#CHANGE Moderate Arab states ignore Obama-Kerry initiative
If the moderate Arab states were supposed to latch onto Secretary of State Kerry's 'peace proposal' and use it, along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to pressure Israel, someone forgot to tell them that. Or, as is more likely, they have read the handwriting on the walls, and have realized that they will have to work with Donald Trump for the next 4-8 years.
But the official responses in Cairo, Riyadh and Amman seemed
calculated to make an impression on the incoming Trump administration
rather than to impel any immediate or urgent follow up on the Kerry
proposals. That was not expected, given that Kerry and President Barack
Obama have only three weeks left in office and Donald Trump has signaled
there will be a friendlier approach towards the policies of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"Now, with the imminent change in the White House, Kerry's noble
views may very well remain a small footnote in the history books," the Jordan Times wrote in an editorial Thursday.
Jordan,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are, to some extent, groping in the dark,
uncertain about what Trump policies that will strongly impact their
futures will look like. By giving essentially positive responses to
Kerry's proposals, "they are trying to show they are pro-peace, useful
and very relevant as mediators and mainstays of the process and trying
also to anticipate what the new administration in Washington wishes to
do," said Gabriel Ben-Dor, a Middle East specialist at Haifa University.
The countries also have their sights set on being relevant in advance
of the January 15 conference bringing together some 70 foreign ministers
in Paris whose goal is to reaffirm the necessity of a two-state
solution.
...
As Tel Aviv University Middle East scholar Bruce Maddy-Weitzman has
noted, close scrutiny of Cairo and Riyadh's reactions to Kerry indicate
that neither Arab country has the sense of urgency that Kerry conveyed
in his speech. Egypt's Foreign Ministry said that Kerry's principles
were "mostly consistent with the international consensus and Egypt's
vision but in the end what is important is the will to implement those
principles eventually."
Saudi Arabia welcomed the proposals,
according to an official at the Saudi foreign ministry, who said Riyadh
views them as being in accord with the majority of the resolutions of
international legality. Riyadh said that Kerry's proposals have elements
of the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted by an
Arab summit at Beirut in 2002. It added that the proposals represent an
"appropriate basis" for achieving a final settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
But, Maddy-Weitzman noted "there is no operative clause in the Saudi response to move forward fast and do this or that."
"This
suggests the Saudis understand there won't be significant movement any
time soon as a result of the speech," he said. "They recognize there is a
new administration coming in that is expressing itself differently on
Middle East issues. Saudi strategic priorities are elsewhere. There are
more acute issues occupying their thinking. The Palestinian-Israeli
issue is lower down. That doesn't mean they don't care and would go
along with anything the Israeli government would do."
"At this
point, the Saudis won't take the lead on Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy
unless the Trump administration takes the initiative or something forces
them to, like a new intifada." But Riyadh will try to persuade the US
not to move its Israel embassy to Jerusalem, Maddy-Weitzman predicted.
In its reaction to Kerry, Egypt was mindful of Trump's intervention a
week earlier against its sponsorship of the security council resolution
specifying that settlements have "no legal validity." Egypt withdrew its
sponsorship in deference to Trump and it formulated its response to
Kerry with Trump in mind, not wanting to appear to be confrontational
towards Israel.
Cairo, which viewed the Obama administration as
selling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the Arab spring
revolt in 2011 and of subsequently backing the Muslim Brotherhood, has
high hopes for closer ties with Trump. Egypt is relieved to have an
administration coming in that will not make an issue out of its human
rights abuses in crushing the brotherhood and other opposition. "The
leaders of this 'terrorist' organization and those regional and Arab
powers that lend them support should realize that the election of Donald
Trump will usher in new directions for US foreign policy, which will
discontinue the 'interventionist' policies of the two previous US
administrations," wrote Hussein Haridy, a former foreign ministry
official, in al-Ahram weekly. "If this happens, there will be
much more effective cooperation between the American and Egyptian
governments in dealing constructively and successfully with existing
challenges and threats across the Middle East."
I haven't felt this optimistic since 2008, despite Obama-Kerry's attempts to incinerate Israel over the past two weeks. They're called 'lame ducks' for a reason.
It's come to this: Saudi editorial blasts Abu Mazen for not responding positively to Netanyahu invitation
It's finally happened. A major Sunni Arab country has told Abu Bluff where to get off. And it's a big one: It's 'our friends, the Saudis.'
