Sic Semper Tyrannis

The Gatekeepers

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Not to horn in on BG Farrell's movie reviews here at SST, but I recently saw a documentary and wanted to bring it to the attention of the SST community.  About two weeks ago I was asked to go with our former USMC senior service rep here at the US Army War College to see the new Israeli documentary The Gatekeepers by Dror Moreh. The Gatekeepers is an oral history of Israel's internal security and intelligence service - Shin Bet.  Moreh's documentary is built around in depth interviews with the last six Shin Bet directors and spans events from the 1960s through to the last several years, combined with archival footage and computer generated reenactments.  In fact the documentary's production was delayed until the most recent former director, Yuval Diskin, retired and could be interviewed for and part of the project.  Moreh was able to get the project going, which features the first public interviews with any of these men, because one of the former directors, Ami Ayalon was willing to be interviewed after being elected to the Knesset from the Labor Party.  It was Ayalon who helped convince his peers to participate.

Moreh's documentary is divided into seven segments and includes such controversial topics as the 300 bus incident, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, and breaking up the Israeli Jewish extremist attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. For me one of the most interesting portions of the film was when Yaakov Peri, who ran Shin Bet from 1988 to 1994, referred to Palestinian's who had engaged in attacks on Israel as melkhamim.  Melkhamim is Hebrew for warriors.  All the other former directors referred to Palestinian attackers as terroreest, which, as you can tell, is the transliteration word imported into Hebrew for terrorist.  The documentary was excellent and I cannot recommend it highly enough to the SST community.  If you're interested in counter-terrorism, intelligence, counterintelligence, and/or the Israeli/Palestinian dispute you need to see it if it is in your area. All six of the former directors interviewed demonstrated significant nuance in regards to their assignments, their adversaries, the problems Israel faces, and the politicians they work for.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the United States Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Army War College and/or the US Army.

Syria, the Levant, and the Real Domino Effect

*

Adam L. Silverman, PhD**

 

As the Syrian Civil War continues into its third year, there are several potential outcomes that we need to look out for and be concerned with.  These are not just limited to Syria, but to the entire Levant, and even to Iran.  So lets run the board in order:

Syria

There are really two key potential outcomes and one sequel for Syria itself: stalemate driven insurgency, the fall of the Assads leading to a Sunni majority takeover, and the withdrawl of the Alawites to Latakia.

It is, in some respects, both surprising and not surprising that the Assad government has held on for as long as it has.  In many ways the Syrian Civil War is both an Assad and Alawite existential fight. which partially explains just how hard the government has responded and how far it is willing to go to survive.  One of the two most likely outcomes to the dispute is that the government is strong enough to survive, but not strong enough to completely put down the rebellion and that the rebellion is not strong enough to overthrow the government, but just strong enough to survive.  If this happens, then we will see a classic insurgency along the lines of what the Philippines has endured with the Moros on Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago and similar to what Columbia has faced with the FARC.  In this situation Syria essentially gets carved up into two or more statelets - with government control in some areas and rebel control in others. 

The second potential outcome is that the Assad government does fall and the Sunni majority, or some faction of it takes over.  And it is this latter concept of faction that is important.  There is clearly no good cohesion among the rebel groups, both the domestic Syrian and the foreign fighters/jihadis, as well as between them.  While it may ultimately be a good thing for the region if Assad goes, it will not be a simple transition.  The various factions are likely to try to consolidate power, claim and then establish legitimacy, and will come to blows with each other over who will take control.  This possible outcome has the potential to turn into a Syrian version of the Thirty Years War, where different factions try to and/or actually seize power, seek to consolidate, face challenges to their legitimacy, and then the cycle of violent succession starts all over again.  This would, unlike the actual Thirty Years War, not end in the creation of a secular state, as the Syrian Sunni majority is conservative and devout even though it is not Salafist.  So do not expect a secular Sunni majority Syria to emerge.

In both of these two potential outcomes their is a sequel: the fallback of the Alawites, with or without the Assads, to their traditional lands in Latakia.  Latakia is the mountainous strip of Syria below Turkey on the coast of the Mediterranean.  While it is not completely fortifiable, it is certainly good ground - to paraphrase MG Buford - for digging in and trying to make a stand.  Not only would this prolong the dispute, but it would complicate Syria's claims to their portions of the recently discovered Leviathan petroleum and natural gas field in the eastern Mediterranean.

"Kerry is believed to be keen to dust off..." Guardian

"Kerry is believed to be keen to dust off the 11-year-old Arab (or Saudi) peace plan, under which regional states would normalise relations with Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state. And he is likely to ask Turkey to play an active role in any revived process."  Guardian

-------------------------------------------

 "The 11 year old...."

I used to travel around the Islamic World + Israel with a group of rich westerners who were mostly American Jews.  There were also rich Arabs from the Levant,  Egypt, the Gulf, etc.  We swanned around in the private plane of one of "the guys" and went to talk to various heads of state and government.  This group did not bother with too many others.  I was there to try to explain what was said and seen.  It was a great "gig."  We did it once a year for a number of years.

Two years in a row we went to see King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  On both occasions in response to prodding from the group, Abdullah produced some papers from his ormolu encrusted Louis whatsis desk and holding them aloft proclaimed that he had his own peace plan and when the time was right he would proclaim in public the need for all Arab countries to recognize Israel.  Alas, he said, the time was not yet right.  As part of this "dog and pony show" he would explain the conditions under which he would be free to make his demand for recognition of Israel.  There was no variation in the text between the two years in which I heard  it explained by him.

HARPER: A HIGH PRICE FOR FALSE AFFECTION

 President Obama’s just-concluded visit to Israel, his first since his election in 2009, was by all accounts a public relations success.  Long-demonized among a majority of Israelis, Obama’s charm offensive won him new friends, particularly among Israel’s younger generations.  For the hardcore Likudniks, the specter of Obama being fawned over by his former harsh critic Bibi Netanyahu softened some of the hatred.

          Back in 2009, when the newly elected President Obama appointed George Mitchell as his Middle East peace envoy, ex-President Bill Clinton urged Obama to go to Israel, to marshal public support for his peace initiative. Clinton warned the President that unless he built up a base of support within Israel, Netanyahu would clean his clock and sabotage any efforts to halt settlement expansion or move ahead on a two-state solution.  Obama ignored Clinton’s sage advice and the rest is history.

          Four years later, President Obama took up the Clinton recommendation.  But the circumstances are very different now.  For one thing, President Obama’s advisors have told him that, despite a weakened political situation, Netanyahu is more adamantly opposed than ever to a halt in settlement expansion and has no intention of moving forward with a two-state solution deal.

         So, in their private talks, President Obama gave a great deal of ground to Bibi, dropping any attempt to get a settlement freeze.  In effect, Obama ripped up the Quartet agreement, under which Israel was to halt settlement expansion once the Palestinian Authority cracked down on terrorism coming from the West Bank.  The PA has fully complied with their side of the Quartet deal, and Obama just gave Netanyahu a green light to ignore Israel’s obligations.

         In return for calling for a resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians with no preconditions—key and code for settlement expansion—Obama extracted an unreliable promise from Netanyahu that Israel would not take any unilateral action against Iran for the foreseeable future.  Obama indicated that there was some progress at the last P5+1 talks, but it could take a year to fully explore the chance for a diplomatic settlement.  Obama provided Israel with detailed intelligence assessments of Iran’s nuclear program, making it clear that U.S. evaluations are more in line with those of Israeli intelligence.  In these talks as well, Obama made it clear that Israel has the sovereign right to defend itself against the Iranian threat, but that the U.S. was prepared to use military force if the diplomacy failed.  In effect, this amounted to a quasi-green light for Israel, given that Netanyahu’s “Red Line” for an attack on Iran is quite different than the U.S. Red Line.  For Netanyahu, the first moment that Iran approaches 225 kilos of 20 percent enriched uranium, the order goes down for an attack.

         Obama also conceded that the United States had to reassess the Arab Spring, particularly given the growing power of the most extreme Jihadists in the wake of the overthrow of Qaddafi, the Benghazi attack and the obvious leading role being played by the Al Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, in the Syrian insurgency.

         And Washington also celebrated the success of the Iron Dome missile defense program by pledging a continuation of ever-expanding American military assistance.  Sequestration apparently stops at the banks of the River Jordan.

         In short, in return for a passing and soon-forgotten “feel good moment” Obama once again gave away the store to Bibi. 

Obama ME Scorecard - so far.

So far not too bad. 

- He did not free Pollard.

- He didn't offer to give Israel extra free money or guns.

- He and Natanyahu managed to conceal their true feelings about each other.

- BHO's speech to the "youth group" was very skilled and the reaction both positive and negative was useful.

- He apparently did not accept Israeli instruction on Iran and Syria.

- His speeches in Israel were simple traditional drivel about friendship, eternal friendship and more eternal friendship.

- His visit to Abbas was much the same thing.

