Syria and the contending interests

Lotta news today.  You will need a least a bit of knowledge of the different players in Syria to make much sense of either of  the following al Monitor reports.  A post in my Frey Islands - 

Syria and the contending interests clearly described; why the outcomes mater, and to whom

will give you that background if you are interested.

Here's the first article, relatively easy to follow:

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) speaks to the media next to Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Dec. 18, 2015.  (photo by REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz)

Is Russia helping the US win in Syria?

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Feb. 4 that a recent US intelligence assessment showed a drop in numbers of those fighting on behalf of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq from 31,500 to 25,000, a sign that the Obama administration’s strategy is working, as many of these foreign fighters seek a new base in Libya and elsewhere.

Week in Review POSTED February 7, 2016

The second Week in Review column in December 2012 identified the role of Russia as one of the trends to watch regarding an endgame in Syria. The Russian trend is shaping a new phase in the Syrian war. As this column wrote last month, that endgame could begin with Aleppo, which is nearly encircled by Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian government forces.

It might be fair to ask how much credit Russia should get in setting back not only IS, but al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies. Getting an answer might be difficult, however, for two reasons.

First, the Russian air campaign has been ruthless and often indiscriminate. The civilian costs of the war can understandably and rightly overshadow what we might call “strategic” gains. Mohammed al-Khatieb provides a firsthand account for Al-Monitor of a Russian airstrike on a school and the toll of the bombardment on civilians in towns surrounding Aleppo. US Secretary of State John Kerry has appealed to Russia to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions regarding the conduct of the war in Syria. We could not agree more.

Second, and more puzzling and problematic, is that many press accounts have referred to those armed groups on the receiving end of the Russian-backed Syrian offensive simply as “rebels,” implying these are all opposition groups backed by the United States and its Western allies.

Sam Dagher of The Wall Street Journal offered a more complete assessment Feb. 5, writing, “About a half-dozen cities and towns targeted in the new regime offensives have one thing in common: All were held by a mix of Islamist and moderate rebel groups funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Complicating the picture is that some, but not all, of these groups collaborate with the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. That gives the regime and its allies fodder for their claim that they are fighting terrorism.”

This is a start, but there is more. A Feb. 5 report by the Institute for the Study of War shows the extent of the substantial Syrian military advances since Russia’s expanded military intervention. It also reveals that the Syrian government and its allies have battled IS, Jabhat al-Nusra and the radical Salafi group Ahrar al-Sham, which is often allied with Jabhat al-Nusra, in southern Aleppo province; battled IS in re-establishing a ground line of communication with the Quweires air base and in the Bab region; and battled Jabhat al-Nusra in the Latakia region.

Mustafa al-Haj explains that among the reasons that the Syrian military was able to retake Sheikh Miskin, north of Daara, after relentless Russian bombing, was “internal differences among opposition factions.” Haj reports from Damascus, “The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has been at odds with the Muthanna Movement (which had secretly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in March 2015), as well as Jabhat al-Nusra, following attempts by the FSA to isolate radical Islamist forces, according to the pro-regime Al-Mayadeen news website. These factors weakened the factions’ resistance to the army’s attacks and hampered the entry of FSA fighters from other areas to assist in defending the city.” In other words, the FSA, IS-linked Muthanna and Jabhat al-Nusra were all targets of the Russian-backed regime offensive in Daraa.

Fehim Tastekin writes this week that Syrian Turkmen groups, which have been the target of Russian bombardment, “have developed close links with Salafi jihadi organizations such as al-Qaeda franchise Jabhat al-Nusra.”  [I'm sorry to read this about the Turkmen   groups, who are more sinned against than sinning.  For more on the Syrian Turkmen, see my post here]

So this is a more complex picture of what many in the mainstream media may be reporting about Russia’s intervention in Syria. It is worth recalling that “entities associated” with IS, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra are also the target of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015), and that a cease-fire “will not apply” to actions against these “entities.” Resolution 2254 reiterates that member states should “prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the ISSG and determined by the Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement.” 

This is the more complex article -

Turkey’s outrageous offer

Turkey’s policies in Syria continue to border on the reckless, so excuse our skepticism on how the introduction of Turkish troops could play a constructive role, especially as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan risks escalation with Russia over alleged airspace violations. Ankara claimed that a Russian plane had violated its airspace Jan. 29. Metin Gurcan explains that the alleged Russian violation took place on “the Turkish border region that faces the Azaz-Munbij front, which is currently controlled by the Islamic State. If this is accurate, Russia is telling Turkey openly that it seriously intends to maintain the de facto no-fly zone it has established over the Jarablus-Munbij areas, which are also of major concern for Turkey.”