The editorial, published Sunday in the Saudi Gazette, a daily published
in Jeddah that has a woman editor-in-chief, seemed to depart in tone
from the widely-held position in the Arab world that Israel is
responsible for the impasse with the Palestinians. It likened
Netanyahu’s proposal that the two leaders address each other’s
parliaments, to Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s 1977 invitation to
Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to visit Israel, and implied it could
also lead to a breakthrough. Begin made the invitation “and the rest is
history,’’ the editorial said.
“For all its shortcomings, Camp
David demonstrated that negotiations with Israel were possible and that
progress could be made through sustained efforts at communication and
cooperation,’’ it added.
As another example of how “official
visits can bend the arc of history’’ the paper cited then-US President
Bill Clinton’s 1998 visit to the Gaza Strip to address the Palestinian
National Council on the day it deleted clauses calling for the
destruction of Israel from the PLO charter.
Well, except that deletion had not legal effect, but let's leave that for now.
The editorial said that Palestinians had rejected overtures from
Netanyahu with the explanation that his hard-line position on all core
issues made dialogue impossible.
“But the Palestinians should note that at that time, Egypt and Israel were mortal enemies having fought three wars.’’
The
editorial went on to second guess the Arab world for rejecting Camp
David, saying “in hindsight if the provisions had been carried out,
Israel and the Palestinians might not be in the impasse they are at
present.’’ Saudi Arabia was a leader of the Arab opposition to Camp
David.
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen sent 'Palestinian' Christian mouthpiece Hanan Ashrawi out to respond.
‘’Whoever wrote this editorial is totally unaware of the reality of
this so-called invitation,’’ said PLO spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. “It is
a very obvious public relations trick that’s been overused. If
Netanyahu wants peace, let him abide by the requirements of
international law, the two-state solution and the 1967 boundaries.’’
...
Ashrawi took issue with the analogy to Egyptian-Israeli peacemaking.
“It’s not a question of Egypt and Israel, two countries that wanted to
make peace, it’s a question of an occupying force that is destroying the
other state and it’s about people under occupation who have no right
and no power.’’
Funny. I don't recall Begin or Sadat imposing any preconditions... and I am old enough to remember.
Ashrawi said she thinks that “below the surface there are contacts
[between Israel and Saudi Arabia] and all sorts of security
considerations and Israel is positioning itself to be a regional
power.’’ But she added: “No matter what happens, they won’t recognize or
normalize with Israel because it hasn’t respected Palestinian rights
and international law. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved things
can move. Before that they might have secret contacts, but they can’t
afford to lose their own constituency.’’
Except that the 'Palestinians' have made the 'Palestinian issue' impossible to resolve by rejecting any form of compromise.
Here's betting that Abu Mazen and Ashrawi go to their graves without seeing any kind of compromise or 'Palestinian state.'
NY Times worries Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia and leave the 'Palestinians' in the cold
In an editorial in Sunday's editions, the New York Times worries that Israel will make peace with Saudi Arabia (and Egypt, with which we made peace nearly 40 years ago) and leave the 'Palestinians' out in the cold.
The Israelis and the Saudis
have reasons to work together. They share antipathy toward Iran, the leading
Shiite-majority country. Both are worried about regional instability. Both are
upset with the United States over the Iranian nuclear deal and other policies,
including those dealing with Syria. For some time, Israeli and Saudi officials
have been cooperating covertly on security and intelligence matters.
...
It’s hard to tell sometimes
whether and through whom the Saudi royal family is speaking, and some analysts
do not view General Eshki as a serious interlocutor. But his visit to Jerusalem, which included a meeting with members of Parliament,
suggested a new Saudi openness to testing how the public in both countries would
react to overt contacts.
Significantly, Saudi Arabia has also begun a media
campaign in the kingdom, apparently to prepare its citizens for better relations
with Israel.
In recent years, Israelis
and Saudis have encountered each other often at academic and policy forums. In
addition, Israel has established separate official channels of communication
with Saudi Arabia, as well as with the United Arab Emirates, and these channels
are considered “real and significant,” according to Daniel Levy, president of
the U.S./Middle East Project.
Egypt
has also been pursuing warmer ties with Israel. A week before the Saudi
delegation arrived, Sameh Shoukry became the first foreign minister of Egypt
to visit Israelin nine years. Although the two countries signed a peace treaty in 1979, the
relationship never fulfilled its promise. However, ties have improved since
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became Egypt’s president in 2014, enabling greater security
cooperation against Hamas in Gaza and the militants battling Egyptian troops in
the Sinai.