One thing about the press chatter around this trip that concerns me is the renewed talk of Jordan's instability, deep problems, etc.  I don't see it.  Jordan has always been a delicately balanced place.  Israelis for many decades "beat the drum" for the idea that the Hashemite monarchy would soon disappear.  They stopped that after Jordan made peace with them.  Have their allies in the press now started this again?  Abdullah is a very Western, modern, man who wants to bring the country to a consititutional monarchy that would be a true parliamentary democracy.  He wants to do that without surrendering the country to the Islamists.  What part of that does the media not like?  pl

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/politics/obama-mideast-visit/?hpt=wo_c1

PPT on CENTCOM's future. CSIS

The "Burke Chair" PPT on the future of the CENTCOM AOR.  pl 

 http://csis.org/files/publication/130304_challenges_opportunities_centcom_aor.pdf

 

Top Ten Myths About Iran by Dr. Christopher Bolan

 

International negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program have resumed this week in Kazakhstan.  Initial reporting suggests that Iran will be offered some limited sanctions relief in return for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities.  However, these talks have a troubled history and experienced observers are quick to tamp down any expectations of a major breakthrough.  As any number of foreign policy pundits will be debating the significance of these outcomes over the next several days, it would be prudent to dispel some of the most popular (and misguided) myths surrounding the Iran policy debate.

Myth 1:  Iran is an irrational actor.  This myth is especially popular among those pushing the case for immediate military action to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  Their argument is that Iranian leaders are crazed, hot-headed, and messianic actors who do not respond to logic or reason and therefore cannot be trusted with such destructive weapons.  These claims are based on cultural ignorance and prejudices that would be routinely dismissed as out of bounds in just about any context outside of US policy debates on Iran.  Fortunately, senior US and Israeli officials have publicly dismissed this myth as false.  America’s senior military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey asserted in a television interview that “we are of the opinion that the [Iranian] regime is a rational actor.”  Israel’s retired Mossad director Meir Dagan similarly opined that “the regime in Iran is a very rational one.”  Moreover, Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister, elaborated on this basic point saying that “I don’t think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, [would] drop it in the neighborhood…They are radical but not totally crazy…They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality.” 

"If Israel strikes Syria again, all bets are off" The Telegraph

"Israel’s policy towards Syria has, for two years, consisted of keeping its distance and sending warnings to Assad. As the Syrian state weakens and, at the same time, it has less and less to lose, Israel will find it increasingly difficult to insulate itself from events next door. If air strikes recur, this policy is going to fall apart. "  The Telegrapf

------------------------------------

The Syrian and Iranians lack any real retaliatory means against Israel as yet.  The real danger for Israel is that Hizbullah might decide to unleash its rocket and missile fire into northern Israel.  pl  

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/shashankjoshi/100201153/if-israel-strikes-syria-again-all-bets-are-off/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Armed_strength

The Politics of War and It Effects on Israel--Foresman

The following passage from an article over at the New York Review of Books caught my attention, it was written by an Israeli, a resident of an urban Kibbutz in Sderot.

How did we, as a society, lose the ability to formulate questions about the feasibility of a political alternative? How did it happen that a person who suggests a nonviolent solution is the delusional one, the traitor, and the one who calls for the leveling of Gaza is the true patriot? How did peace become the enemy of the people, and war always the preferred option? How did it happen that dialogue and treaties cause more public fear than a volley of missiles? And how did these dehumanizing processes seal us off from the suffering of others? How did we lose the capacity for empathy? What does it mean that a girl from Gaza—whose school was bombed and her best friend was killed before her eyes—has to remind us that they, too, are human beings? And how has a nation that has occupied other people’s territory for forty-five years continued to tell itself, with such deep conviction, that we are the single and ultimate victim in this story? And the evil of the occupation has become so banal that no one sees the evil anymore.

Does this reflect a dominant view?  No but it does reflect the divide that exist within Israel.  The political divisions within Israel are along secular and sectarian lines as well as where they immigrated from to Israel.

SST Potpourri - 28 november, 2012

"Despite  official U.S. assessments that al Qaeda leadership has been  “decimated,” some experts are insisting that the U.S. maintain a heavy  military footprint in Afghanistan — a strategy that will cost billions of dollars each year. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently addressed the success of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda, saying “al-Qaeda has been significantly weakened in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Its most effective leaders are gone. Its command, and control have been degraded, and its safe haven is shrinking….we have decimated core al-Qaeda.” The U.S. must still “finish the job” in Afghanistan, Secretary Panetta added, calling for continued commitment on both military and diplomatic fronts. "  Afghanistan Study Group

http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/2012/11/26/al-qaeda-decimated-but-us-considers-heavy-military-footprint-in-afghanistan/

-------------------------------------------------------

This is all nonsense.  The Afghans are not going to agree to a SOFA that gives US forces legal immunity in their  country and that will be the end of it.  The Pentagon should start preparing for that event.  pl

*****************************************

William Hague has said today Britain will back the Palestinian bid for United Nations observer status if they agree to peace talks with Israel.  The UK will abstain from debating the issue at the UN General Assembly as there are no guarantees Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas will negotiate.   Express.coDespite official U.S. assessments that al Qaeda leadership has been “decimated,” some experts are insisting that the U.S. maintain a heavy military footprint in Afghanistan — a strategy that will cost billions

--------------------------------------------------

So, the US and Israel will vote against non-member 0bserver status for the PA?  Why does the US continue with the farce of pretending to be an "honest broker" in this dispute?  The soon to be disunited Britain will abstain unless the Palestinians give up a right to press charges against Israel in the international courts?  The Palestinians will win the vote in the General assembly and then prefer charges against such as Natanyahu, Barak and Avigdor Lieberman.  This will expose these Israelis to extradition action by various member states.  Then Israel can be a prison for them in much the same way that Gaza is for the Palestinians.  pl

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9708521/Britain-will-abstain-on-Palestinian-bid-without-assurances-says-William-Hague.html

***************************************

"Fresh clashes broke out in Cairo on Wednesday near Tahrir Square, as riot police fired tear gas and charged at Egyptian protesters angry about a move by President Mohamed Morsy to extend his powers." CNN International

-------------------------------------------------

Egypt is on fire again.  There were 100,000 anti-Mursi demonstrators in Tahrir square yesterday.  The US media is obviously avoiding the subject of the imposition of a tyranny in Egypt.  It seems that the revelation of their own naivete two years ago is too much  for them to cope with.  And then there are the naifs and neocons in the governmenr who still cling to their hopes.  pl

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/meast/egypt-protests/?hpt=hp_t2

**************************************

"About 14 percent of the 1.4 million troops in the active-duty military are women. About 280,000 women were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. About 150 women died in those two conflicts. Although there may be growing support in the military to opening some jobs in combat units to women, there remains stiff opposition from the infantry, where the physical demands — like walking long distances carrying heavy loads and handling bulky weapons — are most demanding. In a widely circulated article, a female Marine Corps captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan wrote in the Marine Corps Gazette this year that seven months in Afghanistan left her physically broken, with muscle atrophy in her leg and an ovarian condition that left her infertile. “I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females,” the article’s author, Capt. Katie Petronio, wrote. "  NY Times

----------------------------------------------

If I recall correctly there is a provision in law aganst womens' service in certain combat specialties in the infantry, armor and SF.  If that is so, then congressional repeal of that provision would also be necessary, but since the Congress can be expected to do anything "catchy" that appears popular, well...  I think that since these women see this as a civil rights jobs program issue they should be given the chance to "try it on." My only hope about this is that physical standards are not lowered to make this easier.  War is an equal opportunity employer.  It would be most unfortunate if some of these job seekers literally have to be carried.  pl  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/servicewomen-file-suit-over-direct-combat-ban.html?_r=0

 

 

"What Is Going On in Syria?" by Father Paul Stenhouse

"Unless defections from the 600,000-strong, predominantly Sunni, Syrian army reach significant proportions—which is unlikely—the rebels seem to be pinning their hopes of toppling the regime on enticing foreign powers to enter the conflict on the ground and in the air. In other words, replaying the Libyan scenario. But—as many are starting to realise—Syria is not Libya; nor is it Iraq. Assad is not friendless as was Gaddafi. No one claims that the Assad regime as it stands is a democracy, but it was and is moving towards one. On the other hand, the much publicised efforts its opponents inside and outside Syria are making to demonise Assad and his government have to be seen for what they are: exaggerated and often spurious claims aimed at drawing ill-informed foreign powers into a conflict that will probably draw the whole region into a wider and bloodier one." Father Paul Stenhouse

----------------------------------------------------

You heard it here first.  pl

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/4/what-is-going-on-in-syria 

 

An Expert Artisan's View: Ephraim Halevy on Iran and the Foreign Policy Stakes in the US Presidential Election

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

On Sunday, the Al-Monitor published a very in depth and timely interview between reporter Laura Rozen and former Mossad Director and Israeli National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy.**  The interview covers many important foreign policy issues, specifically dealing with Iran, how to approach one's adverseries, and the impact of Israel's concerns with Iran on the US presidential campaign and US foreign policy.

Some of the most important take aways were his remarks about how one should deal with one's adversaries:

    " Therefore, I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to     lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them But by not     talking to them, you don't de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all     have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. [...]

    Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try. If you fail 10 times,     and succeed once, the success outweighs the failures.

