Iran

Iran: Why Containment Is Bad Strategy

By Rick Francona, Middle East Perspectives
December 3, 2010

Many analysts believe that the Obama Administration has resigned itself to the inevitability of a nuclear armed Iran. You can understand that argument if you look at the Administration's continuing attempts to "engage" the Iranians when the regime in Tehran has made it abundantly clear by its actions that it has no interest in meaningful and sincere dialogue with the West over its nuclear program.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has hailed as "encouraging" the fact that after months of stalling, the Iranians have agreed to resume talks. Why she thinks this is encouraging is beyond me. The Iranians have consistently outmaneuvered Clinton on foreign policy since she has been Secretary of State. While she has been focused on these fruitless talks, the Iranians have been focused on buying time for the continued enrichment of uranium. The Iranians have used the Secretary's misguided belief that she could convince the regime in Tehran into working with the West as a virtual time machine allowing its scientists more time to not only acquire weapons grade fissile material but to refine weapons designs.

What exactly has Iran agreed to that Mrs. Clinton finds encouraging? It took over a month just to reach an agreement on a date and a venue. There still is no agenda. The Iranians have stated that they will not discuss their nuclear program, which is the only reason to have the talks in the first place.

The talks are pure theater. No one expects any results other than providing the Iranians the fig leaf that they are cooperating with the West. The West gets to advance the fiction that it is addressing a potential Iranian nuclear threat. Meanwhile, Iran continues on its path to becoming a nuclear armed nation. President Obama and Secretary Clinton seem okay with that, figuring that the United States was able to live with a nuclear Soviet Union for decades, therefore, we should be able to contain an Iran that possesses nuclear weapons.

Containment is not a viable option. Here's why.

There is much more at stake than the bilateral relationship between the United States and Iran. Everyone is aware that the Israelis view a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to the Jewish state. They have been planning a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities for years, even acquiring American-made GBU-28 "bunker buster" munitions required to destroy the hardened Iranian targets. If the Iranians get close to the possession of nuclear weapons, Israel will feel compelled to mount a military operation to destroy the production facilities. It simply cannot risk an attack that might virtually eradicate Israel.

An Israeli strike on Iran might ignite a conflagration that will draw in all countries in the region. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense treaty; Damascus possesses missiles that can strike anywhere in Israel, and is known to possess chemical warheads for those missiles.

Both Iran and Syria have influence over the Lebanese terrorist organization Hizballah, which can strike targets in northern Israel as far south as Tel Aviv. Iran also wields considerable influence over the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Hamas could open up a southern front against Israel.

In addition to the danger of an armed confrontation in the region, Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons will catalyze an arms race in the region. Thanks to leaked State Department cables, we have this on good authority.

From a Secret Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals cable sent by the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia (Riyadh 000178, February 2010):

9. (S/NF) COUNTERING IRAN: The King told General Jones that if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.

From a Confidential cable sent by the American Embassy in Eygpt (Cairo 001067, May 2008):

3. (C) Asked about Egypt's reaction if Iran developed nuclear weapons capability, Mubarak said that none will accept a nuclear Iran, "we are all terrified." Mubarak said that when he spoke with former Iranian President Khatami he told him to tell current President Ahmedinejad "not to provoke the Americans" on the nuclear issue so that the U.S. is not forced to strike. Mubarak said that Egypt might be forced to begin its own nuclear weapons program if Iran succeeds in those efforts.

The best course of action is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Thus far, nothing has been successful at convincing the Iranians to abandon that effort. Sanctions have not worked in the past and likely won't in the future. Time is running out. At some point in the near future, difficult decisions are going to have to be made.

While Mrs. Clinton might find the current situation encouraging, I do not.

Wikileaks Documents Show Iran a Major Concern

By Rick Francona, Middle East Perspectives
November 30, 2010

Secret State Department cable released by Wikileaks

I am appalled by the release of hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic cables by the Wikileaks organization. While Julian Assange's organization may not technically be breaking the law, it does major damage to our ability to prosecute two wars and conduct foreign policy around the world.

The real culprit appears to be Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, a 22-year old intelligence analyst who has no clue what harm he has done. He, of course, has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and will be court-martialed.

Manning is currently in custody in Quantico, Virginia, where he is being held in solitary confinement, probably for his own safety. He has initially been charged with "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source." The maximum sentence for those two offenses is 52 years.

I suspect that if the leaks can be tied to the arrest, imprisonment, mistreatment or death of an American information source, Manning will be tried for additional, more serious violations. Personally, I hope he is found guilty of treason in a time of war, a capital offense. At the very least, he should spend the rest of his days bolted into a concrete box. Thankfully, given Attorney General Eric Holder's track record on prosecutions, this will be tried in a military court where the chances of a conviction are good.

That said, the recent tranche of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks shows the depth of concern among many of our regional allies over Iran. Iran is now regarded as the world's major state sponsor of terrorism and the biggest threat to regional stability in the volatile Persian Gulf.

I'll forgo Israeli concerns over Iran. These concerns have been well-documented already since Israel has made no secret that it regards a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. Many of the Tel Aviv cables in the released documents again point this out, including requests for GBU-28 5000-pound "bunker buster" bombs. These munitions will be required if Israel plans to attack Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.

Second to Israel, the country that most regards Iran as a major threat is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Many of the released cables deal with Saudi Arabia's concerns over Iran's nuclear program as well as its influence in neighboring Iraq. A cable written in February of this year setting the scene for a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is telling. Some excerpts:

- "King 'Abdullah believes we are not always reliable, consistent, or willing to heed his advice on important issues such as Iraq. Sa'ud Al-Faisal and others have openly been critical of U.S. policies they describe as having shifted the regional balance of power in favor of arch-rival Iran."

- "Saudi Arabia is thinking through how best to take a leaf from the Chinese playbook and use these expanded trade ties to achieve important political goals. In this regard, Saudi Arabia has told the Chinese that it is willing to effectively trade a guaranteed oil supply in return for Chinese pressure on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons."

- "We expect that Saudi Arabia will continue to develop its ties with China, in part to counterbalance relations with the West. While the King's preference is to cooperate with the U.S., he has concluded that he needs to proceed with his own strategy to counter Iranian influence in the region, which includes rebuilding Riyadh-Cairo-Damascus coordination, supporting Palestinian reconciliation, supporting the Yemeni government, and expanding relations with non-traditional partners such as Russia, China, and India to create diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran that do not directly depend on U.S. help.

- "The King told General Jones that if Iran succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia."

- "The King is convinced that current U.S. engagement efforts with Tehran will not succeed; he is likely to feel grimly vindicated in his view by Ahmadinejad's February 11 boast that having successfully enriched uranium to a level of 20 percent, Iran 'is now a nuclear nation.' The King told General Jones that Iranian internal turmoil presented an opportunity to weaken the regime -- which he encouraged -- but he also urged that this be done covertly and stressed that public statements in support of the reformers were counterproductive. The King assesses that sanctions could help weaken the government, but only if they are strong and sustained. The King will want you to elaborate on the President's statement that the time for sanctions has come. He will also want to hear our plans for bolstering Gulf defenses vis a vis Iran."

Another secret cable from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh quotes the Saudi ambassador to the United States 'Adil al-Jubayr citing the Saudi king's "frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program.

"He told you to cut off the head of the snake."

After the cables were made public, Mrs. Clinton remarked,

"I think that it should not be a surprise that Iran is a source of great concern, not only in the U.S. The comments reported in the cables prove that Iran poses a serious threat in the eyes of its neighbors, and beyond the region."

She missed the point that most of the comments are not supportive of President Obama's lenient engagement policy toward Iran.

In a somewhat surprising and no doubt embarrassing revelation, Lebanese Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri was quoted in a cable that he supported military strikes on Iran's nuclear program. Of course, things have changed and he denies ever saying it. Egyptian President Husni Mubarak also was quoted disparaging Iran.

President Obama is allegedly a big proponent of "transparency." One of his first executive orders when he took office in 2009 dealt with the classification system and his desire that only things absolutely requiring secrecy be restricted from the public. I wonder what he thinks now that less than one-tenth of one percent of the over 250,000 documents to be released have come to light.

More importantly, these documents clearly show that most of our allies in the region are wary of Iran and are skeptical of the President's attempts (which all have failed) to engage the Iranians diplomatically. As the Saudis point out, he doesn't listen.

Iran-Venezuela Alliance

Iranian Missiles in Venezuela

By Rick Francona, Middle East Perspectives
December 27, 2010

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has agreed to permit Iran to deploy medium range ballistic missiles to his country. According to press reports, the Iranians will construct a missile base in Venezuela housing several versions of North Korean-made Scud short range missiles and the Iranian-produced Shahab 3 medium tange ballistic missile. The Shahab 3 has a range of about 900 miles, not enough to reach the United States mainland.