Where does this leave the
Palestinians? Both the Saudi and Egyptian visits were ostensibly aimed at
promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, who have relied on the
Sunni Arab states to advance their interests. General Eshki, for instance,
talked of reviving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which promised Israel
normalized relations with the Arab League countries as part of a deal to end the
Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately, neither the
Israelis nor the Palestinians show interest in serious peace talks. And there
are reasons to doubt that the Palestinians are the Arab countries’ real focus.
Mr. Netanyahu, in fact, has made clear his preference for improving relations
with the Arab states first, saying Israel would then be in a stronger position
to make peace with the Palestinians later on.
Of course, improved
relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors do not preclude a Palestinian
peace deal. The danger is that these countries will find more value in mending
ties with each other and stop there, thus allowing Palestinian grievances, a
source of regional tension for decades, to continue to fester.
In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab
unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical
reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people,
since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a
distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
It's long past time to acknowledge reality: There aren't going to be two states - a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of 'Palestine' living side-by-side in peace - unless the Arab state is the one known today as Jordan. The 'Palestinian grievances' can never be satisfied, and even the Arab states recognize today that they have more important things to do with Israel than try to dismember it by creating a 'right of return' for 'Palestinian refugees' who are non-citizens in weaker Arab countries like Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. There will be no 'right of return.'
The 'Palestinians' who live within Israel (including Judea and Samaria) will either learn to accept reality and economic and political conditions in the State of Israel that are far better than those anywhere in the Arab world outside of the royal families of the Gulf, or they will leave for Western countries that are willing to have them (Frau Merkel?). And Israel will eventually have relations with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and maybe even Qatar (which today is Hamas' biggest supporter) because economic realities dictate that those relationships will happen.
And the New York Times will go off crying into the sunset. Speedily and in our times.
Tit for tat: Iran accuses Abu Bluff of collaborating with the CIA, 'Palestinians' accuse Iran of 'serving the Zionist project'
Pass the popcorn!
The 'Palestinians' and Iran are nearly in open war.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Maryam
Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
(NCRI), an Iranian diaspora opposition group, met in Paris on Saturday,
renewing tensions between the Palestinian leadership and Iran.
Abbas
hosted Rajavi at his hotel in Paris and updated her on the latest
developments in the Palestinian territories and the Middle East,
according to Wafa, the official Palestinian Authority news site.
The following day, Tehran learned of the meeting and
accused President Abbas of working as a secret agent on behalf of the
United States government.
A top advisor to the Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein Shiekh
al-Islam said, “That man [Abbas] is known to us and documents from the
US Embassy in Tehran revealed that he has been a collaborator with the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for a long time and his actions in
the past decades have proved that.”
Later in the evening, Wafa
published a press release from the Fatah Media and Culture
Commissariat, saying Iran, without mentioning its name, is carrying out
a campaign to undermine President Abbas and the Palestinian cause. “A
careful reading of advisor to the Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein
Sheikh al-Islam’s statements…have made clear to us of the horror that
many people are carrying out to serve the Zionist project through
organized campaigns against the president of the Palestinian people and
the Palestinian issue.”
The statement stated further that Iran
hopes to entrench division between Palestinians. “They have vied and
are still vying to destroy and ruin the Palestinian people, entrench
the division, and encourage internal conflict to gain political points,
nothing else. Their goals have nothing to do with Jerusalem or
justice,” it said.
The 'Palestinians' are trying to show they stand with the 'moderate' Sunni countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan). Coincidentally, those are the same countries who have been ramping up ties with Israel. Hmmm.
Four Saudi security officers killed by suicide bomber in Medina
Four Saudi security officers were killed by a suicide bomber who said he wanted to eat iftar (the meal that breaks the Ramadan fast) with them.
Four Saudi security force members were killed on Monday after a
suicide bombing took place in Madinah near the prophet’s mosque, the
Al-Haram Al-Nabawi, regarded as one of Islam's holiest sites.
Al
Arabiya News Channel’s correspondent said the suicide bombing took
place in a parking lot between the city court and the mosque, visited by
millions every year. The channel showed images of fire raging in a
parking lot with at least one body seen nearby. The suicide bomber also
died in the attack.
The attack near the
prophet's mosque took place during Maghreb prayers, the time when
Muslims break their fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
Al
Arabiya News Channel’s correspondent said the suicide bomber targeted
seven security officers when he pretended that he wanted to break his
fast with them.
Security forces have cordoned off the area.