    What happened: In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the US governments     have tied our own hands. There is a law [...] which prohibits US officials from talking     to Hamas [...] In the end, you create an inherent disadvantage for yourself."

He also has some really important thoughts in regards to leadership at the strategic level in regards to operations, such as the one to kill/capture bin Laden:

     "I think nobody who has been involved in ordering the use of force can forget the     angst, the days and nights of concern, as to what and how it can be done.

    Romney has said, Anybody could have decided to finish bin Laden. Even [Jimmy]     Carter. This again  was a mistaken concept. President Obama didn’t just decide [one     day to kill bin Laden]. The operation to end the life of bin Laden necessitated     multiple points of decision by him. I know from operations I have been involved with     on a smaller scale.

    They are very intricate. You don’t just give the order and wait in your office for     commanders to come three months later and say it’s done. No. This kind of operation,     which is accident prone, hands on operation, one has to make one decision after the     other […] It took courage and cool headedness and leadership. Anyone who says it     was an easy thing to decide, doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. [Such     comments] show a total lack of understanding of what this kind of operation means.

    Once I was in charge of an operation and Netanyahu was Prime Minister. One day,     because of the intricacy of what we were doing, I talked to him 10 times on the phone     […] Ten times. It was a Friday, a day I will not forget.

    This kind of operation, every minute, an issue comes up, that sometimes requires a     decision on the political level.

    The Libya story, the way it’s being used, is a sordid manipulation. […]"

And he discusses something near and dear to my heart, which is trying to understand the identities of those we have to engage with - allies, competitors, and especially adversaries:

    "Over the years, both because of personal contact with some key figures on the other         side […] I realized, in order to be effective with one’s enemies, you have to have two     essential capabilities: To overcome by force if necessary — and/or to withstand their     force if necessary. And do everything you can to get into their minds and try to     understand how they see things, what their concerns are — their dreams,     aspirations, hopes, feelings are. And where if at all there is room for common ground     of one kind or another.

    I think that what we have had over the years is an abundance of one side, and a dearth     of the other.     There has been a big emphasis, and rightly so, [on overcoming     adversaries by force]. But we have paid little attention [to understanding one’s     enemies.] And I have always had the feeling to look for ways and means of creating     channels for dialogue. I was involved in channels of dialogue in one way or other,     in major and minor roles, as of 1973-1974, when I served here in Washington, D.C., as     Mossad station chief."

The whole interview is excellent.  Ms. Rozen did a great job, so click on over and read the whole thing!  It'll be far more informative on anything at the debate, in the Spin Room, or in the coverage over the next week...

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

** Hat tip to Tom Levenson over at Balloon Juice

October Surprise?

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Not sure if this is the October Surprise anyone was expecting, but since it involves Iran, there would be a certain symmetry to it.  The New York Times has reported that Iran and the US have agreed to direct negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.  Iran is insisting that these occur after the election so that they know who they are negotiating with.  This, of course, makes sense given the statements of Governor Romney, his campaign, and his advisors regarding Iran and its nuclear energy program.  The speculation in the article is that should Governor Romney get elected that neither the US nor Iran will want to actually have these talks.  This is an excellent example of how personalities and relationships matter.  The Times reports that this development is the result of very quiet, very low key diplomacy by the Obama Administration over the past three plus years coupled with the increases in economic sanctions.  That these efforts appear to be bearing fruit is a positive sign, but Iran's guarded response demonstrates that they have received the messages from the Romney campaign regarding potential, future policy towards Iran and the Middle East.  This too is an excellent example of how hard it is, given the nature of the US political system and the way it interacts with our news media (such as it is...) to use the information portion of national power.  It does not matter if an administration is disciplined and focused when there are over 500 other elected federal officials in Congress and often dozens of potential presidential candidates, given that we are now running two to four year presidential campaigns, hundreds of authoritative analysts and advisors and commentators (and I mean that loosely in both command of the facts and actual quality of analysis) all with their own messages being blasted out 24/7.  It seems like the Iranians have learned a lesson from President Reagan - "trust, but verify".

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do NOT necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Rice reveals that Hizbullah helps Syria

 

"U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told the U.N. Security Council's monthly meeting on the Mideast that Hezbollah leaders are also continuing to plot new measures with Iran to keep Assad in power.       

Rice's comments — and those of Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor — gave the clearest indication that Hezbollah, which fought a war against Israel in 2006 and is a major political and military force in Lebanon, is sending an increasing number of fighters to help the embattled Syrian regime.       

Syria's ruling Alawite minority is an offshoot of Shiite Islam and has had close ties to Iran and Hezbollah which are Shiite-dominated. Assad has long helped Iran aid Hezbollah and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, in destabilizing Lebanon and threatening Israel's security and U.S. interests in the Middle East. "  NY Times

-----------------------------------------

This is truly comic.  Susan "Meet the Press" Rice is still riding high.

Hizbullah is a major component of a stable government in Lebanon.  It was elected to the number of seats in parliament that give it that power a number of years ago and the political science seminar crowd that makes up the US foreign policy establishment has resolutely opposed the Lebanese government ever since.  BTW, when did Hizbullah last fire rockets or anything else into Israel?  If memory serves, it was in 2006.

In Syria the US seeks regime change without UN authority.   The allies of the US in this endeavor are; Turkey (Sunni ruled), Egypt (Sunni ruled), Saudi Arabia (Sunni ruled), Qatar (Sunni ruled) Al-Qa'ida (Sunni fanatics) and NATO.

On the other side, the government of Syria (Alawi, Druze, Shia, Sunni and Christian in orientation), Iran (Shia ruled), Iraq (Shia ruled) and now apparently Hizbullah (a Shia militia)

So, the US has become the ally of Al-Qa'ida and the Wahhabi Saudis against a multi-confessional government and its Shia allies.

How clever we are!  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/ap-un-un-mideast.html?ref=world&_r=0

McCarthy, Alsop, Clemons and Ignatius vs George Marshall

In his speech at Lexington, Virginia on the 8th, Romney made it a point to praise General of the Army George Marshall the Nobel Prize for Peace winner who was also Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and head of the American Red Cross.

Why did he do that?  It seems to me that this praise as well as the chosen venue for the speech was calcualted to move Romney's PR and marketing generated image back to the center of the political spectrum where the greatest number of American voters reside. 

George Marshall has been a favorite punching bag for the extreme right in US politics since the 1950s.

After the end of WW2, PresidentTtruman sent Marshall to China to attempt to mediate the ongoing Chinese civil war, a war between the communists and the nationalist KMT government.  At that time the nationalist government was heavily supported by the United States.  Several billion dollars of military aid had been provided.  Fifty thousand US Marines had been landed in China to prevent seizure of key facilities by the communists.  Marshall found that the nationalist government and its forces had been very severely damaged in the struggle against Japan in WW2 and that the communist forces were far more capable.  At the same time he reached the conclusion that the level of money corruption inside the nationalist government was so severe that the money and equipment being provided by the US was serving little useful purpose in defending the country against a communist victory.  On that basis he recommended to Truman that the US should not involve itself more deeply in China's troubles.   Predictably, the communists won control of China.  Chiang Kai Shek, the nationalist president, later said that nationalist China had lost the war because it had "rotted from within."  Marshall had resolutely resisted the idea of direct US involvement with its own ground forces in the outcome of the civil war.  For that he was pilloried by the extreme right; Joe McCarthy, Joe Alsop, the John Birch Society and by others of that ilk as one of the men who "lost China."  This theme has been an ongoing motif of the hard right in the US ever since.  Romney moved decisively away from allegiance with that wing of his party in this praise of Marshall. 

Today, Steve Clemons and David Ignatius attacked Romney's praise of Marshall in separate columns.  These attacks were not on the basis of the old China nonsense.  No.  These attacks were squarely based on Marshall's advice as Secretary of State to Truman that he not commit the United States to recognition of Israel in 1948 (or any other time).  In this advice he was joined by James V. Forrestal, George F. Kennan, Robert Lovett, John J. McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson.  Marshall foresaw that the independance of Israel would lead to an unending series of wars, the displacement of vast numbers of people from their native lands and a greatly increased burden of hostility to be borne by the United States on behalf of a small country in a far away place.  Both Ignatius and Clemons acknowledge the results of American recognition but nevertheless assert that Marshall was "wrong."

He was wrong?  How was he wrong in his judgment?  He was wrong?  Ah, he was wrong from the point of view of columnists who know which side of the bread is buttered.  That's how he was wrong.

Romney has portrayed himself as the "next best thing" to an Israeli.  You have to wonder what he thought he was doing in this speech.    He must have known that the Israel first crowd would react.  pl 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/mitt-romney-george-marshall-and-israel-palestine/263365/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/does-romney-truly-understand-the-middle-east-revolution/2012/10/09/ac623cce-1204-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Romney to speak at VMI today.

My Alma Mater and that of several of us here is hosting a foreign policy lecture by Governor Romney.  The lecture will be to the corps of cadets and is not a public event.  CSPAN TV will broadcast it live  at 1120 Eastern Time.