The fact that the missiles cited in the press reports cannot reach the United States is not the issue. What is important is the fact that the Iranians are deploying missiles to the Western Hemisphere at all. Since the missiles do not appear to pose an immediate threat, Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hope that the Obama Administration will not attempt to block the missile deployment in an effort reminiscent of what President John Kennedy did during what many are calling a similar crisis, the attempted Soviet delivery of ballistic missiles to Cuba in 1962.

While Iran is not Russia, and Venezuela is not Cuba, this initial deployment of Iranian missiles and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) crews is merely the first step, or as we say in the Middle East, the "nose under the tent."

I should also have added that Barack Obama is not John Kennedy. The Iranians have assessed that the Obama Administration, correctly, in my opinion, is weak and naive on foreign policy. The Obama diplomatic "engagement" strategy toward Iran and Syria has yielded no positive results for the United States. I suspect that Ahmadinejad believes that the American administration has no stomach for confrontation and will do nothing more than demand additional sanctions as Iran continues to develop a nuclear weapons capability. In other words, Ahmadinejad sees a window of opportunity, specifically a period in which a weak American administration focused on controversial domestic issues is unwilling to take a tough stance on Iran's grand ambitions.

Once the initial deployment of Iranian missiles, which will be portrayed as not posing a threat to the United States, is a fait accompli, it only requires minimum effort on the part of the Venezuelan and Iranian governments to introduce longer range missiles currently in the Iranian inventory. These missiles do pose a threat to the southeastern United States, including Washington, DC.

The chance to deploy IRGC troops into America's "back yard" is possibly too great a temptation for Ahmadinejad to pass up. He opposes the presence of American forces in the Middle East and is attempting to turn the tables on the United States. If you ascribe grand strategic thinking to the Iranian president, you could make the case that he is beginning this deployment in a attempt to catalyze an agreement with Obama much like Kennedy did with Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev. In 1962, the United States removed some missiles from Turkey and the Soviets halted the deployment of missiles to Cuba.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad thinks that he can "engage" with Obama for the withdrawal of American forces from the Persian Gulf if he halts Iran's missile deployment to the Caribbean. Why would he not think that? He has successfully outmaneuvered the Obama Administration at virtually every turn. There has been no slowdown in Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon because of anything done by the American government. The most serious impediment to Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a computer virus at some Iranian uranium enrichment facilities and the assassination of two of its top nuclear scientists. Most Middle East analysts, myself included, attribute those incidents to the Israelis.

There are additional troubling aspects of the Iranian-Venezuelan agreement. The missiles will be manned by Iranian military and IRGC officers, in conjunction with Venezuelan military officers. The Venezuelans will receive intensive training in missile technology. The Iranian missiles can be used by the Venezuelans for what is called "national needs." Although that has not been defined, Iranian SRBM's and IRBM's in Venezuela pose a serious threat to American allies in the region, such as Columbia, as well as some American territories (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

Again, if you ascribe grand strategic thinking to Ahmadinejad, you might believe that increased cooperation with Venezuela has other benefits for Iran as well. A few months ago, the Russians backed out of a deal to sell the advanced S-300 air defense system to Iran, citing United Nations sanctions. The Russians are, however, marketing that same weapon system to the Venezuelan armed forces. Perhaps these air defense systems might find their way from Venezuela to Iran? Never underestimate the Iranians; this is exactly the type of Byzantine maneuvering that is common in the bazaars of the region.

Where is the concern?

For those of us who vaguely remember the Cuban missile crisis (I was 11 years old) and our quick lessons in the Monroe Doctrine, the mere thought of offensive missiles in the Western hemisphere is troubling. It is especially troubling when the culprit is the volatile and fairly unpredictable regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leaders believe that the American administration is naive and weak - they may be right. Thus far there has been almost no reaction to the impending deployment of strategic missiles into South America, the deployment of missiles to a country that has demonstrated open hostility to the United States. No reaction is tacit acceptance. Just like the Iranians believe the United States has tacitly accepted their eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons, they believe there is no real action on the horizon to prevent them from stationing offensive weapons only 1000 miles from the United States.