Two
million visitors have so far arrived at Al-Haram Al-Nabawi during
Ramadan to finish recitation of the Quran. The correspondent said the
visitors were undeterred and were heading to perform the Isha prayers,
which take place soon after the inital fast-breaking prayer.
There were two other suicide bombings in Qaif today and a foiled attack in Jeddah. Sounds like the Saudis need a little help coping with all the terrorists they've supported over the years.... Oh wait.... These are probably Shia terrorists backed by Iran.... Hmmm....
The attack near Al-Haram Al-Nabawi took place
during Maghreb prayers, the time when observing Muslims break their fast
during the holy month of Ramadan.
Saudi Arabia cuts off assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces
In a move that was likely spurred by Lebanese support for Iranian activity in Syria, Saudi Arabia has cut off some $4 billion in support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.
The
surprise announcement, carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency,
comes as deeply divided Lebanon struggles to handle the fallout from
neighboring Syria's raging civil war. The Lebanese government declined
to immediately comment on the Saudi decision.
One deal involves Saudi Arabia paying $3 billion to buy French arms
for the Lebanese military. The other involves a $1 billion support deal
for the Lebanese police.
Saudi Arabia said it halted the deals because of recent Lebanese
positions "which are not in line with the brotherly relations between
the two countries." It did not elaborate.
However, it comes after Lebanese Foreign Minister Gibran Bassil
declined to support resolutions against Iran during two meetings of Arab
and Muslim foreign ministers.
Bassil is the president of the right-wing
Christian Free Patriotic Movement, which is one of the strongest allies
of the Iran-backed militant Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia long has been suspicious of the
predominantly Shiite Iran, which supports Hezbollah and Syria's
embattled President Bashar Assad. Relations took a turn for the worse at
the start of the year, when Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shiite
cleric and protesters stormed Saudi diplomatic posts in Iran. That in
turn prompted Riyadh to cut diplomatic relations with Tehran.
The Lebanese army is generally seen as a unifying force in the
country, and draws its ranks from all of Lebanon's sects. However, it's
widely viewed as being much weaker than Hezbollah.
That almost makes this sound like a foolish move - the last thing the Saudis want to do is strengthen Hezbullah. On the other hand, the Lebanese Armed Forces are full of Shiite Hezbullah members.
Must see video: This is how they drive in Saudi Arabia
Given that this happened in Saudi Arabia, you can be sure of one thing: The driver was a man.
Let's go to the videotape.
Reminds me of my friend in high school who took me for a ride in his father's Audi, and as we are going around an exit ramp that is forever known in family as the David C Memorial Exit Ramp at 60 mph, he says "watch how this car takes curves." The car ended up on top of the guardrail. The State Trooper who came to take care of us told my parents that the radius of the almost complete circle on the ramp changes several times and that's why the speed limit is... 25 mph....
But you would think this guy would at least put the dumping bucket down. Hmmm.
What do you folks think? Is he a candidate for a Darwin Award?
First picture Mogherini Saudi Arabia on Monday, second picture Mogherini with Javad Zarif in Tehran today.
The high temperature in Tehran today was 98 degrees Fahrenheit (it's now 97 at 9:00 pm). That's 37 and 36 degrees Celsius. And that outfit looks like it would fit right into a European winter.
Another US ally with a lot to worry about from the Iran sellout
There's another US ally outside of Israel and the Persian Gulf whose interests are taking a serious beating as a result of the Obama-Kerry sellout to Iran: India.
India's primary concern, however, remains neighbouring Pakistan.
As this nuclear deal sets a Shiite Iran on the highway to a nuclear
bomb, rival Sunni-Arab nations are getting jittery about the prospect of
living in an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
Pakistan would be the preferred one-stop shop from Sunni-Arab nations
to acquire a "turnkey" nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia has apparently
financed Pakistan's clandestine nuclear program for decades and hopes
get an "off the shelf" nuclear bomb in return. U.S. President Barack
Obama might be right about not allowing a nuclear Iran "on his watch,"
but after he leaves the White House -- and because of him -- the nuclear
landscape of the Middle East might be "radiating" like a pinball
machine.
The multi-billion dollar nuclear deals between Pakistan and
Sunni-Arab nations will be brokered by the Pakistani Army, and the money
will largely go to fund Islamist infrastructure and jihadist
insurgencies in Kashmir and beyond.
As is the case with Obamacare domestically (the real economic hit occurs too late to affect Obama's standing while he's in the White House), so too with the sellout to a nuclear Iran.