The address will be in the Hall of Valor in the Marshall Leadership and Ethics Center at VMI.  The room is so named because the upper gallery walls are lined with glass cases in which the military decorations of alumni are displayed.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Military_Institute

 

Escalation and madness - Clifford Kiracofe

  

Pat, Yes, escalation and madness. It seems that the fog of war has already settled in to some degree.  What scenarios are we looking at here? We have the Anglo-French war against Syria backed by the US ongoing. The Anglo-French and the US are allied to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the Qataris who in turn are supporting the Salafi and Wahhabi terrorists inside Syria who move in and out of Turkey for safe haven and staging.  We have Salafi brigades from Libya and Tunisia and so on in the mix in Syria, again moving in and out of Turkey as safe haven. The Turks are in a neo-Ottoman expansionist mode spurred by massive investments from the Gulfis/Wahhabis who have their own global jihad ongoing. Add in the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and its secret and not so secret branches in other lands such as Syria. Now we have an escalation of tension between Turkey and Syria.  Turks attack Syria next?  With NATO or without NATO?  US joins in.  One would then expect a reply from Syria and its allies such as Russia, Iran, factions in Lebanon.  Thus regional war involving Iran? Presumably, Iranians are patriotic folk who will support their government whether or not they agree with it.  This seemed to be the case in the 1980s. Iranians rally to defend their country. There are a lot of them and they have some serious organizations such as the Rev Guards and also asymmetric capabilities. Iran replies by setting the Gulf states on fire so to speak.  Israel cannot defend against CBW.  So nukes not needed and Iran does not have them anyways. In the regional war, if not general war, the Israelis attempt to "transfer" all Palestinians out of Israel and the West Bank.  This engenders still more chaos.  Can Israel and the Zionist experiment survive in such circumstances? And does the Jewish Agency really care as it readjusts its strategic global diaspora management?  Clifford Kirakofe

"Turkey okays military force..." JP

"Turkey's parliament gave authorization on Thursday for military operations outside Turkish borders if the government deemed them necessary, a day after artillery shelling from Syria killed five civilians in a Turkish border town.

The government had sought parliamentary approval to send soldiers to foreign countries in a memorandum which said that "aggressive action" by Syria's armed forces against Turkish territory posed a serious threat to national security."  JP

-------------------------------

Whoa!  Is the Syrian Army really this stupid?  NATO is a defensive alliance in which an attack on one country is an attack on all.  The NATO political headquarters in Brussels made it clear in respnse to Turkey's request for a council meeting that the alliance will back Turkey in any such confrontation.  Washington has also made its support of that resolve clear.

Further attacks on Turkish territory or citizens would provide a legal basis for intervention by NATO members in the Syrian civil war.

Get it?  pl

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=286654

Washpost soft-core propaganda on Iran

The Outlook section of today's ( 23 September, 2012) Washington Post contains a three part essay on what the Post wants the American people to believe would be likely to happen in the event of an unprovoked Israeli "maximum effort" attack on Iran.  This attack supposedly takes place before the US election in November.  The essay is written by three groups of authors and it seems to have been intended that such a device would make the assembled essay seem more plausibly to represent three different points of view.   They are all representative of the same point of view.  Amusingly, this conceit recalls three plays once seen on British TV that were set in an English suburban house and garden. In these plays characters make entrances and exits from one part of the same house to another or out into the garden.  Alfred Molina starred on television.  The actors go from one supposed play to another simultaneously in a literary creation that really is but one play.  A pretty device. it was better done than this collective sermon.

The three parts of the essay supposedly represent the action in Washington, Tel Aviv and Teheran in the event of this attack.  A general defect of the thing is the complete ignorance reflected of the actual limitations of distances, weapons, numbers of aircraft and missiles, Iranian air defenses, the lack of any recovery air fields between Israeli bases and the targets or SAR capability for the attacking Israeli force.  Basic military knowledge of the situation is ignored in the manner common in politico-military strategic war games.  In these "games" any reference to actual limitations are airily waved off as not germane.  In this essay it is suggested that one option is for the US to "shoot down' the attacking Israeli force before it passes beyond Iraq.  The Joe Biden character angrily says that this is not an option.  He is correct but not for the reason implied.  In fact, since the completion of the US withdrawal from Iraq the US has no ability to do such a thing and neither do the Iraqis.  The nearest USAF assets are in the Gulf or Turkey and the nearest US Navy assets are where the carriers may be.  Look at the distances.

The three essay parts can be somewhat summarized by capital:

- Tel Aviv.  Natanyahu is depicted as masterful, deeply insightful, profoundly wise and decisive.  He dominates the play and tells the president of the US that he expects the US to fully support Israel's action.  Israeli attacks are described as not fully but significantly effective against the Iranian facilities and Israel is said to have "misplaced" one aircraft.  There are many aspects of intelligence preparation of this battlefied that the Israelis could not do for themselves and that would not be done for them in the context of a unilateral attack.  Those aspects would cost them dearly, but the authors know nothing of that and do not mention it.

- Washington.  BHO is "drawn" as a "lightweight" ditherer who would rather have dinner with his family and counsel his children than focus on this world crisis.  His administration is depicted as deeply divided over a response to Israel's seizure of the initiative.  While he dithers, the Senate of the United States votes 99 t0 1 to support a war powers resolution.  The House would presumably be even more supportive of war.  Senor, the neocon voice of Romney, denounces the president of the United States for his disloyalty to Israel.

- Teheran.  Having been struck the mullahs decide to refrain from retaliation for fear of a "regional war."  This is a striking piece of cognitive dissonance.  In one part of the larger essay the Iranian leaders are said to be madmen intent on jihad.  In this part of the essay they are rational actors who decide against retaliation on a coldly calculating basis.  If they would do that, why attack them at all?

Economic effects are portrayed as minimal, the Arab states are depicted as favorable.

The general message is that such an Israeli attack would largely succeed in spite of the fecklessness of Obama.  The authors claim that costs of all kinds would be low.

The Washington Post chose to publish such a propaganda piece with the obvious goal of undermining the president of the United States and supportiing a foreign political leader.

I fear for October.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions

“The Easy Road to War with Iran” by Dr. Christopher Bolan

In Thursday’s Washington Post David Ignatius discusses the results of a war game simulation conducted at the Brookings Institution.  He observes that “the scariest aspect of a U.S.-Iran war game…was the way each side miscalculated the other’s responses – and moved toward war even as the players thought they were choosing restrained options.” 

In reading Jeffrey Record's “A War It Was Always Going to Lose:  Why Japan Attacked American in 1941” (2011) I was struck that the enduring historical lessons he draws in examining this case also underscore the relative ease with which the US and Iran could now easily drift toward war with dire consequences for both sides.    For those interested, a shorter version of Record’s book was published in 2009 as a U.S. Army War College publication available here. 

Allow me to briefly extend the ‘Top Five’ of Record’s historical lessons (within quotation marks below) to the situation with Iran today:

1. “Fear and honor, ‘rational’ or not, can motivate as much as interest”:   A war between the US and Iran is almost certainly not in the objective rational interest of either party.  Iran’s relatively anemic military forces could not hope to stop the inevitable onslaught from a massive, sustained, and technologically superior US air and naval campaign.  Iranian nuclear, military, and any associated facilities (both economic and political) would lay in absolute ruins. 

The fruits of the Arab Spring

Fouad Ajami  wrote "The Dream Palace of the Arabs" a couple of years back.  Bernard Lewis is the author of "What went Wrong." 

The central thesis of both books is the same.  This is the notion that Muslims generally and Arabs in particular suffer from a collective belief that the material and financial superiority of the West is unnatural, ungodly and fated to disappear with the emergence of a world wide human condition that represents the will of God.

This viewpoint is often crudely represented by the endless power point presentations sold by contracters to governments on the subject of the jihadi obsession with the establishment of a world-wide "caliphate."

The events of the past week, events stimulated by the TV trailer disgrace, tend to support Lewis and Ajami in their view. 

The reaction of the mobs across the world, even unto the Antipodes, is grossly exagerated, disproportionate and obviously fueled by a boundless hatred for America that makes a mockery of all the social science gibberish about deprivation, oppression, etc. 

Last year it was generally assumed in the West that removal of authoritarian governments in the Arab World would result in accession to power of westernized elites who hold dear the political philosophy of the post Enlightenment West.

That has not happened.  In the last century (20th) the liberals failed miserably at the polls in Iraq.  In Egypt the liberals are  a political joke and not enough of a factor to be worth discussing.  In Tunisia, possibly the most Westernised of all Arab countries, it is necessary to withdraw most of our diplomatic mission from fear of their safety.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post persists in the jacobin doctrine of the neocon "freedom agenda."  According to the Post all we have to do is "stick with" the westernized liberals and all will be well.  This is the triumph of theory over experience.

The Arab Spring has revealed that the Arab masses have a substantial inclination toward political Islamism in government.  Western media and governments, and particularly the USA helped and continue to help in the release of forces in the Arab World that consider the West to be "the other," the enemies of God, this god being the very special god of their dreams.

