal and lots of nukes - and in the meantime, the U.S. will have squandered decades-old alliances and the painstakingly-built international sanctions regime against Iran.
It will be interesting to see if, by tomorrow, the administration has settled on how its intends to address the scenario.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hezbullah, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:36 AM
1 comments
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?
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
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:01 PM
0 comments
Saudi ex general in dialogue with Israel calls for creating greater Kurdistan to carve up turkey, Iraq, iran. pic.twitter.com/opIXGH9dyn
— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) June 4, 2015
This actually sounds like real politique and not like it's coming out of a desire to do right by the Kurds. Still, it speaks volumes about Saudi fears of Islamist extremism (both Sunni and Shia) and about burgeoning Saudi relations with Israel. Labels: Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:03 AM
2 comments
Labels: defenestration, gays, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Islamic State, pinkwashing, Tel Aviv
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:21 AM
0 comments
The “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” that Barack Obama and Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements” in 2014 has regressed into chaos as a result of Obama’s premature withdrawal of American troops. But it isn’t just Iraq. Syria is the closest thing to Hell on Earth. Iran is working away on nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Yemen has fallen to Iran’s proxies. Saudi Arabia is looking for nuclear weapons to counter Iran’s. ISIS occupies an area the size of Great Britain. Libya, its dictator having been gratuitously overthrown by feckless Western governments that had no plan for what would follow, is a failed state and terrorist playground.
It seems as though things couldn’t possibly get worse, but they almost certainly will. We are seeing the fruit of a set of policies that were based on the false premise that problems in the Middle East are mostly the fault of the United States. Not only were such policies misbegotten, they have been executed incompetently. The resulting collapse is occurring with sickening speed.John doesn't even mention that none of these hotspots is President Obama's priority for the Middle East. Indeed, the President's priority for the Middle East - indeed for all his foreign policy - is the creation of a 'Palestinian state,' which he apparently sees as a panacea for all his foreign policy miscues. He has gone so far as to threaten the new Netanyahu government with the withdrawal of support for Israel at the United Nations.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, ISIS, Islamic State, Libya, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Saudi Arabia, US foreign policy, Yemen
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:51 PM
0 comments
Max Fisher: Whatever the end strategic goal, certainly there may at some point be an agreement on arms control. And a goal of that is for Iran to surrender its ambitions for a nuclear weapon. That specific objective seems worthwhile, but is it achievable?
Michael Doran: I don't think it is achievable without a significant coercive component. I think this is one of the most faulty assumptions of the administration. What makes the administration believe Iran has made a strategic shift away from a desire to have, if not a weapon, then a turnkey capability?
I rarely see any attempt to analyze these negotiations from the Iranians' point of view and to ask, "What are their fundamental goals, and why do these negotiations make sense to them?" In that context, I don't believe they have made a strategic shift, and I don't see why the administration believes they have.
If the argument is that the very willingness of the Iranians to sit down and negotiate with us and to stick to the agreement over the last 18 months is proof of a strategic change of some kind, I don't buy it for a second. It's just proof to me that they want sanctions relief and they're going to get it, and they see that they're going to get it, and they will stick with this process as long as they get direct, immediate, and very desirable benefits from it.
Max Fisher: What is it about Iran, you think, that makes it so bent on a nuclear weapons program that it would take so much to deter them from that?
Michael Doran: First of all, there's just the record of what they've done. They have pursued this program doggedly and at enormous cost to themselves. They have been willing to take their economy to the brink of disaster in order to preserve this program.
They belong to a category of regimes, like the North Koreans, that calculates that if they can get this weapon then the world will treat them differently.
We need to look at the fundamental nature of the regime, the ideology of the Islamic Republic, and the mindset of the men who run it. They have a very well-known ideology that is hostile to the American order, that is hostile to the system in the region. They have a vision of Iran's place in the world, in the Islamic world especially, that they have not given up on.
If I were going to talk about basic assumptions of the Obama administration that are wrong, one is that Iran is a fundamentally defensive power. This reads Iran's nuclear program in a rather bilateral fashion, to think that a show of a desire to cooperate and find common ground on the part of the United States would generate an equal and opposite reaction on the Iranian side.
In fact, the starting point is that the Iranians want hegemony in the region, and they're reading American policy with respect to their regional aspirations. The goal of Iran's nuclear weapons program is not to defend against the United States or Israel — it's to advance its regional agenda.
From an American point of view, in 2011 or 2012 we had them in a very advantageous position. Because the sanctions were really biting.
Max Fisher: But the size of Iran's nuclear program was growing, the number of centrifuges was growing.
Michael Doran: But at a greater and greater cost to them, every step they took.
...
Max Fisher: I wanted to ask you about that, about coercion. Under any reading of what Iran ultimately wants, their incentive to stick to a nuclear deal would be the fear that if they cheat, they'll be caught and then they'll be punished for it.
Arms control analysts I've spoken to say the inspections regime described in the framework would be very effective at catching Iran if it cheats. But they acknowledge that the agreement is not going to talk about enforcement — it's not going to spell out what happens if Iran cheats — because that's just not how these agreements work.
So then you have this big question mark of what happens if Iran gets caught cheating. It's not just us wondering; the Iranian leaders are surely gaming this out, as well. And I honestly don't feel like I know what the answer is.
Michael Doran: First of all, I thank you for asking the question, because I think it is the crucial question.
The way the president has set this up, he has incentivized Iran to pocket huge benefits up front. This has put them in a position to be able to go for a bomb when they want in a position of much greater economic strength and diplomatic strength. Because the very process of the negotiation is destroying the sanctions regime we established, which is the greatest nonmilitary instrument we have for coercing them. This is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the coercion strategy.
He's going to use his waiver authority to free up all this money that is in escrow accounts across the globe that is going to pour into Iranian coffers nearly immediately. At the same time, the United Nations Security Council is going to bless the agreement, which is then going to free up the Europeans and others, including the Russians and the Chinese, to engage in commercial activity with the Iranians. And so we will have effectively gutted the sanctions regime.
Iran's status in the international community is going to be greatly improved, and then there's going to be an international commercial lobby and a diplomatic-military lobby, which includes the Chinese and the Russians, in favor of the new order in which Iran is a citizen in good standing in the international community that they can do business with.Two comments: First, I am not as confident as Doran is that Iran is a rational actor that would scale back to suspend the nuclear program in response to crippling sanctions or a military strike. They didn't stop it for very long (if at all) in 2003 in response to the US targeting Saddam, and they didn't stop it in 2011-12 when the sanctions were at their most crippling.
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, Islamic State, P 5+1, Saddam Hussein
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:25 AM
0 comments
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Free Syrian Army, Iraq, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Nusra Front, Saddam Hussein, Syria
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:43 AM
1 comments
And Obama thought he had shut Petraeus up. Here's hoping to see General Petraeus on a ballot sometime soon."The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution," Petraeus said in a wide-ranging response to written questions from The Washington Post for a story published Friday."The hard-earned progress of the surge was sustained for over three years. What transpired after that, starting in late 2011, came about as a result of mistakes and misjudgments whose consequences were predictable. And there is plenty of blame to go around for that," Petraeus said, reflecting on his time commanding U.S. troops around the 2007 surge."Yet despite that history and the legacy it has left, I think Iraq and the coalition forces are making considerable progress against the Islamic State. In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran," he added.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Petraeus, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Iraq, Islamic State
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:08 AM
0 comments
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