The Sunni states in the Persian Gulf are extremely critical of the Iran nuclear sellout. But less because of the nuclear issue than because of the release of sanctions and the lack of restrictions on Iran's terror support. You know, the things Obama-Kerry decided were 'less important.' This is from the first link and it's from Jonathan Spyer.
“Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states can only welcome the nuclear deal,
which in itself is supposed to close the gates of evil that Iran had
opened in the region. However, the real concern is that the deal will
open other gates of evil, gates which Iran mastered knocking at for
years even while Western sanctions were still in place.”
From this perspective a particularly notable and dismaying aspect of
the deal is its removal of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and
its Quds Force commander, Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani, from the list of
those subject to sanctions by the West.
The ending of sanctions on the IRGC, and more broadly the likely
imminent freeing of up to $150 billion in frozen revenue, will enable
Iran to massively increase its aid to its long list of regional clients
and proxies. Iran today is heavily engaged in at least five conflict
arenas in the region.
...
In Syria, beleaguered dictator and Iranian client Assad remains in
control in the west and south largely because of Iranian support and
assistance – up to $1b. per month, according to some estimates. For as
long as Assad remains, the war remains, allowing such monstrous entities
as Islamic State and al-Qaida to flourish.
...
In Iraq, the Iranian-supported Shi’ite militias of the Hashd
al-Shaabi are playing the key role in defending Baghdad from the advance
of Islamic State. These militias are trained and financed by the
Revolutionary Guards and organized by Soleimani and his Iraqi right-hand
man, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, also thought to be an IRGC member.
In Yemen, the Iranians are offering arms and support to the Ansar
Allah, or Houthi rebels, who are engaged in a bloody insurgency against
the government of President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi.
Among the Palestinians, Tehran operates Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a
client/proxy organization, and is in the process of rebuilding
relations with the Izzadin Kassam, the powerful military wing of Hamas.
All this costs money. In a pattern familiar to the experience of
totalitarian regimes under sanctions in the past, Iran has preferred to
safeguard monies for use in service of its regional ambitions, while
allowing its population – other than those connected to the regime – to
suffer the consequent shortages.
Still, in recent months, things weren’t going so well. Assad has been
losing ground to the Sunni rebels. Hezbollah has been hemorrhaging men
in Syria. The Shi’ite militias were holding Islamic State in Iraq but
not advancing. Saudi intervention was holding back further advances by
the Houthis in Yemen. Hamas was looking poverty-stricken and beleaguered
in its Gaza redoubt.
The sanctions, plus these many commitments, were bringing the Iranian
regime close to an economic crisis that would have confronted the
regime with the hard choice of lessening its regional interference or
facing the consequences.
No longer. The deal over the nuclear program is set to enable Tehran
to shore up its investments, providing more money and guns to all its
friends across the Middle East, who will as a result grow stronger,
bolder and more ambitious. This, from the point of view of the main
powers in the Sunni Arab world, is the key fallout (so to speak) from
the deal concluded in Vienna. IRGC “outreach” to Shi’ite minorities in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and to the Shi’ite majority in Bahrain, is also
likely to increase as a result of the windfall.
...
Similarly, in Lebanon the West is supporting and equipping the Lebanese
Armed Forces, without understanding that the Lebanese state is largely a
shell, within which Hezbollah is the living and directing force. In
Syria, the US is pursuing a half-hearted campaign against Islamic State,
while leaving the rest of the country to its internal dynamics.
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:
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.
Tony Blair met Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal twice in Doha to discuss ways to end the Gaza siege, the Middle East Eye website has reported, citing unnamed sources.
The website reported on Monday that the pair last met prior to Blair stepping down from his post as the representative of the Quartet of Middle East power brokers in May.
It was reported that they discussed ways to end the Gaza siege,
including the possibility of a rolling ceasefire, and that Blair's
negotiations were being supported by the UK, the United States and the
European Union. Two Arab states and Israel were also reportedly aware of
the discussions.
Though Blair has stepped down from his post with the Quartet, the discussions are reportedly continuing.
Neither the recognition of Israel, nor the decommissioning of Hamas'
arsenal, would be a requirement for any potential deal, the website
reported.
Wonder which two Arab states? I'd bet on Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
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?
President Hussein Obama finally has a diplomatic achievement to which he can point. But it's not the one he was hoping for. The picture at the top is a photo of a handshake between incoming Director General of Israel's Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold (who has a kipa on his head and is at left) and Anwar Majed Eshki, a retired Saudi general and ex-adviser to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. And there's much more to it than a handshake, and it's been going on for a year and a half.Eli Lake reports.