Semih Idiz reports that “developments in northern Syria are aggravating tensions between Ankara and Moscow. Following the downing of its jet, Russia intensified its air campaign, particularly against the Turkmens, but also against radical Islamic groups supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar that are fighting the Syrian army.  

Russia has a particular ax to grind with the Turkmens because it was their fighters who killed the Russian pilot in his parachute after he ejected from the Su-24. Turkmen refugees have started entering Turkey as the Syrian army gradually takes control of the region with Russian air support. …[The Russian army's brutality, shown most clearly in its southern province of Dagestan, stands in sharp contrast with our army's adherence to the Geneva Conventions an various UN resolutions about protecting non-combatants.  Some Republican candidates show a preference for Russia's approach to war, a plane betrays of American values.] 

Russia has an added incentive now to support the PYD [Democratic Union Party] and hit Turkey in its most sensitive spot, namely the Kurdish issue. Russia says it is unthinkable that the PYD can be kept out of the Geneva talks and insists the group will be part in these talks in the future.  [I agree.] Meanwhile, the Turkish media is reporting that Russia had started to provide air support to the PYD’s military wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG), west of the Euphrates River.”

Fehim Tastekin writes that Turkish ultranationalists have rallied to the Syrian Turkmen camp, whose armed groups have links to Jabhat al-Nusra. Tastekin concludes, “Many opposition groups labeled the Free Syrian Army have in time shifted to a Salafi mindset. How the war will transform Turkey’s ultranationalists is an important question. … This will inevitably leave a residue.”

Knowing all we know, the United States should therefore be adamant in rejecting any Saudi or Turkish offer to send its forces to Syria, if there is any seriousness to these offers. 

On whose side, for example, would Saudi and Turkish forces be fighting? Radical Salafi groups Jabhat al-Nusra and the Army of Islam, which are often and intimately linked to Jabhat al-Nusra? Would such an intervention give a second wind to Jabhat al-Nusra itself? Our answer is yes.

And who would they be fighting against — IS? The Syrian Kurds who are allied with Russia and the United States? Or Russia itself, risking a NATO intervention? 

We recognize the burden Turkey has assumed by providing relief to over 2.2 million Syrians, with tens of thousands more seeking entry. Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon deserve our thanks and assistance in managing this overwhelming humanitarian crisis, which received a commitment of over $10 billion from international donors last week. But if Turkey wants to further step up in Syria, it should stand down in its confrontation with Russia, and take unambiguous steps targeting IS, Jabhat al-Nusra and affiliated forces, as called for in UN Security Council resolutions.

Syria is a long way from an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where I write this log; and we are all kith an kin.  The wars in Syria have killed many, for whom we do not weep:  the dead are well out of it.  The war has damaged millions more, and for them we weep, if we are still human.  For some Syrian Kurds, the war has lifted them out of a dreary half-life into a vibrant, creative new life -- war's one virtue, and a valuable one, worth ten thousand faux-wars such as the Super Bowl.

China's dwindling control of North Korea; UN lack of control of China

Do you have better analysis of North Korea and its nuclear ambitions?  Of likely Chinese responses?

Would you like for the US to bomb North Korea? Do you think bombing would be effective?  If you do, wold you take responsibility for anticipated responses?  Have you an estimate of what those responses would be?

The New York Times

SIA PACIFIC | NEWS ANALYSIS

China Struggles for Balance in Response to North Korea’s Boldness

By JANE PERLEZ and CHOE SANG-HUNFEB. 7, 2016

Photo

The Chinese diplomat Wu Dawei, center, with Pak Song Il, right, of the North Korean Foreign Ministry, after arriving at Pyongyang Airport last week. 

BEIJING — When the veteran Chinese diplomat Wu Dawei left for North Korea last week, he probably knew he had been dispatched on mission impossible: to persuade the country’s young leader, Kim Jong-un, to climb down from his threat to launch a rocket as part of his quest to develop ballistic missile technologies.

Not only did Mr. Kim ignore China’s entreaties, sending Mr. Wu home empty-handed. He did so emphatically, ordering the launch a day earlier than expected so that it fell on one of China’s most important holidays, the eve of the Lunar New Year.

