Category: Regional Analysis

Posted on

What is Behind Bahrain’s Outreach to Israel?

The news has been abuzz since yesterday when Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah called for the end of the Arab boycott of Israel and even said he allowed his citizens to travel there. This surprise announcement came within a meeting held in Bahrain with Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, who head the Wiesenthal Center. The King has announced his desire to establish a Museum of Religious Tolerance in Bahrain’s capital before 2018.

The announcement maybe a shock to the word outside the Middle East, but King Hamad is considered to be one of the more tolerant rulers in the Middle East.  Bahrain boasts a multi religious society where religious tolerance is seen as a virtue. There are Mosques, Churches, Hindu and Buddhist Temples and yes a Synagogue.

Last year, the King made waves by his hosting a public Chanukkah lighting ceremony.

Jews who have lived in Bahrain since Talmudic times, numbered 1,500 in Bahrain until 1947 when pro-Palestinian outsiders came and rioted, forcing many Jews to flee the island nation. Most observers support the assertion that the local Bahraini Arabs actually protected their Jewish neighbors from the outsiders.  When the same thing occurred in 1967, most of the remaining Jews fled to Israel or England. There are presently 30 to 50 Jews remaining in the Kingdom, with one Jew Houda Nonoo, a woman having served in its 40 person parliament as its ambassador to the USA.

So what is behind this announcement and why now?

With the Saudi Crown Prince moving to take over from his ailing father in the coming months in conjunction with the Sunni bloc’s desire to hold back the formation of Russian backed Shiite crescent connecting the Mediterranean with Tehran, leaders in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain see Israel as an anchor to which they can hold the region’s future to.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman cannot make a public overture with his future leadership still in question, but King Hamad can.  His overture is not a policy shift in a defined sense, but a preparation for the coming overt alliance, that has been hinted at in Jerusalem and Washington.

Palestinian Issue Has Peaked

The Sunni Arab bloc, understanding that the Palestinian national movement had been a useful tool since 1967 have drawn a conclusion that the trojan horse not only has failed, but has spawned the very terrorism in strategy and tactics tha threatens their own regime. It cannot be folded up in a day, but the understanding that Israel is not going anywhere and given the impossibility of a “Palestinian” State, the Gulf Arabs have clearly decided that a deal with Israel is more important than keeping the false narrative of the “Palestinian People” going.

The deal that has more than probably been reached behind the scenes is an acceptance of the status quo by all sides. In effect it is a permanent Oslo Accords until something better comes along. For the Arabs, they can make due with saying disputed territories as opposed to occupied and the Israelis can finally gain a measure of regional integration and leadership.

King Hamad’s announcement is the first key indication that the Sunni Arab bloc is ready to publicly accept Israel. What follows after maybe a far bigger vision for the Middle East than previously thought.

 

Posted on

Why Israel Should be Concerned about Saudi Arabia’s Internal Politics

Reports from Saudi Arabia are saying that the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is fast consolidating his power ahead of becoming King either after his father dies or abdicates.

“Over the last week, 16 people were held, their friends, relatives and associates said in interviews. They include prominent Islamic clerics, academics, a poet, an economist, the head of a youth organization, at least two women and one prince, a son of a former king,” reports the Times of India.

This move to push away dissent from within the regime, is a short term play to ensure the transition to kingship is without protest, but the more the future king consolidates power, the more the protests grow. If a fissure should occur within the kingdom, it could have cataclysmic results for Saudi Arabia.

At a time when oil is dropping and Iran is banging on their door steps, the Saudi royal family can ill afford to have a serious push against it from within.  Iran could easily exploit a serious dispute in the Kingdom by stoking revolt among the Shiites in the oil rich areas in the Southern area of the Kingdom.

Israel Needs to be Careful in Placing Trust in Mohammed bin Salman

It is clear Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has a real interest in building a serious relationship with Israel.  Yet, Israel cannot rely on him.  Any open softening of the Kingdom’s stance towards Israel will weakken the monarchy in the eyes of the street. If there is a real attempted pusch against the potential king, then Bin Salman will be forced to go negative against Israel to ensure his reputation with the Saudi street.

As Mohammed bin Salman moves to take over the Kingdom, there will be more an more resistance. His challenge is balancing his reaction in such a way that it does not spark an actual uprising. The stabity if the entire kingdom depends on it.

 

Posted on

Israel Surrounded as Iran Attempts to Divide Kurds Ahead of Independence

Sources close to us have confirmed that Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Al Qud’s Force is currently paying a visit to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil, Iraq.  The purpose of the visit is to force Masoud Barzani to call off the referendum for Kurdish independence scheduled for September 25th.

Although a calm atmosphere and warm words are expected to be exchanged Barzani would not be able to call off the vote even if he wanted to.  The Kurds of Iraq are prepared to vote overwhelmingly for independence.  Furthermore, Iran like Turkey is scared that this vote will give a strong signal to Kurdish areas in their own countries to begin pushing for their own autonomy if not independence altogether.

Given this, Suleimani has a secondary goal should Barzani not bow to Iran’s threats and that is to create a division between the Iraqi Kurdish leadership and those Iranian Kurdish groups stationed in the Eastern part of the KRG whose aim is to help win autonomy for the 15 million Kurds in North West Iran.

Once again General Suleimani will receive assurances, but these will in fact be empty leaving Iran no choice but to go head to head with the Iranian Kurds post September 25th.