Since the beginning of 2014, representatives from Israel and Saudi
Arabia have had five secret meetings to discuss a common foe, Iran. On
Thursday, the two countries came out of the closet by revealing this
covert diplomacy at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
...
It was not a typical Washington think-tank event. No questions were
taken from the audience. After an introduction, there was a speech in
Arabic from Anwar Majed Eshki, a retired Saudi general and ex-adviser to
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Then
Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations who is
slotted to be the next director general of Israel's foreign ministry,
gave a speech in English.
While these men represent countries that have been historic enemies,
their message was identical: Iran is trying to take over the Middle East
and it must be stopped.
Eshki was particularly alarming. He laid out a brief history of Iran
since the 1979 revolution, highlighting the regime's acts of terrorism,
hostage-taking and aggression. He ended his remarks with a seven-point
plan for the Middle East. Atop the list was achieving peace between
Israel and the Arabs. Second came regime-change in Iran. Also on the
list were greater Arab unity, the establishment of an Arab regional
military force, and a call for an independent Kurdistan to be made up of
territory now belonging to Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
We only have five of the seven points here, but notice what's missing: 'Peace between Israel the Arabs' is not the same as 'Palestinian state.' Well, maybe not.
Eshki told me that no real cooperation would be possible until Israel's
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accepted what's known as the Arab
Peace Initiative to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plan was
first shared with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman in 2002 by Saudi
Arabia's late King Abdullah, then the kingdom's crown prince.
In any event, these ties go back a long time - all the way to the beginning of the Obama administration.
These ties became more focused on Iran over the last decade, as shown by
documents released by WikiLeaks in 2010. A March 19, 2009, cable
quoted Israel's then-deputy director general of the foreign minister,
Yacov Hadas, saying one reason for the warming of relations was that
the Arabs felt Israel could advance their interests vis-a-vis Iran in
Washington. "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," the cable
said.
Note - that was two months after Obama was inaugurated, and Netanyahu had already been elected by then and was forming a government (he was sworn in on March 31, 2009).
Obama finally has a diplomatic achievement: A burgeoning reconciliation between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
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.
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.
Ansarullah sources revealed to the FNA that after
they drove all the 40 Saudi embassy guards out of the embassy and
captured the compound, it found a large cache of Israeli-made weapons
and ammunition.
The Yemeni forces also disclosed that they have discovered documents
showing that the US intends to establish a military base on Saudi
Arabia’s Myon Island near Bab al-Mandeb Strait to protect their own
interests and ensure the security of Israel.
The Riyadh government has also asked Tel Aviv for
state-of-the-art weapons to supply the terrorist groups in Yemen and
forces loyal to fugitive President Mansour Hadi.
In April, senior Yemeni officials disclosed that the Riyadh government has used Israeli-made weapons in its airstrikes on Yemen.
"The Saudis are using Israeli weapons in their raids on Yemen," Yemeni Army Commander Taher Rasoul Zadami told FNA.
The reports said Ansarullah took control of the
Saudi embassy in Sana'a in reaction to the Saudis' continued attacks on
residential areas and hospitals alongside army positions in Yemen.
How convenient.... If only it were true... there would be a much bigger story: There are very few weapons that Israel may sell without American approval (because of the military relations between the two countries - recall this). I guess Iran is afraid of that hot potato.
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.
That'll stop Islamic State, clean up Syria and convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons....
You didn't really think that Saudi King Salman was going to trust his country's security to the moron on Pennsylvania Avenue, did you? A report in the Sunday Times of London says that Saudi Arabia is going to be purchasing a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia had made the “strategic decision” to purchase a nuclear
weapon from Pakistan amid the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program, a former American defense official said in a report published today in The Sunday Times.
“There has been a longstanding agreement in place with
the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision
to move forward.”
While the official did not believe “any actual weaponry has been
transferred yet”, it was clear “the Saudis mean what they say and they
will do what they say”, following last month’s Iranian outline nuclear
deal. …
Asked whether the Saudis had decided to become a nuclear power, the official responded: “That has to be the assumption.”
The assessment is shared by an American intelligence official who spoke to the Times,
saying that “hundreds” of CIA employees are trying to determine if
Pakistan has already supplied any nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Let's hear it for Mr. 'Nuclear Non-Proliferation.' Change, indeed. What could go wrong?
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