It is unclear how long President Xi Jinping of China will tolerate what some analysts here are calling the humiliation of his country at the hands of a capricious Mr. Kim. But there are no immediate signs that Beijing will radically change course and turn away from its traditional ally.Continue reading the main storyRELATED 

It’s a bad result, it’s a humiliation,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international relations at Renmin University. “I think Kim Jong-un made many mistakes, and this is one of his major mistakes.” Even so, he added, “It’s hard to say what different approach China will take.”

North Korea said Sunday that the rocket had successfully put a satellite into orbit.South Korea’s National Intelligence Service said the launch indicated that North Korea had made some technological advances toward its assumed goal of pursuing an intercontinental ballistic missile. The satellite launched Sunday weighed 440 pounds, twice as heavy as a satellite launched in 2012, according to lawmakers who attended a closed briefing by the spy agency on Sunday.

The United Nations Security Council, at an emergency meeting Sunday requested by the United States andJapan, issued a statement signaling its intention to stiffen penalties against North Korea, but without saying how or when. A draft Security Council resolution is under negotiation, diplomats said. The key is what China will allow in terms of tightening or broadening sanctions.

Hours after the launch, the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed “regret” and counseled calm and cautious action, a tone that drew immediate ridicule from users of the Chinese social media site, Weibo.

In contrast to calls from South Korea, Japan and the United States on Sunday for tougher sanctions against North Korea, China said early dialogue — meaning the resumption of talks among major powers and North Korea — was its preferred way to rein in Mr. Kim. Those negotiations, led by China and known as the six-party talks, fell apart in 2009 after North Korea walked out.

In response to the Foreign Ministry’s statement, one person on Weibo said: “I feel ‘regret’ for the Foreign Ministry.”

Another user said: “I have been racking my head but I simply can’t figure out why we have to offend everybody in the world to defend a rogue regime.”

Popular sentiment in China, where Mr. Kim has been maligned online as overweight, bumptious and inexperienced, appears to run against the government’s public patience with the North Korean leader. 

In a poll on Weibo conducted Friday and Saturday, two-thirds of the 8,000 respondents said they supported a strike by the United States to destroy North Korea’s nuclear weaponsprogram. Eighteen percent of those interviewed said they were against such a strike, and 16 percent said they were neutral.

In a telling signal of official disapproval of the results, Chinese censors had deleted the poll by Sunday afternoon.

Continue reading the main story

Despite its frustration with Mr. Kim and frosty personal relations — Mr. Xi has refused to meet with Mr. Kim — China will probably continue to put up with his behavior, said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University.

China is afraid of turning its recalcitrant ally into a worrisome enemy, he said.

The government has opposed severe sanctions aimed at curtailing the amount of oil that China exports to North Korea and at stopping imports of mineral resources. So far, China has supported only sanctions that limit the transfer or sale of military equipment or other items that would help North Korea’s weapons program.

“China thinks more severe sanctions will reduce China’s influence in North Korea,” Mr. Shi said.

Most important, China was afraid that hammering North Korea with heavy sanctions would turn it into a hostile country that could “take action” against Beijing, Mr. Shi said.

Mr. Xi has made the calculation that Mr. Kim, the third generation of the Kim family to rule North Korea, would be an enduring figure, and he sent Liu Yunshan, a member of the powerful Standing Committee of the Communist Party, to a military parade in Pyongyang last October to make a kind of rapprochement, Mr. Shi said.

China even appeared to be willing to risk its budding relationship with South Korea, an ally of the United States, by putting up with North Korea’s bad behavior.

The rocket launch on Sunday, which came after a fourth nuclear test by the North Koreans in early January, showed that China’s goal of maintaining good relationships with both North Korea and South Korea was an extremely difficult balancing act, Mr. Cheng said.

Mr. Xi has gone out of his way to court the South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, by stressing the strong economic relationship between the two countries. China is South Korea’s biggest trading partner, and Ms. Park raised eyebrows among Washington officials last September by turning up at a huge military parade on Tiananmen Square in Beijing that was boycotted by Western leaders.

Photo

Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and President Xi Jinping of China during their meeting in Beijing in January. 

CreditIn a move sure to displease China, South Korea’s Defense Department said hours after the launch Sunday that it would start formal discussions with the United States about the deployment of a missile defense system known as Thaad, for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.

China has vigorously opposed the deployment of the system, arguing that it would be used by the United States to interfere with China’s defenses and as a tool to contain China.