This is another direct challenge to the United States, and yet another test of President Obama's leadership. Where is the concern from Washington?

~~~

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona is a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, a veteran of the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars, and service in the Balkans. His assignments include the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, with tours of duty in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, and operational duties in virtually every country in the Middle East.

During the last year of the Iran–Iraq war in 1988, Rick was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as a liaison officer to the Iraqi armed forces intelligence service, where he served in the field with the Iraqi army and flew with the Iraqi Air Force.

Throughout the first Gulf War he served as the personal Arabic interpreter and advisor on Iraq to General Norman Schwarzkopf and later co-authored the report to Congress on the conduct of the war. His is the author of book, Ally to Adversary – An Eyewitness Account of Iraq’s Fall from Grace.

Following the Gulf War, Rick served as the first air attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria until 1995. In 1995 and 1996, Rick served in northern Iraq with the Central Intelligence Agency, where he narrowly escaped an attempt on his life by Iraqi agents. In 1997 and 1998, he served in the Department of Defense counter terrorism branch and led a special operations team in Bosnia that captured five indicted war criminals.

From 2003 through 2008, Rick was a Middle East military analyst for NBC News. You'll find Lt. Col Francona online at http://francona.blogspot.com/

Iran

The WikiLeaks Documents and the Middle East

By Uzi Rabi, Tel Aviv University
December 21, 2010

American diplomatic accounts of conversations with various Arab leaders released this past week by WikiLeaks, draw a stark outline of the new geopolitical situation in the Middle East. Many regional and international leaders, the documents show, are not focused primarily on Israel’s traditional struggle with the Arab states and the Palestinians. Rather, their more immediate and acute concerns are with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, creating tensions between the moderate Arab camp (the Arab Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan) and other Middle Eastern actors (Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas, and to some extent, Turkey).

The WikiLeaks documents call attention to a yawning rift that has opened up between the Arab states adjacent to the Persian Gulf and Iran. Arab leaders are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, and their opinions of the Shi'i state and its president, as cited by American diplomats and officials, reveal suspicion and animosity reinforced by deeply rooted religious (Sunni vs. Shi'i) and ethnic (Arab vs. Persian) divisions.

Gulf leaders are quoted as urging the United States to attack Iran as quickly as possible. Saudi King Abdullah was particularly graphic, calling on Washington to “cut the head off of the snake.” Economic sanctions were preferable, he said, but “the use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out.”

Two years ago, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal went as far as proposing an Arab-led military force to destroy Hizbullah in order to prevent an "Iranian takeover of Lebanon." In December 2005, United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayid told U.S. CENTCOM head, General John Abizaid, that the Iranians had to be “dealt with before they do something tragic.” UAE military leaders were quoted as agreeing with the Americans that “President Ahmadinejad seemed unbalanced, crazy even.” Crown Prince bin Zayid called Ahmadinejad “Hitler” and pressed for an Israeli attack against Iran.

Earlier this year international media sources revealed that Israel and Saudi Arabia had engaged in secret talks, in which Saudi Arabia implied that it would turn a blind eye if Israel were to use the Saudi desert as a fly-over corridor to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Barring such an attack, nuclear Iran would become a regional superpower able to pressure Gulf states to line up behind it; it could serve as a source of inspiration and support for radical groups in the Gulf states and beyond; and a regional nuclear arms race would likely ensue.

In response, Iran released a statement dismissing the documents as U.S. propaganda, and claimed that relations with its Gulf neighbors will not be affected. However, this seems unlikely: The WikiLeaks disclosures have widened the deep-rooted divisions between the Arab Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (the Upper Gulf states), and Iran, which does not bode well for Arab-Iranian and Sunni-Shi'i relations in the coming year.

The WikiLeaks documents also shed light on the ongoing military and diplomatic cooperation between Iran and Turkey, suggesting the beginnings of a new axis in the region. The documents do note that while Turkey is drawing nearer to the Muslim Middle East, this does not necessarily imply an end to its relationship with the United States. Nonetheless, the strains between Ankara and Washington reverberate throughout the documents and beyond.

For example, one document states that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan holds eight private bank accounts in Switzerland. He vehemently denied the claim and accused the American diplomat who wrote it of slander; Turkey quickly accused the US of deliberately leaking them and, like Iran, dismissed their publication as American propaganda. The deputy leader of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP), Huseyin Celik, went as far as accusing Israel of engineering the leak in order to weaken the Turkish government. Still, Erdogan's political enemies are making the most of the revelations, and his attempts to delegitimize the documents may well be motivated by personal considerations.

While Israel has possessed a nuclear capability for over 40 years, WikiLeaks documents show that it is Iran’s nuclear ambitions that currently worry Arab states: for them, the prospect of two Middle Eastern nuclear powers in confrontation with one another is positively frightening. Still, Israel's nuclear capability is hardly comforting to Arab states. Egypt, for example, has for 15 years spearheaded an effort to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone.

The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference included mention of an Egyptian-tendered plan to convene a regional summit in 2012 to discuss the possibility of implementing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. The likely success of this initiative was undermined from the beginning by the fact that it targets Israel, calling for it to join the NPT as soon as possible and to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection.

Egyptian president Husni Mubarak stated that “the Middle East does not need any nuclear powers, be they Iran or Israel­ what we need is peace, security, stability and development."

For Israel, the documents­ which refer to Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's encouraging the US to organize a coup in Iran ­are embarrassing, but not necessarily damaging. There are relatively few references to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the documents, and the issue has taken a back seat to nuclear Iran in recent Arab-American diplomatic discussions.

The Arab states' deep fear of Iran's regional ambitions, which are a source of inspiration to its clients, Hamas and Hizbullah, outweighs their concern with the intractable, but not immediately threatening Israel-Palestine issue. Nonetheless, although the Israeli-Palestinian issue is on the diplomatic backburner, we should not expect Arab leaders to cease pointing to Israel as the culprit responsible for the failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace. Moreover, they insist on the existence of linkage­, i.e., that successful pressure on Israel in order to achieve a peace agreement will strengthen them in their efforts to combat Iran's bid for regional hegemony.

Israel should not grow complacent because of the relatively positive light in which it is portrayed in the American diplomatic documents. Rather, it should take a close look at the documents' revelations concerning the changing geostrategic calculations in the region and seek to forge alliance s­even partial or tacit ones­ based on common vital strategic interests.

In reading between the lines of their conversations with American diplomats, Arab leaders seem to view the Obama administration's insistent focus on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as coming at the expense of blocking Iran's rising power. Together with what they view as Administration impotence in affecting a change in Israeli policies, Arab states essentially confer a grade of "Poor" on Washington's overall performance in the Middle East. The dwindling confidence in US leadership on the part of America's traditional Arab allies may eventually lead to the emergence of new constellations of power in the region.

More generally, the WikiLeaks episode is likely to damage the conduct of diplomacy in the Middle East, as diplomats are apt to be much less candid with one another for fear of further leaks. A short-term side effect could be the hindrance of multi-national efforts within the Middle East and beyond in dealing with problems like counter-terrorism and money laundering, because the documents have exposed channels of cooperation between intelligence agencies, which will be difficult to recreate. Overall, whereas the WikiLeaks documents reveal very little that was not already known, they depict the Middle East as a region at a strategic and diplomatic crossroads.

Iran Challenges Britain, Provokes USA to Military Action

By Ivan Tulyakov, Pravda.Ru
December 21, 2010

British envoy to Teheran Simon Gass probably decided to break the principle "better a bad piece than a good quarrel." Gass's harsh statements triggered a serious diplomatic scandal. The Iranian parliament immediately decided to terminate diplomatic ties with London, although there is a chance that the situation may change for the better.

The rupture of diplomatic relations between two countries usually occurs when the two sides either approach the verge of a military conflict or have already started it. Usually, diplomats stick to the principle of having a bad piece than a good quarrel.

The relations between Iran and Britain have been highly tense because of the Iranian nuclear program. The attempts against the lives of Iranian nuclear physicists, which took place in Iran on November 29, aggravated the confrontation between the two countries even more. Iranian officials accused Western special services, particularly Britain's MI-6, of masterminding the killing of nuclear physicist Majid Shahriari and injuring laser physicist Professor Fereydoun Abbasi.

The patience of Iranian politicians was exhausted after British envoy to Teheran Simon Gass published a critical opinion on December 9 on the website of the British embassy about the situation with human rights in Iran. The British official accused the Iranian authorities of depriving the nation of fundamental freedoms and paid attention to numerous arrests of journalists and human rights activists.

"Nowhere are they under greater threat than in Iran," Gass said. According to Gass, Britain and Iran differ greatly in their human rights concepts.

Teheran showed an immediate reaction to the article. An action of protest was held on Sunday near the building of the British embassy; a number of Iranian parliamentarians demanded Gass be expelled from the country and the ties with Britain be terminated. Iranian officials directly accused Britain of interfering into internal affairs of the Islamic Republic. Mohammad Karami-Rad, a member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that London's "hostile acts" toward the Islamic republic were cause for concern.

"Members of the commission brought up very important and serious issues regarding a single-urgency motion to sever ties with Britain," he said.

Karami-Rad also said that the committee for security and foreign politics decided to entirely terminate ties with London in spite of the fact that some MPs insisted on restricting the level of cooperation with Britain.

The committee's decision testifies to the fact that Teheran is confronting London deliberately. Iran will be ready to go even further if the West continues to take a critical position about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the meantime, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, stated in Bahrain that the States was prepared to respond to any threat from the Islamic Republic.