In fact, a large Iranian armed force is already positioned within the Iranian Kurdish region in preparation for decimating the indigenous Kurds who live there.

Iran Seeks to Stop Kurdistan While Preparing to Invade Israel

The issues of an independent Kurdistan and Israel are intertwined in the minds of Iran.  The Iranian regime views Kurdistan as a forward base for what they call the “Zionist Entity.” Breaking a free Kurdistan is key to rolling back a direct threat to their regime in order to have full focus on Israel’s Golan and Galil.  Already, Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria have moved troops into position under Russian protection.

For Israel, who already has defense pacts with Azerbaijan, a free Kurdistan would push back on Iran’s aggressive stance and give Jerusalem a counterbalance.  Knowing that the friendship between Israel and the Kurds goes far back, Iran is now pushing in the extreme to stop Erbil’s plans towards a free and independent Kurdistan.

Posted on

Iran is Scared of an Independent Kurdistan

September 25th will be remembered in history as the day which saw the beginning of the unraveling of the post WW1 global order.  When the Kurds of Iraq finally vote for breaking away from Iraq and declaring an independent Kurdish state, the veil covering the artificial boundaries that exist throughout the Middle East will be lifted.

The countries that will be affected directly will not just be Iraq, but Syria, Turkey, and most importantly Iran. Iran itself is home to 15 million Kurds, which is three times the amount of Kurds in Iraq.

Seyyed Mohammad Javad Abtahi an Iranian MP said that President Barzani of the Kurdish Regional Government’s actual plan is to annex Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran.

“Barzani is seeking to establish an independent Kurdistan consisting of Erbil, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces,” he said, and that “Barzani then plans to annex Kurdish regions of Turkey, Syria and Iran step by step.”

Iran, has for years treated the Kurdish areas as second class forcibly conscripting Kurds into the army.  The Kurds of Iran actually had an independent state called Mahabat in 1946 until the Shah backed by the USA crushed it. This would effectively mean the Iranians are acutally occupying foreign land.

What bothers Iran the most from an independent Kurdistan is that it would block its advance between Iran and Lebanon.  Not to mention, the KRG itself would act in coordination with Israel and the USA against the growing Shiite crescent.

“But today, new reports show that the US is behind the idea to create a new cancerous tumor like Israel along Iranian borders,” Abtahi said.  “The US claims it is against the referendum but in reality Washington is interested in the idea. It is also investing huge amounts of money in supporting Peshmerga forces.”

Although the Iranians have insisted they will not get involved with internal Iraqi issues, our sources tell us the Iranian military has begun to move its army into Iranian Kurdish areas as well as positioning its forces to be ready to deal with an independent Kurdistan in Iraq.

 

Posted on

China’s Latest Strike Against Petrodollar is Another Shot to Kill US Hegemony in the Middle East

China Petrodollar

China took another major step towards the inevitable end of petrodollar dominance and the further internationalization of the yuan. Via this report:

‘China is expected shortly to launch a crude oil futures contract priced in yuan and convertible into gold in what analysts say could be a game-changer for the industry.
The contract could become the most important Asia-based crude oil benchmark, given that China is the world’s biggest oil importer. Crude oil is usually priced in relation to Brent or West Texas Intermediate futures, both denominated in U.S. dollars.
China’s move will allow exporters such as Russia and Iran to circumvent U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan. To further entice trade, China says the yuan will be fully convertible into gold on exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong.’

Critical to this move is the decision by Saudi Arabia:

‘If Saudi Arabia accepts yuan settlement for oil, Gave said, “this would go down like a lead balloon in Washington, where the U.S. Treasury would see this as a threat to the dollar’s hegemony… and it is unlikely the U.S. would continue to approve modern weapon sales to Saudi and the embedded protection of the House of Saud [the kingdom’s ruling family] that comes with them.”
The alternative for Saudi Arabia is equally unappetizing. “Getting boxed out of the Chinese market will increasingly mean having to dump excess oil inventories on the global stage, thereby ensuring a sustained low price for oil,” said Gave.’

If Saudi Arabia feels that China can act as an effective shield against its Iranian adversary, it most likely will forgo this ‘embedded protection’ from the US and acquiesce to Chinese demands. It may feel greater pressure as Qatar recently restored diplomatic relations with Iran thereby strengthening the Iran-Turkey-Qatar alliance.

Chinese Relations with Pakistan / Afghanistan

China has made inroads with non-oil producing nations in the region. Primarily, it has a growing economic relationship with Pakistan. While challenges of political and economic isolation exist, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor commonly known as CPEC has grown larger than its initially planned $46 billion investment plan announced in 2015. The investment is potentially crucial to China’s Belt and Road Initiative as it could provide a link from China through Europe and Africa. In addition, China has aggressively pushed development of a railway linking China and Afghanistan that is aimed to cut travel time between the two nations from six months to two weeks. Although the project has run into problems, the importance of this railway cannot be understated. Back in September, Chinese Ambassador to Afghanistan Yao Jing went so far to say, “Without Afghan connectivity, there is no way to connect China with the rest of the world.”