The North Korean rocket launch “is aimed at advancing its nuclear weaponsand their delivery missiles,” Ms. Park said. “North Korea poses a grave challenge to the peace of Northeast Asia and the rest of the world by rejecting dialogue and persisting in advancing its missiles for the sake of regime survival.” 

Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-hyun, the head of operations at the South Korean military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said that Seoul and Washington had agreed that their annual joint springtime military exercises, code-named Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, would be the largest ever this year.

He said that South Korea would deploy more propaganda loudspeakers along the border with North Korea and operate them for longer hours. South Korea switched on the long-dormant loudspeakers after the January nuclear test, and North Korea responded by sending balloons into the South to drop propaganda leaflets and trash.

In recent years, South Korea has aggressively courted closer ties with China, hoping it would help tame North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

The mood shifted in South Korea, however, after the nuclear test in January. China, North Korea’s only major trading partner, rejected repeated South Korean and American demands that it force the North to give up its nuclear-missile program by squeezing oil and other shipments.

President Obama and Mr. Xi spoke by telephone last week about the need for unified action regarding sanctions at the United Nations, the White House said.

But the agreement between the two leaders in California in 2013, when cooperation on finding a solution to the North Korea dilemma was the high point of their meeting, appears to have evaporated.

When Secretary of State John Kerry held more than four hours of talks with the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, last month in Beijing, there was little enthusiasm for more targeted sanctions by the Chinese, even though both sides knew that a rocket launch was likely to happen, American officials said.

“The general relationship between the United States and China is far from good, and I don’t think the U.S. has any real bargaining chips with China over North Korea,” Mr. Shi said. “The vital interest of the United States is to reduce the nuclear weapons, and the vital interest of China is to keep a minimum degree of stability and to keep North Korea a friend.”

Under various Security Council resolutions, North Korea is banned from rocket launches using ballistic missile technology. But it has touted its missiles and nuclear weapons as the “sacred sword” its people have long sought to deter American invasions. On Sunday, it called the satellite “a gift of most intense loyalty” for Mr. Kim.

Great Powers stall Syrian peace talks

From a January 20, 2015, New York Times news article, Syria Talks Are Complicated by Competing Opposition Groups.  If you read the article, you may conclude hat the Syrian peace talks are  complicated not so much by competing groups, but by

• Turkey, which objects to Kurdish representation; 
• Saudi Arabia, which objets to any reprobation that isn't Salafist Jihadists; 
• Russia and Iran, which object to exclusion of Kurds, who are supported by Russia, Iran, a and the US; and 
• Iran, which objects to Salafist Jihadists determined to destroy Iran.

THE KURDISH DEMOCRATIC UNION PARTY

The party, known as the P.Y.D., is the main Kurdish force in Syria. Its militia controls a substantial area in the northeast and along the Turkish border. Russia wanted the group to be invited to the Geneva talks, but Turkey, which is fighting a Kurdish insurgency of its own, raised strong objections. The Saudi-backed committee also objected, saying it should be the sole opposition representative. The party’s leader, Saleh Muslim, said on Tuesday that no Syrian Kurdish officials had been invited to the Geneva talks.

 See here, and here,  for more on the obstacles to peace in Syria.  Plenty of blame to go around, and oil is at the center of it:

Russia objects to Qatar's oil going to Europe through Syria because Qatar's competition would destroy Russia's oil-based economy and Qatar wants a pipeline through Syria;

the Gulf dictators snd the US have blocked Iranian oil since Iran nationalized its oil five decades ago and old habits are hard to break even after they make no sense; they object to Iran's desire for a pipeline through Syria to deliver oil to Europe;

Russia finds Iranian oil  less objectionable than Qatar's since it would find Iran more amenable to price fixing that Qatar, it thinks.

The folks fighting on the ground are sectarian ideologues or are mercenaries beholden to one Great Power or another, except for the admirable Kurds,  who are communitarian, egalitarian, feminist and the most effective fighters in the regain.

No wonder that all except the Turks wish to arm them.

International Opposition to Sunni findamentalists in Syria

Two quotations from Al Monitor are of interest:

Claiming that Erdogan “was never interested in democracy or reform in Syria but merely wanted to secure the return of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Assad accused the Turkish prime minster of having “a closed and reactionary mind which does not recognize honesty.”