According to the Associated Press, Adm. Mullen's statement that "we're very ready" to counter the Iranian regime threat was "an unusually direct acknowledgment that the United States has contingency plans to counter Iran should it make a move."

"From my perspective I see Iran continuing on this path to develop nuclear weapons, and I believe that that development and achieving that goal would be very destabilizing to the region," Mullen added.

WikiLeaks said not so long ago that several Arab states, allies of the United States, asked the USA to strike a preventive blow on Iran. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were especially persistent in their request. Speaking about a possible blow on Iran, Mullen said that such a step would lead to unforeseen consequences in the Middle East. At the same time, the US high-ranking official added, Washington was strongly against Iran's development of nuclear weapons and it would do everything possible to prevent it.

North Korea

Air Force Global Strike Command SPECIAL ALERT

By Canadafirst, ScarletWhore.com
December 19, 2010

UN Security Council to meet amid Korean tensions:

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Saturday that the U.N. Security Council will meet Sunday at 1600 GMT on the soaring tensions on the Korean Peninsula, news reports said. Early Saturday, Russia, a permanent council member, requested an emergency meeting which, according to U.S. sources, might have been held as soon Saturday afternoon, AFP said.

All active personnel serving with the Air Force Global Strike Command have been issued a special alert on Dec 18. Air Force Global Strike Command is responsible for deploying Long Range Strategic Bombers including B-52 and B-2 bombers. There are believed to be 30 B-52 and 11 B-2 bombers stationed at Anderson Air Force base on the Island of Guam. The USAF 36th Wing would be used as the main bomber force in advent of a war on the Korean Peninsula. The Amateur radio operator affiliation known as Sky Watchers has been reporting a substantial increase in Air Traffic at Anderson Air Force base since Dec 15. Strategic bombers deployed from Guam would rendezvous with Fighters from the 5th Air Force stationed in Japan before entering a combat area such as North Korea.

The last confirmed deployment of Stealth Aircraft to Guam was in 2009. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_40484.html

The mission of Air Force Global Strike Command is to “Develop and provide combat-ready forces for nuclear deterrence and global strike operations –Safe –Secure –Credible to support the President of the United States and combatant commanders.

Western Forces Buildup for Korean Attack

By Canadafirst, ScarletWhore.com
December 18, 2010

Four Multi-role Frigates and two air defense destroyers from Canada will meet up with an undisclosed contingent of Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy vessels for what is assumed to be preparations for action on the Korean Peninsula. The UK, Canada and Australia have some 90 Fast-Attack aircraft that can be deployed with 24 hours to the Korean Theater. The Canadian and Australian Airforces operate the F18s while the UK deploys the Tornado. Allied forces could double the available Naval power in the theater by the end of the year with over 1000 Front-line Allied Aircraft deployed by South Korea, the U.S. and other allies. The sheer volume of Western Forces in the Region signals an inevitable war. Not in the last 55 years has their been such a large Western Military Build-up in the Korean peninsula.

The last confirmed deployment of Stealth Aircraft to Guam was in 2009. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_40484.html

The mission of Air Force Global Strike Command is to “Develop and provide combat-ready forces for nuclear deterrence and global strike operations –Safe –Secure –Credible to support the President of the United States and combatant commanders.

North Korea Backs Away from Threat to Attack South

Associated Press
December 20, 2010

North Korea backed off threats to retaliate against South Korea for military drills Monday and reportedly offered concessions on its nuclear program — signs it was looking to lower the temperature on the Korean peninsula after weeks of soaring tensions.

But Pyongyang has feinted toward conciliation before and failed to follow through.

The North's gestures came after South Korea launched fighter jets, evacuated hundreds of residents near its tense land border with the North and sent residents of islands near disputed waters into underground bunkers in case Pyongyang followed through on its vow to attack over the drills.

"It appears that deterrence has been restored," said Daniel Pinkston, Seoul-based analyst with the International Crisis Group think tank. "The North Koreans only understand force or show of force."

It's not the first time that the North has taken the international community down this road. The North has previously been accused of using a mix of aggression and conciliatory gestures to force international negotiations that usually net it much-needed aid. Real progress, meanwhile, on efforts to rid the North of its nuclear weapons programs has been rare.

Monday's drills came nearly a month after the North shelled Yeonpyeong Island, a tiny enclave of fishing communities and military bases about seven miles (11 kilometers) from North Korean shores, in response to an earlier round of South Korean live-fire maneuvers. The North Korean artillery barrage killed two marines and two construction workers in its first attack targeting civilian areas since the 1950-53 Korean War. That clash sent tensions soaring between the two countries — which are still technically at war.

They've remained in a tense standoff since the Nov. 23 attack, and an emergency meeting of U.N. diplomats in New York on Sunday failed to find any solution to the crisis.

But Monday brought some of the first positive signs in weeks, as a high-profile American governor announced what he said were two nuclear concessions from the North.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a frequent unofficial envoy to North Korea and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that during his visit the North agreed to let U.N. atomic inspectors visit its main nuclear complex to make sure it's not producing enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, according to a statement from his office.

The North expelled U.N. inspectors last year, and last month showed a visiting American scientist a new, highly advanced uranium enrichment facility that could give it a second way to make atomic bombs, in addition to its plutonium program. Richardson also said that Pyongyang was willing to sell fresh fuel rods, potentially to South Korea.

"We had positive results," Richardson told Associated Press Television News at the Pyongyang airport on Monday night.

He had been set to brief reporters in Beijing, but his flight was canceled.

"This is the way countries are supposed to act," U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "The South Korean exercise was defensive in nature. The North Koreans were notified in advance. There was no basis for a belligerent response."

Analyst Baek Seung-joo cautioned that the North's reported concessions are only a tactic aimed at easing international pressure. Baek, of the state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul, said the comments would be significant if the North made them officially, rather than through Richardson.

The North was only sounding out U.S. and South Korean intentions by talking to Richardson, Baek said, and if the situation doesn't turn in the North's favor, it will back away.

Pyongyang is believed to be seeking one-on-one talks with the United States before returning to stalled nuclear disarmament negotiations hosted by China. The United States, however, has indicated that a resumption of those talks, without meaningful movement on past nuclear commitments from the North, could be seen as tantamount to rewarding North Korea for behaving badly.

China, on the other hand, has urged a resumption of the talks, and over the weekend, diplomats said it successfully prevented the U.N. Security Council from issuing a statement condemning the North's shelling — as the U.S. and others had wanted.

Beijing is the North's most important ally and has come under pressure to leverage its influence to rein in the North in the wake of the attack. On Monday, a Chinese spokeswoman called again for "maximum restraint" on all sides — just as the North announced it wouldn't retaliate.

Beijing, which provides crucial food and fuel aid to Pyongyang, is wary of pressuring the North in a way that could destabilize it, fearing in part the collapse of the government and a flood of refugees across the border into northeastern China.

It was unclear if Chinese pressure persuaded North Korea not to react to Monday's drills.

Richardson, in fact, appeared to suggest that his visit contributed to the North's backing down.

"During my meetings in Pyongyang, I repeatedly pressed North Korea not to retaliate. The result is that South Korea was able to flex its muscles, and North Korea reacted in a statesmanlike manner," Richardson said in a statement. "I hope this will signal a new chapter and a round of dialogue to lessen tension on the Korean peninsula."

North Korea called Monday's drills a "reckless military provocation" but said after they ended that it was holding its fire because Seoul had changed its firing zones.

The official Korean Central News Agency carried a military statement that suggested that the North viewed Monday's drills differently from the ones that provoked it last month because South Korean shells landed farther south of the North's shores.

The North claims the waters around Yeonpyeong as its territory, and during last month's artillery exchange, the North accused the South of firing artillery into its waters; the South said it fired shells southward, not toward the North.

South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said its artillery Monday was fired in the same direction — toward waters southwest of the island, not toward the North — just as during last month's maneuvers.

"North Korea appeared to have issued this statement because it was afraid" of a full-blown war with South Korea, a Joint Chiefs of Staff officer said on condition of anonymity citing department rules.

In Washington, the Pentagon called the drills routine. There was nothing "provocative, unusual or threatening about them," said U.S. defense spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak ordered preparations to cope with any possible attack by North Korea, even after the drills ended.

Several bloody naval skirmishes have occurred along the Koreas' disputed western sea border in recent years. The North does not recognize the U.N.-drawn sea border in the area.

Satanic Religion of Talmudic Noahidism

Even if i stand alone, I will FOREVER STAND AGAINST the Satanic Religion of Talmudic Noahidism, and will NEVER support those who promote it. - Paul N. Silas, Bibi on Christian Zionists, ChristainChat.com, January 31, 2010



Providing evidence of a possible Zionist Illuminati for a one world religion, on March 26, 1991, President George Bush signed H.J. Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14; he deceptively entitled it 'Education Day, U.S.A.' in honor of a Lubavitch Rabbi's birthday. H.J.RES.104.ENR is a congressional resolution on the Seven Noahide Laws: this resolution effectively sidesteps the first amendment and establishes a national religion. (The bill was passed in the House by a voice vote on March 5, 1991 and was passed by the Senate on March 7, 1991.) Although the term 'Noahide Laws' is not widely known, it is fairly common knowledge among the political and religious powermongers, allegedly representing 'holy writ' passed along to Noah prior to the 'Great Flood.' The Noahide Laws are said to be from the Bible, but evidently are Talmudic; they apply only to non-Jews living under Jewish jurisdiction. According to some, these Laws are to be the basis of the one world religion being pushed by the Committee of 300's New World Order. - Acharya S & Stellar House Publishing

Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, "are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become 'the Bible.' And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity." In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings: He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden. The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does—even wanton murder—as orchestrated by God. - Grace Halsell