Is Mubarak still alive?  Did the inquisitors ever find the vast sums that the Mubaraks supposedy stole from the people with rocks in their hands outside the US Embassy in Cairo.  Perhaps we will remember the Mubaraks et al fondly in the depths of the Arab Winter.  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/washingtons-role-as-mideast-countries-struggle-for-power/2012/09/14/08343bd2-fe83-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/us-withdraws-diplomats-tunisia-sudan?newsfeed=true

We Reap What We Sowed--Foresman

Slide shows the sweep of Islamic unrest.

The events of the last couple of days are a stark reminder that you reap what you sow.  The United States is now paying the supreme price for our arrogance in dealing with the Islamic people of the Near East (I use the old term for a reason) has resulted in neither stability nor democracy.  We do not understand the Arab world; we do not understand Islam.  Somehow we have convinced ourselves that Arabs are no different than us—rational by western standards, influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic and a believer in the concept of the state ascending over tribalism.  They are rational, but by the standards of their culture, history, and religion.  They are not western.  They are tribal.  Religion is the central part of their life.  The concept of and loyalty to a nation state is accepted in the abstract but does not transcend their tribe or family.  But they are rational actors.  They do not like foreigners.  They accept the tenets of their religion with fervor of belief. 

Some Updated Information on the Innocence of Muslims Affair

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

The Innocence of Muslims affair (incident?  incidents?) has become a fast moving story that seems to get more fantastical the more that gets reported.  It is now pretty clear that Sam Bacile is not an Israeli, Israeli American, or even Jewish.  Bacile is, apparently, a pseudonym for a Nakoula Basselly Nakoula - who appears to be an Egyptian emigre and was involved in this project with a number of naturalized American Copts and native born American Evangelicals.  Members of the cast have clearly indicated that the film was supposed to be/originally about Coptic persecution and was overdubbed in both English and Arabic with the anti-Islamic dialogue that has led to some serious problems in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen including the death of four American foreign service personnel.  The thirteen minute clip, posted to You Tube in July, began to gather interest over the past several days due to its being promoted by both Quran burning advocate Terry Jones and Egyptian-American Copt Morris Sadek.  The fatal anti-American violence in Libya may have partially been the result of various media and extremist movement sources claiming that the video had been produced for the 9-11 remembrances and was being widely shown on American TV on that day. 

While the story will continue to undergo change over the next several days as more facts come to light, the real issues are how does the US adjust its strategies and policies in the Middle East in response to these activities.  It also demonstrates very clearly that no matter what America's official positions, messaging, and actions are they can all be overcome by events regardless of whether they are unofficial messaging being transmitted by Americans - official or otherwise or the activities of the actual actors on the ground in the Middle East.

*Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

Mursi as "rational actor."

Mursi and the MB are riding a tiger in Egypt and throughout the Muslim world.  They were elected to create a Salafist (larger sense) sharia law state.  There are still many people who are against this kind of thing in Egypt.  The US did everything it could to deter such people from revolt but they are still there.  Mursi needs to keep burnishing his salafist credentials with his base.  This means defiance of the West, particularly America, and the norms of Western behavior such as; our belief in freedom of speech and the international law involved in the Vienna Convention of 1961 0n diplomatic missions.  A confrontation with the US just fits the bill for Mursi.  He has been to Riyadh and Teheran recently.  Who knows how much money he has been promised in support of such a crisis with the US?  Don'r forget.  The Saudis play it both ways, always.  Mursi and company also understand very well how delicate BHO's position is when operating this close to a very nearly tied election.  Last and by no means least, Mursi is not a "rational choice" kind of guy, in the sense that "rational choice" is understood in Western international relations studies.  Does that means that Mursi does not make rational choices?  No.  It does not mean that.  He makes rational choices.  He is a believer and he chooses Allah first, last and always.  That is the same choice he made when he chose to leave his teaching job in California..  pl

More Jingoism at the Washington Post

"If the fighting continues to spread, important U.S. allies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could be destabilized; both are indirectly backing Sunni fighters. The fragile political order in Iraq, bought with thousands of American lives, could collapse. Al-Qaeda could acquire new recruits and sanctuaries across the region. The best means of preventing this, as State Department Middle East experts have been pointing out for months, is to accelerate the downfall of the Syrian regime. There are several ways of doing that, short of direct military intervention: materiel aid to the rebels is one. Now that its refusal to take that step has led to the very consequences it warned of, the administration would be wise to reconsider. "  Washpost editorial

------------------------------

The Washington Poat and New York Times fed us this kind of jingoistic nonsense before we invaded Iraq.  The claim was made that Iraq = Nazi Germany.  Today Kurdistan - Tomorrow the Sudetenland!  What rot!  and they are doing the same thing again.  In those days Judy Miller and Michael Gordon led the charge in NY but the Washington Post was not far behind.  Today ,the neocon Post editorial page apparently cannot wait for the day when American infantry will bleed and die in Syria.  The unholy trio of McCain, Graham and "Deputy Dog" Lieberman seem eager supporters of that aspiration.

The Post admits that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are material supporters of the Sunni jihadi insurgents in Syria.  Turkey and Saudi Arabia are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim in their populations.  The Post nevertheless thinks that Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be de-stabilized if fighting continues.  Well. if that is so, let Saudi Arabia and Turkey stop supporting the insurgency.

Sunni Turkey has announced that it will give permanent sanctuary to al-Hashemi, the condemned Sunni VP of Iraq.  What a surprise! Not!  I did not think for a moment that the pious Sunni Turk, Erdogan, would deliver a kinsman of the prophet (Al Hashimi) to die on a scaffold in Baghdad at the hands of the Shia.

If there are any people left in the State Department who have a clue about the Middle East they should  all hold up their hands!   Oh!  There's one over there!  pl 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-stands-by-as-syrias-violence-spreads/2012/09/10/e8c36246-fb71-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Democratic platform shifts on Israel - Washpost

"... change to the 2008 Democratic platform, which stated that Jerusalem “is and will remain” Israel’s capital. The line has been removed from the 2012 Democratic platform. In addition, the 2012 platform does not say that Palestinian refugees or their descendants will only be allowed to resettle inside a future Palestinian state, not property inside Israel. The 2008 platform made clear they would only be allowed to resettle inside a future Palestinian state – not Israel — effectively rejecting what has come to be known as the Palestinian “right of return.” Washpost

---------------------------------

This is a major change, and a gauntlet flung down in the face of AIPAC.  Eric Cantor is, of course,  whining about this.

IMO, this will have no effect on the outcome of the presidential election and that is what Obama must think as well.

If that is so, then BHO's second term would a "racy course" for Israel and people like Cantor.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/04/democratic-platform-shifts-on-israel/

The US reaps what it has sown in the ME

That's me in a blog writing posture.

The Islamist cause prospers in Egypt, not so much in Syria.  

In Egypt Air Marshal Shafik, Mursi's principal opponent in the late election is placed on a "watch list" at the ports of departure from Ehypt.  This is obviously a prelude to prosecution.  A suitable charge will be found.  Shafik nearly won.  That can't happen again according to the Islamist playbook.  "One man, one vote, one time" is their formula.  The Islamist dominated parliament and constitution drafting committee will put religious freedom to a vote as well as provisions to allow the parliament and president to imprison minister who displease them.  "Progress" is being made in Egypt and the US applauds it.

In Syria even the Washington Post admits that the Islamist rebels are losing. Wherever they try to hold ground, they lose.  They shoud read something like "People's War, People's Army" by Giap.  Nevertheless, Syrian government forces are still described in the Post as "pro-regime" forces  In Turkey the MB related Erdogan pushes for an attack on the Syrian Air Force.  What is left of the Turkish General Staff resists this.  

All in all, this is a mixed "bag" for the neo-Wilsonians in the Obama Administration. What will he do to "up the ante" if he is re-elected?  What will the neocon tool Romney do if he wins?

"Is a puzzlement."  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bomb-injures-several-during-damascus-funeral-for-other-blast-victims/2012/08/28/aeba88aa-f116-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/51550/Egypt/Politics-/President-Morsi-attempts-foreign-policy-balancing-.aspx

"Libya Sufi shrines attacked 'by Islamist hardliners'" BBC

"A shrine in the Libyan capital Tripoli venerating a Sufi Muslim saint has been partly destroyed - the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultra-conservative Salafi Islamists. Tripoli residents said men with bulldozers attacked the shrine of al-Shaab al-Dahmani, unimpeded by police. The attack came a day after hardliners were accused of damaging the tomb of a Sufi scholar in the city of Zlitan. Hardline Salafists regard the shrines as idolatrous. On Friday, a group attacked the tomb of 15th-Century scholar Abdel Salam al-Asmar in Zlitan, about 160km (100 miles) south-east of Tripoli. The Reuters news agency said its dome had collapsed. Video footage showed chunks of masonry littering the floor, bullet holes pockmarking the walls and ornate Islamic tiling destroyed."  BBC

---------------------------------------

It has seemed that Libya might perhaps have escaped the curse of Salafist Wahhabism.  This seemed true because of the peculiar nature of the country with its small population, its long history of Sufi involvement in religious affairs, and the high percentage of Libyans who were educated abroad by the unlamented  Qathafi government.