Note:  The Muslim Brotherhood is democratic, though barely.  Though that is damning with faint praise it is more than can be said for any other large Sunni organization, and the reason the H. Saudis spent millions to bring it down in Egypt..

Assad is undoubtedly also noting with satisfaction the rising international concern that al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria might grab the country to establish a regime that is no more democratic than the current one. That concern appears to have established a strange but unspoken coalition which includes the United States and Europe as well as Russia and Iran, who all consider Sunni fundamentalism a threat. [Emphasis added.]

The last sentence is also my view.  It is not the Saudi view.

Google-selected images for Jabhat al-Nusra, a Saudi-backed Sunni fundamentalist battalion, fighting to secure the Syrian coast for Saudi Arabia:

Present status of the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline

On March 5, 2012, I wrote a post on US efforts to prevent Iran and Pakistan from constructing the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline.  The effort focused on blocking sources of money for financing the pipeline.

The pipeline would start in he Pars natural gas field in Iran -- the largest in the world and currently blocked by US Warships -- and would bring a new energy source to Pakistan, which Pakistan desperately needs.  It would also provide Iran with cash, which it desperately needs because of Western efforts to starve it into agreeing not to construct an Atomic Bomb.  Such as Israel has.

The Western effort, now joined by Russia and China, has so far been a success:  there is no pipeline and there is no Bomb, and Iran has not been Bombed by anyone.  The effort is also wasteful and unstable, not nearly as good as working out an agreement with iran.

Here is a report on the current sate of developments:

From  The Express Tribune with the International Herald ATribune

Zardari visit delay raises questions over Iran-Pakistan project

By AFP

Published: December 11, 2012

ISLAMABAD: 

President Asif Ali Zardari has delayed a visit to Iran to discuss a huge gas deal despite Tehran’s offer of a loan to help finance a project which the US opposes, officials said Tuesday.

The $7.5 billion pipeline project has run into repeated difficulties – over US opposition because of Iran’s nuclear activities and Pakistan’s difficulty in finding funds.

It was originally reported that Zardari would visit Iran last Friday and that the final agreement would be likely signed during the visit.

Pakistani officials denied that the visit had been cancelled, claiming it had never been officially scheduled due to Zardari’s engagements in London and Paris.

“The visit may materialise on his way back from the ongoing foreign tour or he may visit Tehran after coming back home,” a petroleum ministry official told AFP.

Iranian officials said that the visit had been postponed at Pakistan’s request and would happen “soon”.

“It has been agreed that the visit would take place with a bit of change. Iranian assistance to build the peace pipeline in Pakistan will be one of the issues on the visit’s agenda,” said Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mahmanparast.

Negotiations are reaching a critical point, the Financial Times said, because it will take two years to build Pakistan’s sections of the pipeline and Islamabad would have to start paying Tehran for the gas two years from now.

The newspaper said an increasingly desperate Pakistan is struggling to overcome strong opposition to the project from the United States, which has clamped economic sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear programme.

In 2010 Iran and Pakistan agreed that Iran would supply between 750 million cubic feet and one billion cubic feet per day of natural gas by mid-2015.

Islamabad has said that it will pursue the project regardless of US pressure, calling it vital to overcome the country’s energy crisis that has led to debilitating blackouts and suffocated industry.

But in March, it was forced to review sources of funding after newspapers said a Chinese bank pulled out over fears that firms involved will face sanctions.

Pakistani officials said Tuesday that Iran had promised a $500 million loan and that Islamabad would meet the rest of its $1.6 billion share.

“There are impediments in view of the US opposition to the project but we are determined to complete it to meet our fast-growing energy requirements,” said one government official on condition of anonymity.

But the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said Iran has confirmed it can finance at least $250 million, despite Pakistan asking for $500 million.

“This is a technical issue,” Mahmanparast said.

Analyst Imtiaz Gul said the deal would probably be signed only if the United States backs down over its opposition to the deal, possibly in exchange for Pakistani cooperation on Afghan peace efforts. [Emphasis added.]

So Pakistan has something we want and we have something Pakistan wants.  An agreement might lead to a broader agreement with Iran that would end the present stalemate.  That larger agreement might make all nations but Israel, currently controlled by mad hawks, happy.  A change in the Israeli government might result in a two-state solution, which would make Palestinians happy; which would mak Egypt happy.

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."  Alexander Pope.