Today's Iraq is Exactly What Israel Has Wanted, Motive for Mossad and 911

By Sue4theBillofrights, Daily Paul
September 18, 2010

I still don't know quite what to make of the allegations of Army War College instructor Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who says Mossad was a conspirator in 911, along with elements of our military-industrial complex, which profits obscenely from war. But I have learned to ask the question, "who benefits?"

911 enabled the invasion of Iraq, and although the result has been bad for us, it fits in with goals which have been openly stated for many years by the Israeli NeoCon intelligentsia. Whether Sabrosky is right or wrong, this much is uncanny and extensively documented.

In 1982, the winter issue of Kivunim, “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” by Oded Yinon, an Israeli scholar. Yinon suggests that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions.

In the essay Yinon writes on Iraq:

"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel...Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."

Yinon's essay influenced a generation of Israeli and Israeli-American Neocon thinkers, and in 1996 an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, published the widely-reported “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” intended as advice for Prime Minister Netanyahu, which stated:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

Who were the authors of this Israeli-funded publication aimed at advising Prime Minister Netanyahu? A Who's-Who of prominent dual American-Israeli citizens who would later run George Bush's foreign policy, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

During the Clinton administration, each of these figures was active in the Neoconservative think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which adopted the overthrow of Saddam as one of its key goals, and urged President Clinton to consider doing so by force. Among the signers of a letter to Clinton urging him to overthrow Saddam were Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all became high officials on the Bush foreign policy team. PNAC also, in a document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," lamented that many of its goals would be difficult to achieve "absent a new Pearl Harbor." Other members of PNAC were Dick Cheney, Josh Bolton, and Dov Zakheim.

It is inaccurate to view the invasion of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster, although this is what it has been to America. Viewed from another perspective, Israel's, the continuing low-intensity conflict, and civil war, which prevents the emergence of a strong central government has been a resounding success. Saddam won't be launching any more SCUDS at Tel Aviv.

Once one is convinced that 911 was a demolition, and that the official story is flatly impossible, the question can only turn to who and why. In any crime a good investigator turns to motive, means, and opportunity. Those who had long fervently wished for the deployment of American military power in order to remake the map of the Middle East, suddenly found themselves at the center of the American military-industrial complex, with the responsibility to defend American airspace and to defeat surprise attack.

If, as defenders of the official story say, air defenses were breached because they were looking "outward," beyond US borders, than why were no less than six war games scheduled on the morning of 911 involving terrorist attacks on US targets, some using airplanes as weapons, one of which was to have hit the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, VA? Another exercise sent most of the US interceptor force into the skies over Canada, in Operation Northern Vigilance, on that terrible morning. The assertion that these kinds of attacks were not expected, nor planned for, cannot withstand scrutiny.

The Mossad to which Dr. Sabrosky refers is the Israeli intelligence agency. Its possible involvement in 911, in conjunction with members of the American military-industrial complex, need extend no further than a small, renegade faction of that agency, which would no more represent the Israeli people or even the rest of Mossad than the Iran-Contra gang represented the CIA or America. A television commentator attacking any speculation of Mossad involvement recently said that the charge is being made "without any evidence," conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the key forensic evidence, the WTC steel, was destroyed. That leaves circumstantial evidence, which is evidence nevertheless. She did not mention the USS Liberty, a Mossad operation in which 34 American sailors were killed, in order to sink the Liberty and blame it on Egypt, thus drawing the US into the Six Day War.

There was one problem: due to the heroism of the sailors on that ship, it did not sink, and some lived to tell the tale. It is the heroism of those sailors which is now our guiding light in the face of vicious smears contending that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. We will not back down and go under, just as those sailors would not.

Lubavitch Archives: Three Meetings with Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Providing evidence of a possible Zionist Illuminati for a one world religion, on March 26, 1991, President George Bush signed H.J. Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14; he deceptively entitled it 'Education Day, U.S.A.' in honor of a Lubavitch Rabbi's birthday. H.J.RES.104.ENR is a congressional resolution on the Seven Noahide Laws: this resolution effectively sidesteps the first amendment and establishes a national religion. (The bill was passed in the House by a voice vote on March 5, 1991 and was passed by the Senate on March 7, 1991.) Although the term 'Noahide Laws' is not widely known, it is fairly common knowledge among the political and religious powermongers, allegedly representing 'holy writ' passed along to Noah prior to the 'Great Flood.' The Noahide Laws are said to be from the Bible, but evidently are Talmudic; they apply only to non-Jews living under Jewish jurisdiction. According to some, these Laws are to be the basis of the one world religion being pushed by the Committee of 300's New World Order. ― Acharya S & Stellar House Publishing

Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, "are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become 'the Bible.' And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity." In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings: He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden. The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does—even wanton murder—as orchestrated by God. ― Grace Halsell

Meeting on Simchat Torah 5745 (Thursday, October 18, 1984)

Benjamin Netanyahu: Rebbe, I came to see you.

Rebbe: Just to see, not to talk?

You are going to the house of lies, and when you are there remember that even when you are in the darkest place, it is your job to ignite the flame of truth. This flame spreads into a light that can be seen from afar and dispels the darkness. You have to ignite this flame because you defend in the world [the United Nations] the truth of the Jewish people.

You have to stand strong and proud for the Jewish people in the United Nations.

We see from the history of the wars that the land of Israel has fought, that only by standing strong can you be successful and win.

Look at the crowd here, most of them are still youngsters, these are our future generations…"

[Than the Rebbe asked] Why is Peres not requesting to enlarge the budget [that the United States was granting to Israel], what is this profligacy, now is the time to request.

Meeting on Hoshana Raba 5748 (Thursday, October 14, 1987)

Rebbe: I have read a lot of your work here. A good and sweet year, success in all your endeavors and great success in all your matters.

Benjamin Netanyahu: Honored Rabbi, you constantly follow what is occurring in the State of Israel…

Rebbe: I always follow, however to my disappointment we do not hear…

Benjamin Netanyahu: They hear more than the Rebbe assumes.

Rebbe: Maybe they hear, however there is no good news. The deed is the essential, however perhaps you could influence them from here [in the United Nations].

Benjamin Netanyahu: I am planning in the near future to return to Israel and to battle over the issues there and attempt to have influence [from there].

Rebbe: There is plenty more to influence over here in the United Nations.

Benjamin Netanyahu: It is possible to struggle [for these issues] from the land of Israel. It is of important concern that there should actually be a good replacement.

Rebbe: There is no one to be confident in [that there should be a good replacement].

Benjamin Netanyahu: There are several good contestants.

Rebbe: That is doubtful [that there is a good replacement], and doubt does not take away from the certain [your influence while in the UN].

You know that in the UN there is the factor of the Seven Noahide Laws.

Benjamin Netanyahu: Yes, yes.

Rebbe: It is the duty of the Jew to have influence on the non-Jews. And this is your duty to be active [in influencing the Seven Noah Laws upon the non-Jews in the UN].

Benjamin Netanyahu: I have not forgotten our first meeting, and I have been active in what the honored Rabbi told me, to stand proud and strong [as a Jew], it has been engraved in me and I have acted accordingly.

Rebbe: You sure know that Benjamin was the only one of the tribes who was born in the Land of Israel, and he was active afterwards on the non-Jews and he was the leader of the non-Jews with the proper might and with the "pride of Jacob."

Benjamin Netanyahu: I am serving here for five years…

Rebbe: You could continue to serve here until Moshiach comes!

Meeting on the 2nd of Iyar 5748 (Tuesday, April 19, 1988)

Benjamin Netanyahu: I just finished my term as the ambassador of Israel in the United Nations, and I have started my position as a Knesset member.

Rebbe: Much success. I had a lot of pleasure from your speech. May it be G-d's will that you should continue in this direction, and G-d helps all those which want "to purify others," and especially when it is started with "adorn yourself." Do not take it harshly that I speak regarding these issues in public.

Benjamin Netanyahu: I plan to continue in this exact direction, and I have understood the Rebbe's message well.

Rebbe: This is the best direction in order that they should not have to come to the issue of warfare, war and the like. It should be "In return and in ease you will be saved."

Benjamin Netanyahu: I thank the Rebbe for the possibility he has given me these last few years to come and receive the mental help that the Rebbe has given me, not merely to me, but moreover the entire Jewish nation.

Rebbe: I am just in the beginning of my job, and you are also in the beginning of your job [in the Knesset].

Benjamin Netanyahu: I have come at the beginning of my work to the man in the beginning of his work. And I plan to return to you, honored Rebbe.

Rebbe: You will need to struggle with 119 people. You will for sure not be influenced from them, since G-d has favor for this side. Blessing and success.

Is Zionist Israel America's Friend or Foe?

By Masterpiece, Unexplained-Mysteries.com
March 2, 2006

This post will probably infuriate some of you. Especially those who do not know that Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. On the contrary. Zionism and Judaism are virtually opposites. You can understand this difference by taking a look at this website http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/, which is operated by orthodox Jews committed to a fight against Zionism.

Zionists come in all colors and sizes...there are Catholic Zionists, Jewish supremacist Zionists, Christian fundamentalist Zionists, Communist/Socialist Zionists, Fascist Zionists and even Atheist Zzionists. Their general goal, however, remains the same: the geopolitical-industrial-media subjugation, domination and control of Western society.

So the following question really has to be considered and answered: Is Israel really America's ally? Considering Israel's long history, and outright bad habit, of spying on America, and the attack on the USS liberty in 1967, the case for Israel being an enemy of the US could easily be made.

Documentation:
FOX News - Israeli spy operations on US soil up to 911

Part I - "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
Part II - Israeli phone company in U.S.
Part III - Israeli wiretapping potential - back door
Part IV - Conclusion of series and info on some illegal activities of Israelis