Gold Moves

Curiously, on August 21, US Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin became the first government official to visit Fort Knox in 43 years. Just prior to his visit, he said to an audience (hopefully in humor) ‘I assume the gold is still there…It would really be quite a movie if we walked in and there was no gold.” After his visit, he tweeted ‘Glad gold is safe!’. Unfortunately, it would have been more reassuring to some if there had been a full audit (i.e. serial numbers per each gold bar).
In addition, Germany recently announced that its central bank completed the transfer of $27.9 billion worth of gold bars back to Frankfurt three years ahead of expectations. The gold was held by the Federal Reserve in New York and France’s central bank to hedge against political and currency risks.

China’s Strike Against Cryptocurrency Threat

Yesterday, China effectively banned all organizations and individuals from raising funds through ICO activities. Also, all banks and financial institutions in China will not be able do any business related to ICO trading. Cryptocurrency prices dropped sharply as a result. While intended to protect investors from fraud, the decision may have been timed to strike back at the US – Japan alliance to transition to a world reserve currency led by Bitcoin. It would not be in China’s interest to allow this transition to occur smoothly (if at all). It is unclear how committed China is to blockchain technology as its primary goal is to prevent any financial instability in its markets as it attempts to undermine US hegemony.

US – China Comparison

In spite of the numerous deficiencies of Chinese government behavior (especially towards its own people), its acumen in establishing relationships throughout the Middle East without using military force can be characterized as highly impressive. Contrast that with the US and its consistent failed policy of invasion in the name of ‘fighting terrorists’. Sixteen years of US occupation has left Afghanistan as a failed state where the Taliban control roughly 40% of the country and opium production has risen from 185 tons in 2001 to 3,300 tons in 2015 despite the US spending $8.4 billion in counter narcotics programs. Equally troubling is President Trump’s recent decision to break his campaign promise and raise troop levels in Afghanistan. His deference to the military industrial complex has garnered meaningless praise from many of the same people who have supported these failed policies.
As Democrats and their compliant media hyped the fake Russian hacking narrative (updated to Russian collusion), Russia has only become more unified with China to counter US power. While China has economic issues of debt and ghost cities, the US is gripped in a state of chaos as it has:

  • An illusion of a healthy economy (due to central bank manipulation) and in contrast to the reality of a failing economy with fake economic data published by a corrupt government (Even David Stockman, former Reagan administration budget director, asks ‘How can there be “full-employment” at 4.4% unemployment claimed by the BLS and the Fed’s monetary central planners, when there are 103 million adults without jobs?’)
  • Dire circumstances for many as anywhere from 49% of Americans to 78% of all American full-time workers live paycheck to paycheck
  • A likely cost of $150 to $180 billion from Hurricane Harvey that will be added to a national debt of approximately $20 trillion
  • Death threats made by ‘deep state’ members against its president on a regular basis
  • An Attorney General that is too scared or compromised to follow the rule of law and proceed with justice and who has no problem instituting a widely criticized a policy that abuses its citizens

Conclusion

The repercussions of a Saudi move to side with China should not come as any surprise but will affect everyone in the world. For years, Dr. Ron Paul has warned about the end of the petrodollar system causing the US dollar to lose its world’s reserve currency status and to subsequently collapse. As a result, Russia would immediately demand the end of a US presence in Syria. This could be followed by the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Turkey and other countries. In the midst of great uncertainty, some may use the event to their advantage. The Kurdish population could feel emboldened and seize the opportunity to declare an independent state. In this case, Israel would be the beneficiary as a new Kurdish state would counter the looming threat from Iran.

Originally Published on News with Chai.

Posted on

Has Israel Reached the End of its Detente with Russia?

Iran Attack Israel

There had been signs for months that the “special” understandings reached between Putin and Bibi Netanyahu were fraying.  Afterall, Israel never chose to have Russia interject itself into the Syrian civil war, but once it had done so, Israel had no choice but to try to tame the Russian Bear.  The understandings reached allowed Israel a level of continued independence to strike out against Syrian convoys heading towards Lebanon.  When Iran started moving closer, Israel was allowed to hit sensitive figures.

Despite all of this, there was always the need to ask for permission and reestablish the understandings, which according to reports have contantly changed.

With Trump and Putin reaching an understanding at the G20 that allowed Russia to man the borders of Israel and Jordan in order to supposedly “enforce” a ceasefire, the understandings between Israel and Russia broke apart.

Israel can handle a Russia farther North from the Golan who is focused more on creating stability for its Mediteranean port at Latkia, but a Russia intensely involved with allowing Iranian troops and the militia it supports to reach the Golan border is completely unacceptable.

When Bibi travelled to Sochi over ten days ago, the prevailing assumption was that he would be able to convince Putin that it is in Russia’s best interest to hold back Iran and in failing to do so Israel would have no choice but to attack the Iranian forces.




Russia would have none of it and has since pushed back strongly against Israel’s verbage and protests against the Iranian presence on its border.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the following about Israel’s concerns that Iran is building up strength in the Golan to attack Israel:

 “We do not have any information that someone is preparing an attack on Israel. Whatever area of cooperation between Iran and Syria, my position is that if their cooperation in whichever field does not violate the basic provisions of international law, it should not be cause for question,” Lavrov said.

So the proverbial goal posts of past understandings between Israel and Russia have once again been moved, but in the direction of the Israeli border.  Where at one time Russia acquiesced to Israel’s concerns about Iran’s proximity to their Northeastern border, today they just have to “behave” and all is well.