There is, however, a sizable Salafist group.   Their eventual role in the country is uncertain.  These Salafists are showing up in places like Syria and more particularly in Central Africa.  In Mali they are attacking the Zawiyas of Sufi lodges and the tombs of Sufi saints.  In Mali the Salafists now hold Timbukto (veriously spelt).  If they succeed in capturing the capital, Bamako, their will be an even more severe "purge" of Muslims who are thought to be less than pure.

Sufism is a varied expression of Islam that concentrates on the Batn, the inner spiritual life of Muslims rather than the rule driven Islam of the Salafists who seek everywhere to impose their inhumanly austere Sharia law.  They hate the Sufis for their belief  in the importance of the love of God.

The distinctions among various forms and belief systems within  Islam still escape almost everyone in the US, and, especially within the US Government.  It is my impression that people do not wish to understand.  What they want is the GWOT.  Ignorance makes the endless devotion to that cause easier.  pl   

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hallaj

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083

Is there a US policy in the Islamic World?

I think that is a valid question:

- In Egypt we support consolidation of power by an obviously Muslim Brotherhood run government.  To that end, HC and her deputy, Bill Burns,  have traveled to Cairo to threaten and cajole the Egyptian military into accepting what the Egyptians know will become an Islamist state with all that promises for women, Christians, homosexuals, etc.

- In Afghanistan we are engaged in a very long, very costly war against an Islamist guerrilla army that has the support of many in that country.  It is claimed that the Afghan soldiers and police who are killing our men are merely "disaffected." Yes, but their disaffection is largely the result of their anti-kaffir xenophobia.  We are now in the process of abandoning the failed COIN strategy in favor of a CT based strategy that I advocated three years ago, but that was then.  This is now.  The time has probaby passed.

-In Iraq, we created a government that rejected any real strategic relationship with us and now conspires with Iran to halp Iran evade the sanctions regime.  But, we still say we love them.

- In Tunisia, the Islamist element in the new government is seeking to erase French culture in the country.  We look fondly upon them.

- In Yemen we directly assist the new Yemeni government in seeking the annhilation of the small Sunni Wahhabi insurgent movement.  In so doing we align ourselves with the Sunni majority of the former PDRY against the Fiver Shia population of the North who are thought to be somehow related to Iran.  They are not.

- Iran.  Well, I won't even try to deal with that here.  We await Israel's initiative.

- Saudi Arabia.  We await their desires as well.

- Syria.  We support a Sunni Wahhabi led, financed and armed insurgency against a government that has traditionally been hostile to Islamist groups.

What's the connecting thread here?

Don't embarrass yourself by saying oil and Israel.

"It is a tale told by an ifdiot."  pl

Mursi moves to purge the army.

 

"Taking advantage of the Sinai crisis to oust his rivals in the military, Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi fired Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi and the Egyptian chief of staff Sami Anan on Sunday, in a move that sent shock waves throughout Egypt and beyond.

A spokesman for the Islamist president announced on Egyptian television that the ejection of top military figures associated with the old regime represent the completion of the Egyptian revolution.

The spokesman added that a constitutional declaration passed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Force (SCAF), which forbade the president from being able to make military appointments, was cancelled."  jpost

--------------------------------------------------

As I thought he would soon, Mursi has taken heart from the encouragement of the US government and the American professariat to begin the general purge of the Egyptian officer corps.  Erdogan in Turkey has been more gradual in the process but he is headed for the same destination.  That  end state will  be armed forces run by men who are now majors or some such thing and who will be more than happy to grow beards in order to wear a general's insignia.

So far, Mursi has fired the secular head of GID, Field Marshal tantawi, Anan, the chief of staff of the army and has assumed the power to abrogate decisions of the Egyptian constitutional court. 

Bravo!  BHO Administration!  Bravo!  You are well on your way to your unspoken goal of the total Islamst dominaation of the Middle East.  Stay focused on those elections.  Stay focused.  pl

 

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=280968

Are the Saudis next?

The US MSM continue to"'drool" over the prospect of the downfall of the Syrian government, you know, the one with the seat in the UN.  A gradual escalation of media manipulation and covert action is moving towards a point at which the Assad government is destroyed.  The government may win the Battle for Aleppo but in the long run....

This struggle is being waged with the support of Saudi Arabia.  Money, materiel, hired trainers, political support for the FSA and AQ; All these "goodies" are being provided in the hope of creating a Sunni run state.

The Saudis should think carefully about this process.  They too fulfill all the criteria to become, perhaps inevitably, a target for the neocon/neo-Wilsonian "crusade" to rid the world of tyrants and tyranny..  They are a highly repressive police state.  They are oppressors of women, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Bahai, gays, etc.  They have no secular constitution.  The Qur'an is their constitution.  They have no civil criminal law code.  Sharia is their law code, Hanbali Sharia.  There ks no political process, no "due process," no democracy.  The country is run for their own benefit by a kleptocracy based on family and sycophancy.  There is, of course, no habeas corpus.

The US needs their oil?  Yes.  The Saudis should take little comfort from that.  It will be asked why such oppressors should have such wealth with which to accomplish rheir selfish, sinful and sybaritic ends.  There are many in Saudi Arabia who would be willing to rise up against the tyrants.

Happily for the Saudis, the US is come upon an era of oil and gas plenty in the Dakotas.  That might save the Saudis from the wrath of the righteous.  pl

Kissinger on Arab Spring--Foresman

Over at the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger provides some insight into democratic transitions in the Middle East.  Regardless of your opinions Kissinger the man; his insights should be carefully considered.  HJFJR

 

"The United States can and should assist on the long journey toward societies based on civil tolerance and individual rights. But it cannot do so effectively by casting every conflict entirely in ideological terms. Our efforts must also be placed within a framework of U.S. strategic interests, which should help define the extent and nature of our role. Progress toward a world order embracing participatory governance and international cooperation requires the fortitude to work through intermediate stages. It also requires that the various aspirants to a new order in the Middle East recognize that our contribution to their efforts will be measured by their compatibility with our interests and values. For this, the realism and idealism we now treat as incompatible need to be reconciled."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-meshing-realism-and-idealism-in-syria-middle-east/2012/08/02/gJQAFkyHTX_story_2.html

 

Is BHO a neocon?

"Syrian state television claimed that the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber. A Syrian security official was reported saying that the bomber was a bodyguard to inner regime figures,
which allowed him access to a meeting of the “crisis cell” of top security
officials in charge of trying to crush the uprising against Assad rule. The Free Syrian
Army, the main armed opposition force, said that a bomb was planted in the
room and that the attack was not carried out by a suicide bomber."  CS Monitor

----------------------------------------

So far there appears to be no reliable indication of the nature of the attack.  Do i accept the US government's statement about the bombing?  No.  The US government is a party to the conflict, having decided with its NATO and Saudi friends to bring down the government in Damascus.  They have no idea what the following government might be but, no matter.  The roots of this American support lie in a group of women in the government and academia who share a starry-eyed belief I nthe universal efficacy of "democray" and elections.  They believe that if elections are reasonably fair, all will be well. Nnonsense, but, no matter. 

If this were a Republican administration the policy now followed by the US in greater middle East would be called neoconism.  Because they are Democrats we call it "neo-Wilsonian."  pl

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0718/Syrian-rebels-confidence-grows-after-bombing-hits-Assad-s-inner-circle

Be grateful for Libya

In Egypt the brave boys and girls of the State Department lead the fight for consolidation of  political Islamist rule.  In Afghanistan the kleptocrats, Afghan and American, are finishing up the construction of their fortunes in Dubai and the Cayman Islands.  In Pakistan the mobs are harangued against the United States and new, even greater nastiness against the US is planned.  In Tunisia the Islamists sidle steadly toward power.  The Washington Post demands active military support for Islamist rebels in Syria.  Their paper has a story today that features video of Islamist rebels smashing a truck full of Scotch while chanting "God is Great!"  In Lebanon Sunni preachers are much more active in demanding punishment of the Shia.  Are they not encouraged by US support of people like Mursi?

We released 1.3 billion dollars to the Egyptian military to keep them in line while Mursi sharpens his knife. 

Would Romnay do better in managing US interests in the greater Middle East?  No!  He would simply surrender to AEI/AIPAC and the Likud.

In Libya a secular leader seems to have won election.

God is Great!  pl

US Policy in the Greater Middle East

US policy in the ME is becoming so bizarre that a serious discussion is warranted.  Try to avoid dwelling on US/Israel relations excessively.  pl

Ignatius on the "Arab Spring"

"Most officials think that relations with the Arabs are gradually going to get
worse, perhaps for decades, before democracy really takes root and the Arab
public, perhaps, will be ready to accept the Jewish state. The challenge for
Israel is how to avoid inflaming Arab public opinion, a newly important factor,
while protecting the country. "  Ignatius

-------------------------------------

Ignatius' Israeli friends are right to be fearful of revolutions that seem to unleash Islamist forces that have as their "raison d'etre" the elimination of Israel as an insult to Islam and the 'Umma.  The game has not been played out in Libya but Libya is a special case in terms of smallness of population and percentage of people educated abroad.