12 page articel by AFP about the history of Israeli spy operations on US soil

Loss of Liberty - The attack on the USS Liberty

But the Israeli spy operations on the US are not (at least not these days) the greatest threat Israel poses to America. According to a famous Zionist, and later great American patriot, Mr. Benjamin Freedman, the consequences of unlimited support for Israel could be dire for America. Indeed, it could plunge America into a third world war, starting with an invasion of the Middle-East.

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Zionism after the Judea-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Zionist tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Zionist organizations and Zionist machinations to gain power over America. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before.

Benjamin Freedman Warns America about the coming third World War

The last 40 minutes of this audio file is of lower quality than the first 50 minutes. Hence, a transcript will make his speech easier to understand.

Benjamin Freedman Warns America about the coming third World War (Transcript)

If you do not think Mr. Freedman's warning is worth heeding, then maybe Paul Findley does a better job:

Paul Findley served on Capitol Hill for 22 years. During this time, he had many encounters with Israel's lobby, which exhibited considerable control over Congressional decisions with respect to Israel and the Mid-East. He speaks of treachery and treason among the highest seats of the land, and how many Congressmen put Israel's interests ahead that of America's.

Paul Findley dares to speak out (Exposes the Israeli lobby in the US - (110 MB)
Paul Findley dares to speak out (Exposes the Israeli lobby in the US - (50 MB)
Paul Findley dares to speak out (Exposes the Israeli lobby in the US - (15 MB)

North Korea

Who’s Provoking Whom in the Koreas?

By Joshua Snyder, LewRockwell.com
December 15, 2010

“Just let me know if I have to worry,” read my mother’s email.

With her son living in South Korea for close to fifteen years, we have been through this several times. Whenever North Korea is in the news, she naturally worries about my safety, and now that I’ve given her a lovely daughter-in-law and two beautiful children, her worries have quadrupled.

Since I’ve been here, there have been raids by commandoes, missile launches, alleged nuclear tests, threats of a “Sea of fire,” two sea battles, claiming six and forty-six South Korean sailors respectively, and, most recently the first artillery exchange since the 1953 armistice that lulled the Korean War, in which four South Koreans, including, most disturbingly, two civilians, were killed.

When I first got here, I, too was, spooked whenever North Korea was in the news, but I soon did what any resident of a foreign country should do; I learned from the locals. I saw that South Koreans didn’t care. They ignored the news coming from the North. They acted like the sibling of someone with Tourette’s Syndrome or severe Autism; while the behavior looked scary to outsiders, they were used to it. Those of us who’ve been “in country” a few years like to laugh at the “rookies” who get all jittery and start packing their bags whenever CNN finds it necessary to show scary pictures of menacing North Korean soldiers at Panmunjŏm.

So I wrote back to my mother, “You don’t have to worry, Mom.”

I lied.

This time is different. This year, South Koreans are talking about it. The naval battle on the eve of the 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup was ignored. (A traffic accident involving the US military at the same time, in which two middle school girls tragically died, was not ignored; there were anti-American demonstrations that brought hundreds of thousands to the streets, unreported by most mainstream media in America.) The sinking of the Ch’ŏnan earlier this year was not ignored, perhaps because the loss of life was so great. The 46 sailors were properly mourned, and, along with the anger directed northward, there seemed to be even more conspiracy analysis in the South regarding their government’s version of the story.

Things are really different with last month’s shelling of the disputed Yŏnpyŏngdo Island, perhaps because of the loss of civilian life and property. My students and colleagues are talking about this event, bringing it up freely, voicing their concerns and fears.

I, too, am a bit nervous, but I’m less nervous about what P’yŏngyang (and Beijing) might intentionally do than what Seoul (and Washington) might accidentally do.

A day after the November 23rd Yŏnpyŏngdo attack, Justin Raimondo rightly noted that “the South Koreans were conducting military ‘exercises’ near the disputed island, which North Korea claims as its territory, and South Korean ships had opened fire,” going on to suggest that “the military exercises, code-named ‘Hoguk,’ involving all four branches of the South Korean armed forces and some 70,000 troops, simulated an attack on North Korea, and were meant to provoke the North Koreans, who responded as might be expected” [Korean Conundrum: Is There a Way Out?]. He continued, “US troops were supposed to have participated in the exercises, but apparently the Americans thought better of it and pulled back at the last moment – perhaps because they knew a provocation was in the making” [ibid].

Mr. Raimondo went on to argue, even more pointedly, “For the South Koreans to conduct military exercises in this explosive region, never mind firing off rounds, is nothing but a naked provocation of the sort the West routinely ascribes to Pyongyang. In the context of North Korea’s recent revelation that it is increasing its nuclear capacity, the South Korean military maneuvers were meant to elicit a violent response – and succeeded in doing so” [ibid].

A few days later, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said of the incident,

“Launching a military attack on civilians is a crime against humanity, even during wartime” [South Korean president takes responsibility for failing to protect country, signals hardened military stance toward North].

Of course, he is about right attacks on civilians being crimes against humanity, but he said nothing of the irresponsibility of holding war games so close to an inhabited and disputed island.

Speaking of President Lee, analyst Peter Lee has argued that:

“Significant North Asian takeaways from the WikiLeaks cables” clearly show that “South Korea, under President Lee Myung-bak, wants the North to collapse and to dominate the reunification process” (while “North Korea is desperate to establish relations with the United States”) and that “South Korean government officials are indefatigably, crudely and rather transparently ‘working the refs’ – selectively packaging and vociferously pushing their arguments – to persuade the United States to abandon mediation through the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and/or negotiation with North Korea and instead put South Korea and its reunification agenda in the diplomatic driver’s seat” [Dear Leader's designs on Uncle Sam].

Since the Yŏnpyŏngdo attack, there have been joint games with the United States, which sent the U.S.S. George Washington, against Chinese warnings (not to mention the warnings of George Washington against “foreign entanglements”). These were followed by joint war games between the United States and Japan, who has her own territorial dispute with Russia, leading South Korean journalist Yi Yong-in to warn that “a ‘three against three’ framework with South Korea, the United States and Japan on one side and North Korea, China, and Russia on the other is showing signs of taking shape once again” and to speak of a “New Cold War” [Cold War alliances reborn with regional tension].

If the danger of a “New Cold War” were not bad enough, there is the very real danger of a hot war, with South Korea launching its own live fire war games in dozens of areas around the peninsula and warning of responding to any North Korean reaction with air strikes:

“The extent of possible South Korean air strikes on the North is not clear, but anything other than an extremely limited and localized action is likely to trigger total war,” warned Koreanologist Gregory Elich, “a war that the U.S. will inevitably be drawn into” [Menacing North Korea].

The last total war on this peninsula resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Chinese, and millions of Koreans. Even a cursory glance at world history shows how a minor incident can escalate to a total war.

(Of this possibility, fellow Korea resident Andray Abrahamian has reminded us,

“If through an overly aggressive deterrence posture war breaks out, millions on both sides could die [and] the two generations of sweat and tears that drove South Korea’s economic growth could be undone,” rightly concluding that “it is absolutely inappropriate for foreign Korea-watchers to call for greater aggression in confronting the North” [Pyongyang stretches deterrence limits].)

There are those who would argue that with the indisputably tyrannical nature of North Korea, total war would be “worth it.” Perhaps the best argument I’ve read recently against such interventionist arguments comes from James Church, pseudonymous Western intelligence officer turned mystery novelist, in the second of his great Inspector O series, Hidden Moon, which he put into the mouth of his North Korean detective hero in a retort to a Western spy caught attempting to destabilize his country:

“This isn’t about you, Inspector, it’s about something bigger. The future of your country. Your people’s future.”

“You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You’re just reciting some crap they handed you at a briefing. My country’s future? Forgive me, Superintendent, I don’t know anything that flourishes when it’s washed in blood. Let’s not float away on visions of the future… What happens here is not yours to worry about. It’s for us, it’s our business, our future, our fate.”

Yes. Let the Koreans, South and North, decide their future. It’s not for us to worry about as it’s their business, their future, their fate. The last thing we Americans need is to get sucked into another war on this peninsula.

Turkey Proposes Alliance with Iran and Syria as Russia Regains Mideast Influence

Turkey Has Proposed Turkey-Iran-Syria Alliance

By Rick Francona, Basil & Spice
June 5, 2010

The Israeli military confrontation of the so-called "freedom flotilla" earlier this week has precipitated a crisis not just between unlikely allies Israel and Turkey, but between NATO allies Turkey and the United States. As the two American allies start a verbal clash, the Obama Administration is finding itself in the middle.

This is just another event in a series of events that have been festering between Ankara and Washington as Turkey gradually changes its focus from being a European Union contender to a regional power broker between Israel, the Arab countries, Muslim/Turkic states of the former Soviet Union and Iran.

Looking a the map of the region, Turkey occupies a key location in a strategic part of the world. It truly is the bridge between East and West - mediator/broker is a good role for the Turks to play, assuming they can pull it off. Their efforts so far have merely alienated one group or the other - not exactly successful mediation.

The latest poke in the Ankara-Tel Aviv spat came today as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Hamas - a group committed to the destruction of Turkish ally Israel - as "resistance fighters." He failed to mention that if Hamas or its affiliated groups had refrained from launching over 8000 rockets into southern Israel over the last five years, the Israeli-imposed embargo would not have been necessary and the recent incident, not to mention last year's IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip, may not have taken place.

Erdogan's words go further:

"Hamas are resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land." Defend it from whom? The Israelis have no designs on the Gaza - they were happy to be rid of it in 2005, the settlers not withstanding. There are no Israeli troops in the Strip as there are on the West Bank. The only Israeli military operations in Gaza are generally retaliatory air strikes following the unending Qassam rocket attacks on southern Israel."

Turkey's spat with Israel is not the only thing that appears to undermine American foreign policy in the region. In an effort that was contrary to the Obama Administration's goal of gaining international support for tougher sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Turkey, along with Brazil, negotiated a sham nuclear deal with Tehran. Turkey has also proposed a Turkey-Syria-Iran alliance - a move that certainly would not be viewed in Washington as the action of an American ally.