The emerging crisis on Israel’s border with Syria is no small matter.  Under Russian protection Iranian troops can operate freely and this being the case, Iranian agents can always lay the groundwork to be ready when Russia changes the rules again.

Bibi Netanyahu has a huge choice to make.  He can either keep the facade that Russia is an honest broker between the Jewish state and Iran and therefore allow Israel to become fully surrounded and in a sense dependent on Russia for holding back Iran or he can drop the facade and take out the Iranian forces quickly establishing themselves in the Syrian Golan.

His choice will determine the costs involved when the war in Israel’s North begins.

 

Posted on

THE STRATEGIC CASE FOR KURDISTAN

Why it may weaken US adversaries and strengthen our allies.

If the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan aren’t intimidated into standing down, on September 25, the people of Iraqi Kurdistan will go to the polls to vote on a referendum for independence.

The Kurds have been hoping to hold the referendum since 2013.

Whereas Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu restated his support for Kurdish independence earlier this month in a meeting with a delegation of visiting Republican congressmen, the Trump administration has urged Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and his colleagues to postpone the referendum indefinitely. US Defense Secretary James Mattis, who visited with Barzani in the Kurdish capital of Erbil two weeks ago, said that the referendum would harm the campaign against Islamic State.

In his words, “Our point right now is to stay focused like a laser beam on the defeat of ISIS and to let nothing distract us.”

Another line of argument against the Kurdish referendum was advanced several weeks ago by The New York Times editorial board. The Times argued the Kurds aren’t ready for independence. Their government suffers from corruption, their economy is weak, their democratic institutions are weak and their human rights record is far from perfect.

While the Times’ claims have truth to them, the relevant question is compared to what? Compared to their neighbors, not to mention to the Times’ favored group the Palestinians, the Kurds, who have been self-governing since 1991, are paragons of good governance. Not only have they given refuge to tens of thousands of Iraqis fleeing ISIS, Iraqi Kurdistan has been an island of relative peace in a war-torn country since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Its Peshmerga forces have not only secured Kurdistan, they have been the most competent force fighting ISIS since its territorial conquests in 2014.

The same is the case of the Kurdish YPG militia in Syrian Kurdistan.

As for Mattis’s argument that the referendum, and any subsequent moves to secede from Iraq, would harm the campaign against ISIS, the first question is whether he is right.

If Mattis is concerned that the referendum will diminish Iranian and Turkish support for the campaign, then his concern is difficult to defend.

Turkey has never been a significant player in the anti-ISIS campaign. Indeed, until recently, Turkey served as ISIS’s logistical base.

As for Iran, this week Iranian-controlled Hezbollah and Lebanese military forces struck a deal to permit ISIS fighters they defeated along the Lebanese-Syrian border to safely transit Syria to ISIS-held areas along the Syrian border with Iraq. In other words, far from cooperating with the US and its allies against ISIS, Iran and its underlings are fighting a separate war to take ISIS out of their areas of influence while enabling ISIS to fight the US and its allies in other areas.

This then brings us to the real question that the US should be asking itself in relation to the Kurdish referendum. That question is whether an independent Kurdistan would advance or harm US strategic interests in the region.

Since the US and Russia concluded their cease-fire deal for Syria on July 7, Netanyahu has used every opportunity to warn that the cease-fire is a disaster.

In the interest of keeping Mattis’s “laser focus” on fighting ISIS, the US surrendered its far greater strategic interest of preventing Iran and its proxies from taking over the areas that ISIS controlled – such as the Syrian-Lebanese border and the tri-border area between Iraq, Syria and Jordan. As Netanyahu warns at every opportunity, Iran and its proxies are moving into all the areas being liberated from ISIS.

And Iran isn’t the only concern from either an Israeli or an American perspective. Turkey is also a looming threat, which will only grow if it isn’t contained.

Turkey’s rapidly accelerating anti-American trajectory is now unmistakable.

Last week during Mattis’s visit to Ankara, Turkish- supported militias in northern Syria opened fire on US forces. Not only did Turkey fail to apologize, Turkey condemned the US for retaliating against the attackers.

Moreover, last week, Turkish authorities announced they are charging US pastor Andrew Brunson with espionage, membership in a terrorist organization and attempting to destroy Turkey’s constitutional order and overthrow its parliament.

Brunson was arrested last October.

Whereas until last year’s failed military coup against the regime of President Recep Erdogan, Turkey demonstrated a firm interest in remaining a member of NATO and a strategic ally of the US, since the failed coup, Turkey has signaled that it at best, it is considering its options. US generals say that since the failed coup, they have almost no one to talk to in the Turkish military. Their interlocutors are either under arrest or too afraid to speak to them.

The regime and its supporters express both neo-Ottoman and neo-colonial aspirations, both of which place Turkey on a collision course with the US.

For instance, Melih Ecertas, the head of Erdogan AK Party’s youth wing, proclaimed that Erdogan is not merely the president of Turkey, rather he is “president of all the world’s Muslims.

So, too, Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi called Erdogan “the hope of all Muslims and of Islam.”

Qaradawi, who lives in Qatar and is Qatar’s Al Jazeera satellite channel’s superstar preacher, has good reason to love Erdogan.

In June, Erdogan decided to make a strategic move to protect the pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Iranian Qatari regime from its angry neighbors, led by Saudi Arabia. Turkey’s deployment of forces to Doha stalled the Saudi-led campaign against the Qatari regime.