Al-Ahram has a story on-line that government receipts will be much smaller this year than they were under Mubarak "the terrible."  Let's see, how does that relate to all the billions that the Mubaraks stole from Egypt?  Hmmm!  That's the way to cover the government deficit!  They could torture the Mubaraks to find the people's money.

The Israelis prefer Bashar Assad?  How can that be?  Perhaps HC can fly by Tel Aviv to explain why they are wrong. 

Now Mursi has reinstated the Islamist parliament.  There must be great satisfaction in Foggy Bottom about how well things are going in Cairo. pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-israels-arab-spring-problem/2012/07/05/gJQAV5JrRW_story.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/47075/Business/Economy/Egyptian-state-revenues-are-overestimated,-a-blast.aspx

 

The Irrelevance of Hijab

A recent post by Col Lang on the wife of President Mursi led to a spirited discussion on the hijab. Many weighty comments were advanced on its pros and cons (cons mostly, as I recall), and its personal and sociological significance. A recent news item ─ though about a sad event ─ highlights how irrelevant the wearing of the hijab is to the kind of person one is, and what one can do in life.

Lieutenant Commander Wafa Dabbagh, a doctor in Canada’s military, died recently of cancer at the age of 50. A Palestinian, who was born in Egypt and grew up in Kuwait, she came to Canada in 1990, and in 1996 applied to join the Canadian military. Well qualified (she had two degrees), the only problem was that she wore the hijab, the first such woman to apply. Swallowing hard, the military took her on ─ and never looked back.

At her memorial service, which was attended by the Chief of Defence Staff and many other senior officers, people spoke about and remembered her many fine qualities and the impact she had on the people who came to know her. No one mentioned the hijab having anything to do with the kind of person she was or what she achieved.

Wafa was fortunate that she came to Canada, a country and society where, by and large, the way you look or what you wear does not determine your worth, nor limit what you can do. It does not matter much if you wear the hijab or (as famously stated by one of Toronto’s ‘finest’) “dress like a slut”.

Dare one say: perhaps Canada, too, was lucky to have Wafa Dabbagh, hijab and all!

--  FB Ali

Avnery on the Brotherhood (FB Ali)

Uri Avnery, the former Irgun terrorist who is now Israel’s foremost ‘peacenik’ (founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement), has on his website today (23 June) an article on some basic realities underlying the situation in the region that is worth reading. Of special note are the views he expresses in the piece on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Below are some extracts on this subject:

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is an old established party which has earned much respect with its steadfastness in the face of recurrent persecution, torture, mass arrests and occasional executions. Its leaders are untainted by the prevalent corruption, and admired for their commitment to social work.

The West is haunted by medieval ideas about the horrible Saracens. The Muslim Brotherhood inspires terror. It is conceived as a fearsome, murderous, secret sect, out to destroy Israel and the West. Of course, practically no one has taken the trouble to study the history of this movement in Egypt and elsewhere. Actually, it could not be further removed from this parody.

The Brotherhood has always been a moderate party, though they almost always had a more extreme wing........The Brotherhood is first and foremost an Arab and Egyptian party, deeply embedded in Egyptian history. Though they would probably deny it, I would say – judging from their history – that they are more Arab and more Egyptian than fundamentalist. They certainly have never been fanatical.

During their 84 years, they have seen many ups and downs. But mostly, their outstanding quality has been pragmatism, coupled with adherence to the principles of their religion. It is this pragmatism that also characterizes their behavior during the last year and a half, which – so its seems – caused quite a number of voters who are not particularly religious to prefer them to the secular candidate who is tainted by his connection with the corrupt and repressive former regime.

This also determines their attitude towards Israel. Palestine is constantly on their mind – but that is true of all Egyptians.........Throughout the heated election campaigns – four in a year – the Brotherhood has not demanded the abrogation of the peace agreement with Israel. Their attitude seems to be as pragmatic as ever.

Guest Post from oilprice.com: The Most Immediate Threats to Global Energy Security - Jellyfish Interview

Earlier today COL Lang, hopefully enjoying his summer vacation, emailed to ask if I'd make sure the following interview, which was conducted by oilprice.com's Jen Alic was reposted in full.  Oilprice's publisher, Mr. James Stafford, contacted COL Lang to offer him and the SST community a full reprint of this very interesting interview.  You all will find it reprinted in its entirety below:

The Most Immediate Threats to Global Energy Security - Jellyfish Interview

By Jen Alic | Tue, 19 June 2012 14:32

As global energy supplies come under increasing attack by non-state actors and private energy holdings become key targets of political maneuverings and criminal activities, Oilprice.com discusses the nature of the growing threat and how to reverse the risk with “smart power.” 

To help us look at these issues we got together with Corporate intelligence specialists Jellyfish Operations and security expert Jennifer Giroux.

Michael Bagley is the president of Jellyfish, a global boutique intelligence firm that combines on-the-ground intelligence collection and analytics with an unprecedented country-to-country economic diplomacy program that helps governments, corporations, institutions and private individuals forge secure partnerships, discover new opportunities and mitigate operational risks. 

Jennifer Giroux is a global security expert who specializes in emerging threats to energy infrastructure in conflict-affected regions.

In the Interview Michael & Jennifer talk about the following:

• Why the risk to global energy supplies is increasing
• Violent entrepreneurialism: Why piracy is on the rise
• The most immediate threats to global energy security
• Which countries are most likely to see attacks in the future
• Why Saudi Arabia could be the next country to have its energy infrastructure come under attack
• Why energy companies assets are becoming key targets.
• How energy companies can create opportunities in Conflict-Affected Regions
• Why companies need more than just intelligence to operate in hostile environments

Oilprice.com: Energy supplies have always been at risk, particularly due to geopolitical maneuverings, transit through countries in conflict and those suffering from ongoing political instability, as well as piracy on the high seas. You have both mentioned that the risk to global energy supplies is increasing. How do you support that claim?

State of DeNile Part II: Why the Egyptian Supreme Court Ruled that the Egyptian Parliament is Unconstitutional

*

Adam L. Silverman, PhD**

Now that I've got a bit more time***, I wanted to follow up on the breaking news type post I did earlier about the Egyptian Supreme Court Ruling.  If you click through to the BBC article I linked to, you'll see towards the bottom that it provides the Egyptian Supreme Court's rationale for, essentially, invalidating the last Egyptian parliamentary election, which for all intents and purposes brings down the government and forces new elections.  The BBC reported that:  "The court had been considering the validity of last year's parliamentary election, because some of the seats were contested on a proportional list system, with others on the first-past-the-post system.  It decided that the election law had allowed parties to compete for the one third of seats reserved  for independent candidates."

State of DeNile: Egyption Supreme Court Strikes Down Egypt's Parliament

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Earlier today Egypt's Supreme Court struck down the Egyptian Parliament.  The ruling was that "last year's Parliamentary election was unconstitutional, deciding that one third of the seats (won) were "illegitimate""  Given that Egypt's presidential election run offs are coming up in a few days, this should further destabilize the situation in Egypt.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the USAWC and/or the US Army.

Update on Sanger and classified disclosure.

David Sanger (NY Times) wrote the story published this week on the joint Israeli/US Stuxnet cyber sabotage project called "Olympic Games."  This is an ongoing highly classified covert action of the US Government.  It was presumably authorised by the president as a "finding" under the national security statutes of the US.

Today, on "Face the Nation," Sanger and his writing colleague claimed that they, over a period of a year,  had interviewed officials who had access to this program and who told them all about it "for reasons of conscience."  And then, according to the journalistic duo, they went to the White House to tell "them" how much they knew and to request yet more information.  They say that the government complied and gave them informatin to complete the picture of this ongoing US strategic covert action.

"DAVID SANGER: You know, in the case of Olympic Games, I spent a year working the story from the bottom up, and then went to the administration and told them what I had. Then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about it. All that you read about this being deliberate leaks out of the White House wasn't my experience. Maybe it is in-- in other cases. I'm sure the political side of the White House probably likes reading about the President acting with drones and cyber and so forth. National security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs."  Face the Nation - 3 June, 2012

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57446259/face-the-nation-transcript-june-3-axelrod-priebus-and-more/?pageNum=8&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Now it is true that the government has an absolute legal right to decide who it will prosecute or not prosecute for any federal crime. Nevertheless, the willingness of the Obama Administration to allow this particular security violation brings into question the willingness of the Obama Administration to prosecute journalists and sources in much less sensitive cases.  You can name the cases.  I was an expert witness in one and so will not comment on that matter.

If it occurred, was such government action legal? It probably was.  Was it unjust in light if the government's other actions?  Yes.