For decades, Turkey was a stalwart ally of the United States and NATO. It allowed the coalition in 1990-1991 to use its bases and airspace to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey looked toward Central Asia as its rightful sphere of influence.

During the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, in what many American military planners regard as reneging on a commitment, Turkey first allowed U.S. Army forces to move through Turkey to the Iraqi border, only to change its mid at the last minute, forcing the United States to withdraw an entire mechanized division and redeploy them via the Arabian Peninsula. Again, not the actions of an ally.

Turkey needs to decide whose side they want to be on. Right now they are trying to be all things to all sides while addressing increasing Islamist pressure at home. Unless the Turks determine where Turkey stands, they are likely to become part of our foreign policy issues and not a foreign policy partner.

Lt Col Rick Francona (U.S. Air Force--Retired) enlisted in the Air Force in 1970, and served as a Vietnamese linguist until 1973, conducting aerial reconnaissance missions over Vietnam and Laos. After Arabic language training, he served at a variety of locations in the Middle East from 1975 to 1977, and supported the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1976. In 1978, he became an Arabic language instructor at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.

Iran-Turkey-Syria: An Alliance of Convenience

By Richard Javad Heydarian, Foreign Policy in Focus
July 19, 2010

One of the most striking political consequences of Israel’s raid on the Gaza flotilla at the end of May has been the emergence of a seeming new strategic triangle in the region: an Iran-Turkey-Syria axis. While Iran and Syria are touted as implacable "enemies" of Israel, it is precisely moderate Turkey’s tentative alignment with the two revisionist powers that has caused much anxiety in Western corridors of power.

Turkey’s “neo-Ottomanism,” however, is about climbing the hierarchy of power and becoming a major voice in global affairs, not leading a wave of anti-Israeli sentiments. Moreover, Iran isn't in a mood to relinquish its hard-earned clout in the Arab street and allow Turkey, a NATO member, take the mantle of leadership in the Islamic world.

In fact, in an effort to avoid losing the limelight to Turkey, Iran dispatched its own flotilla to Gaza. On the other hand, Syria, squeezed between two bigger powers and right next to Israel, is most interested in defending its territories, regaining its lands in the Golan Heights, and carving out a place among the region’s main powers. There is no assurance on how Turkey and Iran would effectively assist Syria in achieving its main political goals.

Undoubtedly, the protracted humanitarian crisis in Gaza represents a convergence point for the three countries. But for an alliance to be cemented, there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. The “ménage à trois” is far from an assured deal.

An Evolving Regional Order

The Israel-Palestine conflict has been at the heart of regional affairs since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Defending the rights of Palestinians became the foundation upon which ideology-based movements, alliances, revolutions, and wars were justified, organized, and pursued. Leadership in the Islamic world has also been heavily tied to the same issue. This is the context wherein the de facto Iran-Turkey-Syria axis should be understood, although substantive normalization of relations in the last decade between Turkey and its neighbors Iran and Syria served as a pre-requisite for the supposed alliance.

Syria’s involvement in Lebanon and the Palestinian issue were an inevitable consequence of its pan-Arabism, regional ambitions, and conflict with Israel. After the 1979 revolution Iran became a key sponsor of resistance movements in the region, which placed the Islamic republic at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, being part of the struggle against Israel became part of its very raison d'être.

For decades, both Iran and Syria remained as the main proponents of anti-Israel politics in the region. The election of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, and the country’s rise as a military and economic power added a new pivotal character to an unfolding drama in the Middle East.

Turkey’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had a lot to do with its foreign policy soul-searching — under Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutuğlu — and its ambition to become the main mediator and power-broker in the region. Hence, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict became central to Turkey’s foreign policy démarches.

But, prior to the Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla, Israel consistently frustrated Turkish mediating efforts at bringing Syria and Israel together to negotiate the issue of the occupied Golan Heights.

After the 2008 Israeli invasion of Gaza, Israel’s refusal to allow Turkish officials to enter Gaza enraged the Turks. According to Ali Babacan, then-Turkey’s foreign minister, “I personally warned Ehud Barak that we would react very seriously if Israel did anything in Gaza.”

The drama culminated with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s emotional display at the Davos World Economic Forum in 2009, where he shrieked at President Shimon Peres, “You Israelis know how to kill.” This was followed by a series of diplomatic spats between the two countries and a wave of anti-Israel television series in Turkey.

The flotilla massacre, which led to the death of nine Turkish citizens, reinforced Turkey’s growing opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza. Turkey’s explicit opposition to Israel’s actions and threats to end diplomatic relations with the Jewish state this summer was an unequivocal response to Israel’s intransigence.

Looking at the bigger picture, recent years have witnessed a significant shift in Middle Eastern affairs. Regional powers have stepped in to resolve conflicts and diffuse growing tensions in different corners of the Middle East. This took place as the United States gradually lost both its leverage and political will to address protracted crises in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and security concerns in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. With this shift away from the United States as the dominant power-broker, it’s natural for regional powers to extend their reach and step up to fill the power vacuum.

Marwan Bishara of al Jazeera writes, “The rapprochement between Iran, Turkey and Syria is creating a new regional axis that, for all practical purposes, could replace the diminished Arab triangle of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria and transform the region in the process."

On the issue of Gaza, Iran, Turkey, and Syria happen to share an identical concern: Israel.

Iran-Turkey Rivalry

Iran and Turkey are perhaps today’s most important regional powers and their growing ties signal a positive move towards a new and more stable regional power configuration. The warmth of their rapprochement — which started in 1997 with Iran’s election of President Mohammed Khatami, and was consolidated with the rise of the AKP in Turkey since 2002 — has concealed the underlying tensions that define the rivalry between these two powers.

While Iran and Turkey’s strategic interests have converged in recent history, the roots of the contention between the two states is buried deep in their past. While the Persians dominated the entire region for almost a millennium, the Ottomans occupied that dominant role after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. For centuries, both the Ottomans and the Persians competed for influence in the Caucasus and West Asia, waged intermittent wars against one another. Such imperial legacies are, in many ways, embedded within the national psyche of both countries.

Adding to this nationalist antagonism, ethnic tensions have been a dent in bilateral relations. Worried that the Turks might influence Iran’s huge Turkic Azeri minority, pre-Revolution leader Reza Shah and his successors embarked on a program of “Persianization” and political centralization at the cost of the Azeri’s demands for federal autonomy. This policy caused significant unease between the two countries.

After the Iranian revolution Turkey was increasingly anxious vis-à-vis Iran’s fundamentalist politics, while Iran resented its neighbor, a NATO member, a staunch regional ally of the United States, and a strong supporter of Israel. The political systems in the two neighboring countries were almost an antithesis to one another, adding to the rivalry between the two countries

Iran and Turkey also have reason to compete for Syrian loyalty and support to reinforce their influence within the Levant region. While Iran is interested in having Syria as a key military ally in an event of confrontation with Israel, Turkey might want Syria to be play a more constructive role in the region and serve as a springboard for Turkish maneuverings in Lebanon and Palestine.

Energy is another issue that is driving the competition between the two regional behemoths. Turkey’s growing importance as an energy hub is beginning to overshadow Iran’s ambition to become a global energy superpower. Although Iran is a host to the world’s second largest reserves of oil and natural gas, it is Turkey — while exploiting Iran-Russia energy rivalry — that is serving as a global energy transit point between Europe and Asia.

However, perhaps the most important point of contention between the two countries is the apparent mutual exclusivity of the grand ambitions harbored by the two powers. An assertive Turkey is beginning to position itself at the center of the Islamic world and regional affairs in central Asia and the Caucasus. This directly challenges Iran’s political objectives, which are directed at making Iran a major player — if not the main player — in the same spheres.

Trade between the two countries is also hugely one-sided — irking the Turks who complain about Iran’s protectionism — and there are no serious military relations between the two countries. Additionally, Turkey is a major economic and political partner of Azerbaijan, a fellow Turkic country, Iran’s northern neighbor, and a country that has cultivated strong ties with Israel despite Iran’s vehement objections. Moreover, Iranians by no means appreciate Turkey’s subtle appeals to pan-Turkism in Central Asia, supposedly in Iran’s backyard.

Finally, Iran’s nuclear program is a main source of concern to the Turks. Turkey is simply against the idea of a nuclear Iran, or a virtually nuclear Iran, since it knows how this will reinforce Iran’s position as the main power in the region — assuming others do not follow in Iran’s steps.

Meanwhile, Turkey is also ensuring that no major additional conflicts erupt in the region. By pushing for the implementation of the May 2010 Tehran Declaration (the nuclear deal between Turkey, Brazil, and Iran that bypassed the United Nations) and pursuing aggressive diplomacy, Turkey is trying to ameliorate growing tensions between the West and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. Caught at the crossroads of East and West, Turkey is trying to avoid a war between Iran and Israel, and Israel’s staunch ally, the United States.

In addition to deterring a battle on it’s borders, Turkey has economic incentive to defray tensions with the Islamic Republic. The two countrys enjoy multi-billion-dollar energy-related trade and investment relations. Any conflict over Iran could compromise those lucrative deals.

Common concerns may have pushed the two countries closer to each other — as exemplified by the Tehran Declaration — but serious issues, collectively, could undercut a true alliance between the two powers. Syria might also be forced to decide between the two, if push comes to shove.

Approaching Syria

The rapprochement between Syria and Turkey started in the late 1990s, as part of Turkey’s broader strategic designs — in line with its plans to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria for membership in the European Union — to normalize relations with its neighbors to the East and South. Syria and Turkey have been relatively successful in improving their ties on three pivotal politico-strategic issues: territorial disputes, water-related disputes, and support for Kurdish rebels.