If the regime survives, and if world oil prices continue to drop and so weaken Saudi economic power, Turkey’s decision to deploy its forces to Qatar could be the first step toward realizing its neo-Ottoman ambitions.

As for neo-imperialism, last October Foreign Policy reported that Turkish television now uses a map from 1918 to define Turkey’s current borders. From 1918 through 1920, Turkish territory included large portions of Iraq, among them Kurdistan and Mosul, as well as large swaths of Syria, including Aleppo.

Foreign Policy reported that use of the map indicates that as the post-World War I map of the Middle East becomes obsolete, Erdogan sees an opportunity to expand Turkish territory.

Then there are Erdogan’s moves to build strategic ties with Russia and Iran.

Last November the NATO member announced it is negotiating the purchase of an S-400 air defense system from Russia.

As for Iran, last week Maj.-Gen, Mohammad Hossein Baghari, Iran’s chief of General Staff, paid the first official visit by an Iranian army chief to Turkey since the 1979 revolution. Baghari met not only by his Turkish counterpart, Gen. Hulusi Akar, but with Erdogan as well.

Erdogan said after the meeting that he and Baghari discussed possible joint military action against the Kurds in northern Iraq, Syria and Iran.

In his words, “Joint action against terrorist groups that have become a threat is always on the agenda.This issue has been discussed between the two military chiefs, and I discussed more broadly how this should be carried out.”

Baghari was more explicit. He effectively announced that Iran and Turkey will respond with force to the Kurdish referendum.

 

“Both sides stressed that if the [Kurdish] referendum would be held, it will be the basis for the start of a series of tensions and conflicts inside Iraq, the consequences of which will affect neighboring countries.”

Baghari continued, “Holding the referendum will get Iraq, but also Iran and Turkey involved and that’s why the authorities of the two countries emphasize that it is not possible and should not be done.”

 

This then brings us back to Israel and the US and why Netanyahu is right to support Kurdish independence and the Trump administration is wrong to oppose it.

So long as there is no significant change in the nature of the Iranian and Turkish regimes, their empowerment will come at the expense of the US, Israel and the Arab Sunni states.

The Kurds, with their powerful and experienced military forces in Iraq and Syria alike, constitute a significant check on both Iranian and Turkish power.

Several commentators argue that the Turks will respond to the Kurdish referendum by waging a war of annihilation against the Kurds in Iraq and beyond. Iran, they warn, will assist in Turkish efforts.

As far as Iran is concerned, in the near future, its central effort will remain in Syria. As for Turkey, whereas Erdogan and his followers may wish to undertake such a campaign, today it hard to imagine them succeeding.

A year after the failed coup, the Turkish military is astounding observers with its incompetent performance in Syria. Despite the fact that Turkish forces are fighting in Syria in areas adjacent to their border, they are unable to competently project their force.

Turkey’s underperformance in Syria makes clear that the Turkish armed forces, which Erdogan gutted in his purges of the officer and NCO corps in the wake of the failed coup, have not rebuilt their strength.

According to an analysis by Al-Monitor published last September, the first four rounds of purges in the immediate aftermath of the failed coup reduced the number of general officers by nearly 40%. The ratio of pilots to aircraft in the Turkish Air Force was reduced from more than three pilots per plane to less than one pilot per plane.

While Al-Monitor assessed last year that it would take up to two years for the Turkish Air Force to rebuild its pilot corps, last week it appeared that two years was a gross underestimation of the time required.

Last week the US rejected a Turkish request to have Pakistani pilots fly Turkish F-16s. The request owed to the critical shortage of pilots in the Turkish Air Force.

And Erdogan continues to purge his generals. In early August he sacked the commanders of Turkish land forces and the Turkish Navy.

Given the current state of Turkish forces on the one hand, and the battlefield competence of Kurdish forces, it is clear that the balance of the two forces has never been better for the Kurds.

If Kurdistan becomes independent with US and Israeli backing and survives, the implications for the longevity of the Erdogan regime, given the rapidly expanding size of the Kurdish minority in Turkey, are significant.

Likewise for Iran, an independent Kurdistan in Iraq will serve to contain Iranian power in Syria and potentially destabilize the Iranian regime at home.

In summary then, opponents of Kurdish independence are correct. An independent Kurdistan will destabilize the region. But contrary to their claims, this is a good thing. For the first time since 2009, destabilization will benefit the US and Israel and weaken Iran and Turkey.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

Posted on

Are Turkey and Iran Teaming Up Against an Independent Kurdistan?

With the likely passage of the Kurdish Indpendence referendum st for September 25th, Tehran Times reported that “Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, made a rare visit to Ankara where he met with his Turkish counterpart, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Turkey’s defense minister.”

Iran has continually pushed back against Kurdish Independence as has Turkey.  Both countries fear a free and independent Kurdistan will enable their large Kurdish populations to push for increased autonomy.  In Turey there are 20 million Kurds that live in second class conditions in Southeastern Turkey.  In Iran there are 15 million Kurds in the North West of the country.

“Holding the referendum is a natural and just right of the people of Kurdistan and no one other than the people of Kurdistan has the right to talk about it,” the Kurdish Peshmerga said in a statement released on Friday.