Happy Palestinians:

Anticipating consequences of War with Iran

The New York Times, today:

Western powers “know that Iran is not after nuclear weapons, but their intention of creating such a commotion is to stonewall Iran’s progress and damage Iran’s reputation among Muslim countries,” Mr.[Ali] Larijani,, a former chief nuclear negotiator, was quoted as saying.  

Mr. Larijani, a philosopher and politician, is one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to the Iranian Security Council,  In his post as secretary he effectively functioned as the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's nuclear program.

Well, perhaps we in the West are interested in stonewalling Iran’s progress and damaging its reputation. We have been at it for 60 years.  The Iran-Pakistan Pipeline controversy shows that we still are, I’m saddened to say.  See, e.g., my March 6, 2012, post in The Newspaper Spoon.

More important, “Israeli officials” are quoted by the Times as urging a “credible military option,” which seems merely being to drop a few bombs on Iran, as Israel did on Syria, with no adverse consequence except, er, a war with Hezbollah and bombs raining down on Israel’s population (and, by the way, substantial harm to Lebanon, but who cares?).

It seems to me that the burden on the Bomb-Dropper advocate is to detail the worst-case consequences of the dropping.  The silence on that subject drowns out all other comment.

Saddam Hussein thought that he could win a quick victory over Iran when he invaded in 1980.  Iran was in confusion after the overthrow of the Sash.  The war  lasted eight years, cost half-a-million dead and many more wounded, wrecked both countries’ economy, and did not result in the hoped-for border changes.

Images of the Iraq-Iran War:

Bushco thought that a War with Iraq would be a “walk in the park"; that “Shock and Awe”  -- dropping more than a few bombs -- would quickly bring the enemy to its knees. Our present national debt and the occupants of Walter Reed Hospital are a continuing tribute to that folly.  See the February 5, 2012, post in The Newspaper Spoon.

President Obama knows some of the consequences of Bombing Iran.  I’m sure his intelligence services  and the Israeli counterparts have detailed worst-case consequences.  

Before the Bombs drop, those consequences and the consequences of “allowing" Iran to get the Bomb must be made public so the American public, the Israeli public, and the Western, Azerbaijani, Russian, Chinese, Afghan, Pakistani publics can know, too.  Dropping Bombs is now a World concern, not just a concern of one or three national interests.  Wouldn’t the Kazakhs be affected?  Of course they would.  The Brazilians too?  Show my how they wouldn’t.

”We have a mighty country and a strong army,” Mr.[Benjamin] Netanyahu said after he returned Wednesday. “We have many friends who stand by our side and who will stand by our side at all times.”

Show me the consequences," I say, "Then perhaps I'll stand with you."

So say I.  How say you?


For pictures, maps, Turkish oil wrestling, and Kazakh horse wrestling . . .

Bomb Iran? And Pakistan and Germany, too (addendum)

This editorial in The Nation, (pk) today is important and timely.  The world seems to be polarizing, and Pakistan is one of the focal points.   The editorial relates directly to last night's blot post.

 I sincerely hope for good relations with Iran in the near future, and an end to our sanctions against it.   

Think how unthinkable were good relations, in my lifetime, with Germany, Japan,  Russia, China, and North Vietnam.  Remember how we hated the Krauts, the Japs (spellcheck won't even recognize "Jap", now), the Ditrty Commie Pinko Rats, the Chicago Seven, Hippies, Yippies -- all the Not-Us.  Now the Ragheads, the Muslims of all stripes.   Think how our views of those countries and people have changed.  Views of Iran can change, too, with our sensible President.

By: Javid Husain | March 06, 2012 |

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was quite explicit in her warning before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations last week that the implementation of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project would trigger the US sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act. This Act imposes certain specified sanctions against any foreign (non-US) company, which invests more than $20 million in the oil and gas sector in Iran. This warning must be seen in the context of the current animosity between Iran and the US, and Washington’s growing pressure on Tehran because of its nuclear programme. The root causes of the current tensions between the US and Iran can be traced to a number of factors.

First and foremost, Washington views Iran as a major obstacle, indeed a threat, to the realisation of its strategic objectives in the Middle East, especially the Persian Gulf region. The control over the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf region is a major US strategic objective, the other being the security of Israel as an ally and an outpost of the West in the region. Obviously, the US wants pliant states in the Persian Gulf region for safeguarding its interests. The attitude of defiance exhibited by Iran towards the US, since the advent of the Islamic Revolution, set in motion a process that has resulted in the prevailing enmity between the two countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s steadfast support to the Palestinian cause and its opposition to Israel are seen by Washington and Tel Aviv as serious threats to the Jewish state’s existence. In essence, Washington considers the Islamic Revolution as a threat to the US-friendly order in the Middle East. Therefore, it has imposed unilateral sanctions and taken a number of other steps to contain Iran and to bring about a change of regime in the country.