As I stated in another post, there really is no justice.  pl

 

Identity and Strategy: Modern Zionism as a Strategic(ally Designed) Culture

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

A good chunk of my work is looking at identity and how it drives behavior.  Originally it was how individuals learned behavior from their primary identity groups that promoted political violence, low intensity conflict, and terrorism.  This meant working back and forth from the group level to the individual.  Since going to work for the Army I have been more and more focusing on the group to societal level.  Recently I read Rick Perlstein's piece at Rolling Stone dealing with what he is describing as a crisis of Zionism.  Perlstein's article is a response to Peter Beinart's recent book entitled The Crisis of Zionism (for an interesting interview with Beinart about his book click on through to this one done by Scott Horton over at Harpers).  The most interesting take away for me is Perlstein's recounting a discovery of Beinart's about a deliberate strategy by right-leaning Jewish American leaders to try to transform Jewish American identity away from liberalism (which has always been one fo the predominant strains within American Judaism, largely because of Judaism understanding of and call to social justice) and towards an embattled tribalism that centered on a victimization identity based around the Holocaust and then expanded out to other historical examples (both real and mythical - for instance the Masada Myth).  This in turn created a refocusing of Jewish American identity centered around identification with the safety of the State of Israel.  While Israel's importance to Jewish Americans had not been in dispute since its founding, what Perlstein is describing is the creation of the identity component of a strategic culture: 

   

The "Double Agent" and the Yemen

-  The "Double Agent."  Evidently there was something "special" about the intelligence trail that caused the intercept of a bomb headed to the States from Yemen.  The media are full of the story that a penetrant reached the heart of the operation and caused its failure.  I am suspicious, 1-As he is described he would simply have been our agent or the Saudis', not a double agent.  A double is someone who  is "in play" for both sides.  This man is described as being solely ours.  But, the media are simpletons, so, what can one expect...  2- If this was actually a "leak" of the identity of an active penetrant, then great damage has been done to the US.  Peter King has called for an investigation.  If this story of the "leak" is true then he is correct in doing this. 3- On the other hand, perhaps some other element of intelligence work was the key to the success, and the story of the penetrant is "cover" to protect that source.  King may be playing along with that.  4- Another possibility is that the "leak' is intended to inspire distrust among the jihadis.

We will never know the answer to this conundrum and we should not.

"What Israeli and Other Western Officials Really Think About Iran" JFP

"Listening to many politicians and pundits in the US and Israel, you may be led to believe that there is a consensus around the ideas that Iran is irrational, that it poses an existential threat to Israel, that it's currently trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that a military strike can help buy time to prevent such an outcome. But what many former and current top Israeli and other Western security officials are saying is precisely the opposite. We've collected some quotes to show you what these officials really think.

1. Iran's leadership is rational.
2. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.
3. Iran has not made the decision to acquire a nuclear weapon.
4. Attacking Iran would make Iran more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon, not less so.
5. Attacking Iran would ignite a regional conflict.
6. Attacking Iran would not be in US or Israeli national interests.
7. There is time to pursue non-military options.
8. The West needs to talk to Iran.

---------------------

See the rest at link below/

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1205#1

"Tunisia after Arab Spring" Washpost

"...a vision of Islam that rejects democracy and elections. “Democracy’s freedom is absolute,” Ibrahim says, “and we don’t accept that. In our religion, freedom is limited to the freedom God gives you.”

Downstairs, Ibrahim’s father, Saleh Amara, explodes in frustration over his son’s new, post-revolutionary passion. Saleh and his wife have gone along with some of their 27-year-old’s new restrictions — okay, they’d stop watching soap operas and “Oprah” on TV, because there was too much sexual content — but Saleh says his son goes too far. Growing the long beard of the pious is fine, though it will probably limit his job opportunities. And if Ibrahim insists that his secular-raised, college-educated wife cover her hair and wear gloves, well, that’s his business. But how can he spurn free elections, the sweetest fruit of Tunisia’s revolution?"  Washpost

----------------------------

I was taught Arabic grammar by a Tunisian.  He was an excellent teacher.  His mind was a product of the school system built under the French protectorate in Tunisia and continued after France withdrew.  That system was universal, had a unified curriculum for all and was free.  It extended through the university level.  My teacher "'Adil A."  had been trained to think as a man who was both Arab and French.  His mind worked like a clock constructed according to a set of rules devised by Rene Descartes.  The predominant theme in his thinking was always a rigorous logic based on real evidence.  We got on well.  Over the decades I visited Tunisia many times, often driving about the country with my wife.  We found most Tunisians in the major towns to be very like Adil.  They truly lived in two worlds.  They were the most bilingual people I have ever experienced.  One could walk down a street behind them in Tunis, Sfax or Bizerte and listen to them switch effortlessly back and forth from French to Arabic in their speech.  They were completely unconscious of the process.  In the countryside it was somewhat different.  In general, the smaller the village the more unaffected by Western education they were although all had some measure of the mixed post-colonial culture.

In this article a profound truth is spoken.  Beneath the acculturated Westernized layer in all the Arab states lies the bed rock of the high culture of Islam.  That high culture is ancient and potent.  In the Sunni countries, it is still locked in what to my judgment is an artificial devotion to pietism and rejection of "reform" in the religious sciences, but I am not a Muslim.  My religion, Catholicism, was forced to abandon similar positions half a millennium ago.  Sunni Islam has never experienced anything like the Protestant Reformation or Catholic Counter-Reformation.  All attempts at such movements have been defeated by the pious.

Bourguiba and Ben Ali were secular nationalist revolutionaris who were corrupted by the fruits of victory as revolutionaries often are.

Now they are gone and the new Tunisia must seek a balance between the "authentic" old way and the Europeanized Tunisia that I thought so pleasant and admirable.

Tunisia was the most Western.  Think about the other countries.  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-tunisia-after-arab-spring-islamists-new-freedoms-create-new-muslim-divide/2012/04/28/gIQAN9yJoT_story.html?hpid=z4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_protectorate_of_Tunisia

 

"How Osama bin Laden is winning, even in death" Ignatius

"What we’re seeing now in Egypt is something that might be called electoral bin Ladenism. Take the group Gamaa Islamiya, which under its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, made the first unsuccessful attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Today, the organization has formed a Salafist political party with the benign name Building and Development Party. This organization, which like al-Qaeda traces its roots to the Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, has 13 seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

Syria will be a test of whether this post-bin Laden Islamist movement can continue to reject violence or will instead be radicalized by the jihadist magnet that is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The successor to bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has tried to use the anti-Assad battle to rehabilitate the al-Qaeda brand — even though it’s another fight that embodies the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that bin Laden came to abhor."  Ignatius

*******************************

"... a year of mostly nonviolent democratic revolution. But it has brought to power some Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood groups that share common theological roots with bin Laden. And the al-Qaeda goal of driving the “apostate,” pro-American President Hosni Mubarak from power has been achieved."  Ignatius

---------------------------------------

Truer words were never..., etc.  Islamic revivalism (especially in Sunni Islam) is a cyclical phenomenon.  Islam sees itself as a universal truth that should become a way of life for all.  All else is tactics.

 

Cold Water Splashed Onto the War Feverish: A Bit More on Lt. General Gantz's Remarks

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Yesterday COL Lang wrote about Israeli Defense Force's Chief of Staff Lt. General Gantz's remarks pertaining to Iran.  I wanted to take a few lines and focus on some other portions of Lt. General Gantz's remarks, specifically those about Iranian strategic decision making.  Lt. General Gantz, told his interviewers from Haaretz, that "If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."  While he still sounded a cautious note in regards to potential Iranian nuclear ambitions -  "But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous", his caution was tempered by his evaluation of both the Iranian Supreme Religious Authority and leadership.

This is a very important point that we need to be cognizant of, just as the Haaretz reporter was, for two reasons.  The first is that Lt. General Gantz's remarks echo those made by GEN Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he was visiting Israel.  The second is that it starkly differentiates the professional views of Israel's senior military officer, as well as its past Intelligence Chief Meir Dagan, from that of Israel's leadership, as well as a number of elected American officials and pundits.  If, as GEN Demspey, Lt. General Gantz, and Director Dagan assert, that the Iranian leadership, and therefore its decision making, is rational (and we should caveat this as within the Iranian context), then normal incentives such as economic sanctions and diplomatic initiatives, may bring about the changes in Iranian behavior that most would like to see.  

The issue going forward is whether the professionals', both military and intelligence, assesments carry the policy arguments going forward or whether the war feverish among Israeli and American politicians and American pundits win the day.  It also sets up some very interesting potential Israeli Civil-Military (Civ-Mil) relations follow ons as things continue to develop.  Lt. General Gantz's remarks, unlike GEN Dempsey's which were in line with official US/Administration positions pertaining to Iran, place him at odds with the Israeli civilian leadership.  That too is a developing situation that bears watching.

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

 

A Letter From Yusuf al-Misry

"Pat,

This time it is not about Egypt, though I will get back to Egypt in the near future. It is about the GCC countries.

It is obvious that there is an unfavorable configuration developing rapidly.

The sense in the GCC Capitals is that the US may “sell” these countries in any moment. That the US is not a reliable “anchor” in the current violent storm in the region. And that the US is weak – at best – or that it will let these ruling monarchies down in any grand bargain with Iran.

Why this is a dangerous situation? Simply because it creates a psychological environment that can begets unneeded complications. The paranoia regarding the US led to the rejection of three US NGOs in the UAE, Riyadh ceasing to coordinate with its main alley regarding Egypt, the arrest of a royal Sheikh in RAK and many other incidents which reflect the general sentiment that could border panic.