A rising Kurdistan will not only change the anatomy of the Middle East, but will thwart the hegemonic desires of both Turkey and Iran.

Although no one has declared armed conflict after the referendum, the threat is there.  The USA has even warned the Kurds not to go ahead just yet, but will not stop the vote. Given the large unknown factor after September 25th, most countries in the immediate vicinity are on edge.

Iran has accomplished a lot by subverting Iraq through its Shiite agents in Baghdad, but an overt move to Kurdish independence would roll back its advances and create a defacto Israeli ally on its borders. That would mean boh Kurdistan and Azerbaijan could give Israel an ability to take out Iran’s nuclear arsenal with ease.

This would mean that Israel could remain independent of the Saudi led Sunni alliance. This alone would weaken the leverage the Trump administration and the Saudis have in regard to Jewish biblical areas in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) deisired by the Arab world.

 

Posted on

ERDOGAN’S GENOCIDAL INCITEMENT

Funding Palestinian Jew-hatred.

Turkey’s dictatorial president Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent efforts to mediate between the Saudis, their Arab Gulf allies and Egypt on one side versus his Qatari ally (both are staunch supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood) on the other, have failed to materialize.  At the same time, his war of words with Germany, and the European Union’s cold shoulder, has left the arrogant Erdogan with one avenue to make headlines – incite Muslims against Israel.  His crude anti-Semitic incitement has gone hand-in-hand with his posturing as the leader of the Sunni-Muslim world.

Erdogan has called on Muslims to show solidarity with the Palestinians by flooding Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.  He has used invectives against Israel with such words as “racist and discriminatory.” This comes after the Israeli government backed away from a confrontation with the incited Muslim community, and ordered the removal of the metal detectors and security cameras.  The Israeli actions followed a week of Palestinian rioting, and the murders of three Israeli family members by a Palestinian terrorist.  Erdogan declared that, “In our religionand historical responsibility for Al-Quds and the fight of our Palestinian brothers for rights and justice is of great importance to us.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry was quick to respond to Erdogan’s repeated incitement (he previously ranted about a proposed bill that would ban the religious institution from using loudspeakers. Switzerland already banned loudspeakers in mosques.) It called Erdogan’s comments “baseless slander,” adding that, “anyone who systemically violates human rights in their own country should not preach about morality. It’s absurd that the Turkish government, which occupies Northern Cyprus, brutally represses the Kurdish minority and jails journalists, should lecture Israel, the only true democracy in the region. The days of the Ottoman Empire have passed.” The Foreign Ministry statement added, “Israel strictly adheres to protecting full freedom of worship for Jews, Muslims, and Christians – and will continue to do so despite this baseless slander.”

Build Jerusalem Fund

Erdogan’s incendiary remarks, in a speech to his party’s parliamentary group in Ankara, stated, “When Israeli soldiers recklessly pollute the grounds of Al-Aqsa with their combat boots by using simple issues as pretexts and then easily spill blood there, it is because we [Muslims] have not done enough to stake our claim over Jerusalem.” Turkey’s Erdogan is currently the chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Clearly, in Erdogan’s mind, Jews and Israelis are merely dhimmis who should be disciplined by the Islamic Empire, and he considers himself a ‘Sultan’ of sorts.

Israeli political leaders reacted this time to Erdogan’s incitement with unsuppressed anger. Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin said, “We have heard voices which attack Israel for building Jewish life in Jerusalem. I must tell these people: For the last 150 years there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Even under the Ottoman Empire there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Under Israeli sovereignty we continue to build Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.”

Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barkat, went even further in responding to Erdogan’s charges saying that, “Turkey ruled Jerusalem for 400 years under the Ottoman Empire.  It is surprising that Erdogan, who leads a state that occupied Jerusalem for 400 years, wants to preach to us about how to manage our city.  Unlike, during the Turkish occupation, Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty is a flourishing, open, and free city that allows freedom of religion and worship for all.  In recent years, record numbers of Muslims have visited the Temple Mount and held prayers, exercising their absolute freedom of religion under Israeli sovereignty.”  Barkat added, “The connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem dates back more than 3,000 years.  Jerusalem is and will remain, our eternal united capital forever. In every corner of the city, we see Jewish roots – from the time of the First and Second Temple to the Muslim period and the Ottoman conquest.”

Israeli Knesset (Parliament) Speaker, Yuli Edelstein, said, “As long as Erdogan is Turkey’s leader, ties will not be back to what they were.”  Ex-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was more adamant, saying that “Erdogan aspires for there to be Muslim Brotherhood hegemony in the Middle East, and is working toward an Islamic Europe. This should be surprising only to those who ignore the facts.” Former Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar, in an interview with 103FM Radio, stated that “We made a mistake by paying damages and apologizing for the Marmara incident.”

Erdogan’s latest attempt to scapegoat Israel with his Al-Aqsa speech comes after his failure to bring an end to the Arab Gulf crisis. In fact, Erdogan’s meddling on behalf of Qatar has cost Turkey a lucrative shipbuilding contract with the Saudis to sell four warships to the Saudi navy, worth $2 billion.  Erdogan’s expedited bill in the Turkish parliament to send Turkish soldiers to a Turkish military base in Qatar, doomed the prospects for expanding Turkish trade with the Arab Gulf states.