The US-Iran tensions have been aggravated by the serious differences between them on Iran’s nuclear programme. The US and other Western countries have essentially demanded of Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme because they consider it as a precursor to the development of nuclear weapons. Iran, while insisting on its right to carry out uranium enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a party, has categorically stated that its nuclear programme is peaceful in character and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. However, these declarations have not satisfied the Western countries. Consequently, the UN Security Council with the Western backing has imposed a number of sanctions on Iran which were weakened considerably thanks to the efforts of Russia and China.

Additionally, the US has imposed its own sanctions because of its concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, the latest ones barring financial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran to curtail Tehran’s oil and gas exports. It is the US hope that these economic sanctions would persuade Iran to reconsider its nuclear programme to bring it in line with the Western demands. But the US and Israel have not ruled out the possibility of air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent it from the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

As a demonstration of the US seriousness on the subject, President Barack Obama stated categorically on March 4 in a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that he would not hesitate to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, despite the Israeli pressure for an early air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the US believes that diplomacy backed by sanctions still has a chance to overcome the current impasse on the Iranian nuclear issue. It is also cognisant of the dangerous strategic, political and economic consequences of air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Palestine. The US economy that is registering a fragile recovery may relapse into a severe recession or even a depression if the oil prices shoot up as a result of the air strikes on Iran. Therefore, Obama in his speech at the meeting of AIPAC also cautioned against “loose talk of war” with Iran. The Economist magazine in its issue of February 25-March 2 concluded that just now the change in Iran’s nuclear programme “is more likely to come about through sanctions and diplomacy than war.” It is also interesting to note that despite the concerns of the Arab countries about Iran’s nuclear programme, the Jordanian Prime Minister has warned that any military action against Iran because of its nuclear activities would be “disastrous” for the whole of the Middle East. Earlier, the Russian Foreign Minister had voiced similar views.

The US pressure on Pakistan to forego the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline project must be viewed in the context of the foregoing. Its real purpose is to ratchet up pressure on Iran more than anything else. But if we concede the US demand, it would have serious negative consequences for Pakistan, which is facing a virtual energy crisis because of electricity and gas shortages. The alternative project that would bring gas through pipeline from Turkmenistan (TAPI) would not be feasible in the near future because of the continuing armed conflict in Afghanistan.

Pakistan and Iran signed the Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) in June 2009. The Government of Pakistan has already determined that the imported natural gas from Iran would provide the cheapest and most suitable fuel for power generation. It has been estimated that 750 mmcfd gas would help generate around 4,000MW of electricity, besides providing job opportunities in the backward areas of Balochistan and Sindh. Iran has already laid the 56-inch diameter pipeline for a distance of 900 km from Assaluyeh to Iran Shehr. The remaining 200 km to bring the pipeline to the Pakistani border are likely to be completed in the next two years. Pakistan, on its part, is planning to complete its segment of the pipeline by the end of 2014.

From the economic point of view, it makes eminent sense for Pakistan to complete the Iran-Pakistan pipeline project as early as possible to meet its fast-growing energy requirements. The government’s decision to stand firm on this project despite the US pressure is commendable and must be welcomed. While we must make a sincere effort to reconcile our differences with the US on different issues with a view to developing friendly relations with it, we cannot allow Washington to dictate to us, especially on issues of vital strategic and economic importance. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project is too important for us strategically, politically and economically to be discarded at the behest of the US. We must, therefore, use different diplomatic channels to convey our point of view on the issue appropriately to the US. It is ironical that while the US is pushing us to strengthen our economic and commercial links with India, it should be pressurising us to distance ourselves from our important neighbour to the west for the sake of its own perceived interests!

Pakistan’s long-term interests lie in strengthening its friendly ties and cooperation with Iran rather than otherwise. In view of the past US practice of subjecting us to sanctions and pressures for its own designs, it would be prudent on our part to reduce our economic and military dependence on it. The situation also calls for intensified efforts on our part to enhance self-reliance and strengthen relations with China and Russia both of which may be interested in financing the IP gas pipeline.

    The writer is a retired ambassador.

    Email: javid.husain@gamil.com