It was not only in the Middle East that Erdogan suffered a significant setback…he recently created a crisis with Germany as well. The relationship between the two countries had already soured.  Last March, the German government refused to allow Erdogan and his ministers to hold election campaigns in Germany.  In response, Erdogan accused the German government of implementing “Nazi practices.”  Turkey’s refusal to allow German parliament members to visit their contingent at the Incirlik air base led Germany to move its soldiers to Jordan. Things deteriorated further when the Turkish government arrested a Turkish-German journalist reporting for the German newspaper Die Welt on phony charges, alleging support for a terrorist organization.  Germany also provided political asylum for Turkish generals. Erdogan is holding German nationals in detention as a bargaining chip.

Erdogan’s spat with Israel didn’t advance his standing with Germany, the European Union or with the Arabs.  His anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tendencies were already on display in January, 2009 at the Davos, Switzerland World Economic Forum. At a panel discussion, Erdogan walked off the stage in protest because the moderator ended the discussion.  Yet he managed to say to the late Israeli President Shimon Peres, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.” He was referring to Israel’s campaign in Gaza in retaliation for Hamas’ missile attacks on Israel. Peres responded by saying Turkey would have reacted the same way had rockets been falling on Istanbul. In May, 2010, a Turkish organized flotilla attempting to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, resulting in Israeli commandos boarding the Turkish Islamist lead ship, the Navi Marmara. Nine violent Turkish Islamists died in the confrontation with Israel, which the Turks provoked.  Erdogan called for Israel to be punished for its “bloody massacre.”

Erdogan assumed dictatorial powers following an April referendum in Turkey, and has jailed at least 47,155people without charges in the wake of last year’s failed coup against his continued rule. A consistently bellicose supporter of the Palestinians, Erdogan has frequently made anti-Semitic remarks, along with veiled threats to the Turkish Jewish community.

Erdogan is providing money to Palestinians to continue their violent demonstrations against Israel, allegedly to “defend” Al-Aqsa. This is a dangerous game the megalomaniacal Erdogan is playing in order gain influence with the Arab masses, ultimately, at the cost of Palestinian and Israeli blood.

Originally Published on FrontPageMag.

Posted on

The Humanitarian Paradigm- Hobson’s Choice for Israel (Part I)

Only one policy paradigm can sustain Israel as the nation-state of the Jews and prevent it becoming untenable either geographically or demographically—or both.

…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, – Sherlock Holmes in “The Sign of the Four”

Hobson’s Choice: a situation in which it seems that you can choose between different things or actions, but there is really only one thing that you can take or do – Cambridge Dictionary

As the more-than– century old dispute between Jews and Arabs over control of the Holy Land nears its third post-Oslo decade , four archetypical approaches have emerged in the public discourse for its resolution—and one for its “management”(a.k.a. its perpetuation).

In this two-part series I will assess the merits (or lack thereof) of these various approaches –both those which endorse (full or partial) Israeli annexation of territory across the pre-1967 Green Line and those which eschew it.

Indeed as I will show—barring divine intervention (something only the more pious than myself can rely on as a policy input—of these five (four plus one) options, all but one are demonstrably incompatible with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.  All but one—demonstrably—do not address adequately either the geographic imperatives and/or the demographic imperatives that Israel must address to avoid becoming either geographically untenable or demographically untenable (or both).  

Israel as the nation-state of the Jews

It is—or at least should be—manifestly self-evident that for Israel to endure over time as the nation-state of the Jews, it cannot (a) withdraw to geographical/topographical confines that make it impossible to maintain ongoing socio-economic routine in the country’s major commercial centers, or (b) allow the Jewish majority to be so diminished that maintenance of the Jewish nature of the state is imperiled.

Accordingly, it is in terms of their ability to contend with these undeniable imperatives that the alternative proposals for resolution/management for the conflict must be evaluated as appropriate policy prescriptions for Israel if—at the risk of appearing repetitive—it is to retain its status as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

I belabor this point of the long-term preservation of Jewish sovereignty, as a necessary precondition for the acceptability of competing policy proposals, because if one is prepared to forego it, other proposals, which are unable to ensure such an outcome, may well be acceptable—like for instance the post-Zionist call for a non-Jewish state of all its citizens.

Bearing this brief introductory clarification in mind, let’s begin the critical analysis of the proffered alternatives, which this week I shall confine to policy proposals that eschew full or partial  Israeli annexation of territory—deferring analysis of those that endorse such annexation for next week.

Managing the Conflict: Mowing the lawn won’t cut it

The conflict management  approach—as opposed to conflict resolution – is ostensibly the least proactive, least provocative—and most pessimistic—largely reflecting the recent assessment of Jared Kushner that there may well be no solution to the Arab-Israeli  confrontation.   

In a column written last August, I pointed out the grave detriments this approach entailed, detailing how, over the last two-and- half decades, the military prowess of the terrorist organizations have developed far beyond anything imagined,  and how Israel’s political positions have been drastically eroded.

Thus, when Israel left Gaza (2005), the range of the Palestinian rockets was barely 5 km., and the explosive charge they carried about 5 kg. Now, their missiles have a range of over 100 km. and warheads of around 100 kg. Likewise, when Israel left Gaza, only the sparse population in its immediate proximity was threatened by missiles. Now, well over 5 million Israelis, well beyond Tel Aviv, are menaced by them. Moreover the terror organizations have exploited periods of calm to further enhance their infrastructures and other abilities, which were barely conceivable a decade ago—including a massive tunneling enterprise and the development of naval forces, commandoes and underwater capabilities.

But it is not only in the exponential growth of the terror groups’ martial prowess that the endeavor at conflict management has been a resounding failure. The same can be said—arguably even more so–with regard to the ever-tightening political constraints Israel faces.

Mowing the lawn won’t cut it (cont.)

Perhaps one of the most dramatic and disturbing indications of just how far Israeli positions have been rolled back over the last two decades is reflected in the views articulated by Yitzhak Rabin, in his last Knesset address (October 5, 1995), a month before his assassination. In it he sought parliamentary ratification of the Oslo II Accords, then considered by much of the Israeli public as excessively dovish and dangerously concessionary.

There can be little doubt that if today, Netanyahu were to embrace, verbatim, Rabin’s 1995 prescription for a permanent accord with the Palestinian-Arabs in the “West Bank , he would be dismissed—scornfully, disparagingly and angrily—as an “unreasonable extremist”.

It of course requires little analytical acumen and a mere smidgeon of common sense to grasp that–whatever one may believe the real size of the  Arab population of Judea-Samaria to be—Israel cannot keep  an increasing and increasingly recalcitrant and irredentist population indefinitely in a state of suspended disenfranchised political limbo.  

In this regard, it should be remembered that, today, with the changing nature of Arab enmity, the major existential challenge to Israel’s existence as the Jewish nation-state is no longer repulsing invasion, but resisting attrition—both militarily and politically.

Accordingly, by eschewing decisive proactive measures to contend with a predicament that entails a mounting threat and decreasing freedom to deal with it, “conflict management” has become a prescription for avoiding immediate confrontations that can be won, thereby risking having to contend with later confrontations that cannot be won—or can be won only at ruinous cost.

Two-States: A mega-Gaza overlooking Tel Aviv?

Of course, the policy paradigm which, for decades, has dominated the discourse on how to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict  is that advocating a two-state outcome.   Bizarrely, support for this formula has always been the sine-qua-non for admission into “polite company” while opposition to it was the perceived hallmark of the uncouth and ignorant.  

Just how perverse this situation is can be gauged from the fact that there is no persuasive reason to believe –and certainly none has ever been provided by two-state proponents – that a Palestinian state will be anything other than a homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents—and which would rapidly become a bastion for Islamist terror.

After all, one might well ask, why would anyone purporting to profess to liberal values, wish to endorse the establishment of such an entity — which is clearly the utter negation of the very values invoked for its establishment?!

Readers will recall that it was in Gaza that the initial optimistic attempts to implement the two-state idea were made. So, how events unfolded there should be instructive as to how they may be expected to unfold in Judea-Samaria. For in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary—and as mentioned, none has ever been presented—there is little reason to believe that  if Israel were to evacuate the “West Bank”  the outcome  would not be largely similar to that which followed Israel’s evacuation of Gaza.

Indeed, unsubstantiated hope aside, there is neither sound theoretical foundation nor empirical evidence on which two-state proponents can base any prognosis for the  success of their political credo.  

A mega-Gaza (cont.)

Accordingly, the prudent working assumption must be that any attempt to implement the two-state principle in Judea-Samaria will result in a “mega-Gaza”—and that measures, similar to those required to protect the Israeli population in the South, would be required as well on Israel’s eastern border.

But unlike Gaza, which abuts sparsely populated, largely rural areas, the “mega-Gaza” that almost certainly will emerge in Judea-Samaria would abut Israel’s most populous urban areas. Unlike Gaza, which has no topographic superiority over adjacent Israeli territory, the prospective “mega-Gaza” in Judea-Samaria will totally command the adjacent coastal megalopolis, in which much of Israel’s vital infrastructure (both civilian and military) is located, where 80 percent of its civilian population resides and 80% of its commercial activity takes place.

But perhaps most significantly, unlike Gaza, which has only about a 50-km. front with Israel, the envisioned “mega-Gaza” in Judea-Samaria would have a front of up to almost 500 km!

Accordingly, what might be expected to concentrate two-staters’ minds, more than anything is that, after evacuating Gaza, Israel is now undertaking what IDF Chief-of Staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisencott, called the “largest project” ever carried out in the history of the IDF—a wall along the entire Israel-Gaza border,  not only several  storeys above ground but – to contend with the tunnel threat– several storeys below it !!  Now imagine a project over ten times that scale along a “mega-Gaza” in the east…

Next week: Analyzing Annexation

As mentioned, next week I will focus attention on those approaches which advocate full or partial annexations of the territories across the 1967 Green Line. In the analysis I will demonstrate that without an operational plan for dramatically reducing the Arab presence  east of the Jordan River, the former will result in the Lebanonization of Israel, creating a single society so fractured by interethnic strife that it would be untenable as the nation- state of the Jewish people; while the latter will result in the Balkanization of Israel, dividing the territory up into disconnected autonomous enclaves, which will be recalcitrant, rivalrous and rejectionist, creating an ungovernable reality for Israel.

Accordingly, by a logical process of elimination, I will show that the Humanitarian Paradigm, advocating funded emigration of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria (and eventually Gaza) is the only policy paradigm consistent with the long term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and hence—for those dedicated to the preservation of the Zionist ideal—Hobson choice.