In the last decade, Turkey has been a major investor and trade partner for Syria. In 2009, the two countries engaged in some limited joint-military maneuvers with the defense ministers announcing plans to expand military relations in the future. However, Turkey’s strong ties with NATO members and still operational ties with Israel, Syria’s arch-foe, will remain a sticking point for any deeper partnership between the two.

Given the rivalry between Iran and Turkey, Syria’s strong ties with Tehran might also serve as an obstacle towards a deeper strategic partnership with Ankara. On the economic front, Syria’s trade with Turkey is deeply one-sided. In 2009, Turkey’s exports amounted to $1.4 billion, while Syria only exported $328 million in exchange. Many are beginning to ask if Turkey is engaged in a new phase of neo-colonialism, establishing new patterns of center-periphery relations within its own region. In many ways, the growing bilateral interdependence is highly asymmetrical and fraught with potential challenges that could alter the course of the rapprochement in the future.

Turkey-West interdependence

Both Syria and Iran are aware that Turkey is far from leaving the western alliance and its ambitions are not confined to the East, not to mention Turkey’s deep interdependence with western economies and politico-security alliance.

In terms of external relations, Turkey is still a member of the NATO and its semi-export-oriented economy is heavily dependent on European investment, trade, and tourists. Europe is by far Turkey’s top trade partner and source of investments. In 2007, 56.4 percent of Turkish exports were destined to E.U. markets, while 40.8 percent of its imports came from Europe.

Its politico-security ties with the United States are still atop of the Turkey’s policy agenda.

On the domestic front, AKP’s current actions could be understood as part of its domestic political calculation. Turkey is a Muslim-majority country and undoubtedly many of its citizens have very strong feelings vis-à-vis Israel’s policy in Gaza. The fact that Turkish citizens were killed during the Israeli commando raid adds to this intense affinity between Turks on one hand, and Palestinians and the Islamic world on the other. Given the fervor of democracy in Turkish current politics, it is incumbent upon the Islamic-inspired, democratically elected AKP to respond in strong terms against Israeli actions, if not tap into such sentiments for electoral gains.

Nevertheless, there are limits to how assertive and “Islamized” AKP’s foreign policy can get. Given AKP’s relative losses in the 2007 elections, and growing criticism over and opposition to AKP’s seemingly anti-secular polices, there is simply a limited room for foreign policy alterations.

Principles of secularism are deeply embedded within Turkish politics and entrenched within the Turkish society. The military, as well as a huge portion of Turkish society, is in no position to accept the overriding of fundamental secular principles laid down by the much-revered Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish constitution.

The AKP leaders themselves consistently reiterated their commitment to be part of the European Union and their role as a bridge between East and West. In Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s own words, “We are proud of our religion and identity but at the same time we are part of European culture and European history and we are proud of that identity as well."

On Turkey’s commitment to EU membership, he said, “Until 1999 we had some difficulties, we know that, but after 1999 we were very active to fulfill the criteria."

The AKP’s ideological fervor is in no way geared towards disengaging and decoupling from the West so as to join a Muslim alliance against the west and Israel.

On the other hand, Turkey’s growing nationalism — which feeds its growing assertiveness — has more to do with the EU’s almost insulting reticence vis-à-vis admitting Turkey into the community. It has also something to do with Bush-era U.S. policies in the region, especially the brutal wars still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the instability they brought upon the region.

Turkey has also recently been a target of virulent attacks by neoconservative institutions. For instance some have indicated that some of Turkey’s emerging alliances in the region are grounds for it to be kicked out of NATO. According to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), "If Turkey finds its best friends to be Iran, Hamas, Syria, and Brazil (look for Venezuela in the future), the security of that information (and Western technology in weapons in Turkey's arsenal) is suspect. The United States should seriously consider suspending military cooperation with Turkey as a prelude to removing it from the organization.”

Neoconservatives are no longer the dominant force in the U.S. political establishment. However, they have been exerting immense pressure on the Obama administration on a range of key issues: from the healthcare reform, and the war in Afghanistan, to isolating Iran over its nuclear program. Moreover, the stance of the Israel lobby on the issue, and its influence on the Obama administration, is a key consideration when speculating on the future approach of the United States and Turkey. Nevertheless, good relations with Turkey are a prime consideration for the Obama administration in their attempts to reach out to the Muslim World and preserve unity within the NATO alliance.

Yet despite the residual animosity of past policies in the region, and internal politics that are always a factor, the United States and its allies are not totally bereft of leverage vis-à-vis the Turks. After all, Turkey’s regional maneuverings, in an effort to meet the membership criteria, have a lot to do with its plan to eliminate any of the EU’s doubt with respect to Turkey’s security to the South and East.

The Europeans are in a position to offer more preferable economic incentives to Turkey, as well as ease “political” restrictions on Turkey’s bid for E.U. membership. The United States can also expand its policy of “integrating emerging powers” into the global decision making processes by offering countries like Turkey a more prominent voice in the G-20, the UN Security Council, and other top political bodies.

In light of Turkey’s relatively huge foreign debt, about $274 billion, the West’s influence over the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions can serve as some leverage.

Israel is also actively courting Turkey’s favor with its speedy response to many of Turkey’s demands. First, Israel started releasing Turk members of the flotilla in its custody to appease Ankara. Secondly, Israel also considered easing the blockade on Gaza as part of its publicity campaign.

With all these factors to take into consideration, there might be little reason to expect a true foreign policy shift on the part of Turkey and an enduring alliance with Iran and Syria after all.

Syria, Iran, and Turkey Openly Defy Obama, as Russia Regains Mideast Influence

Obama continually ends up with egg on his face, while Russia is shoring up its ties and influence in the Middle East ahead of a nuclear Iran.

By Barry Rubin, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
May 14, 2010

The world is getting into the habit of making Obama look inept.

The U.S. sends a delegation to Damascus to wean Syria from Iran, and Syria promptly responds by inviting Iran’s president to the country and tightening the relationship. The U.S. praises Pakistan and sends billions in aid, and Pakistan responds by being less than cooperative in dealing with the Times Square bomber.

Now it’s Russia’s turn. Just hours after the Obama administration praised Russia for allegedly cooperating on sanctions against Iran — to justify pushing forward a bilateral nuclear weapons limitation agreement with Moscow — Russia eagerly responded by subverting U.S. Middle East policy.

Russian President Dimitry Medvedev visited Syria and Turkey, taking a very large entourage with him to work on trade and military cooperation agreements. In effect, these meetings marked another step in the creation of an anti-American alliance in the region with Russian backing.

How do we know about this alliance? Because Turkey, Syria, and Iran are openly declaring its existence. How do we know Russia is backing it? Because Medvedev is openly claiming this.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a “friend,” and that Iran is using its nuclear program “for civilian purposes only.” He also said that Israel, not Iran, threatens regional stability.

Syrian government newspaper al-Baa’th declared, in so many words, that the Middle East is coming together in an alliance to reject Westernization, artificial borders, America, and Israel, while embracing various anti-Western conspiracies. What countries are in this new alliance?

Syria, Iran, and Turkey, with their great peoples and their lively peoples and their rejectionist [the Syrian term for radical, anti-Israel, and anti-American] policies are moving toward brotherhood.

The comments from Iran? President Ahmadinejad declared:

[The Americans] are forced to leave the region. … [The U.S.] government has no influence [to stop] … the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties. God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.

In its own way, Russia is joining the circle as well. Medvedev signed deals suggesting that Russia might help Turkey and Syria build nuclear reactors. Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Russian parliamentary foreign liaison committee, called Syria “a strategic partner” with Russia.

In Turkey, Medvedev and his hosts agreed to support Hamas merging with the Palestinian Authority, and insisted that the radical terrorist Islamist group be a full participant in any negotiations on Israel-Palestinian issues.

In the words of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, while standing next to Medvedev:

Unfortunately Palestinians have been split into two. … In order to reunite them, you have to speak to both sides. Hamas won elections in Gaza and cannot be ignored.

Obviously, bringing Hamas into negotiations or melding it together with the existing Palestinian Authority would guarantee the failure of any talks, and possibly result in Hamas takeover of the West Bank, anti-American Palestinian leadership, and the renewal of war with Israel.

Why is Russia doing this? Clearly, there are commercial considerations involved. Russia is desperate for money and export markets, including the ability to sell its weapons which — being inferior to those of the United States — only have a market of countries ineligible to buy American.

Yet commerce is only part of the picture. The current Russian leadership sees the United States as a rival, is jealous of its power, and is angry about losing the Cold War. The shrinking of their country from a mighty superpower to an impoverished wreck makes them steam, and they blame their fall on U.S. machinations. Building up Russian nationalism and returning the United States to enemy status is a way to mobilize popular support for the government.

And finally, there is a genuine ambition to rebuild the old Russian/Soviet empire and spheres of influence.

In short, this is a problem for U.S. leaders that isn’t going to go away. On her first visit to Moscow, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously declared that the Obama administration was going to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations. Now, Russia has defined that reset as to be largely — of course, not fully — a return to the pre-1991 era.

A false issue is the idea that Russia is going to have a problem with the Islamism of its new partners because of its own internal Muslim problem. On the contrary — this alliance is a way to reduce the domestic threat.

By giving Turkey, Syria, and Iran an incentive to be friendly with Russia, Moscow is ensuring that they won’t intervene by backing revolutionary Islamist groups. Indeed, Iran has stayed away from such involvements — Tehran even supports Russia’s ally, Christian Armenia, against Muslim-majority Azerbaijan.

Of course, there is no way that the United States can truly compete with Russia (and Iran) over Syria’s loyalties. The Russians are prepared to fully back Syria’s policies of allying with Iran and returning Lebanon to the status of colony. Russia is happy to sell Syria arms (paid for by Iran).

Presumably, the Russians would encourage Syria not to launch even a Lebanon-based war against Israel, but that is one of the few positive notes.

The situation with Turkey is a bit more complex, since even the Islamist regime is wary of Russia. Yet here too, the Russians have sizable influence with a Turkish regime that has already moved much closer to Iran and Syria.

The big picture? The United States is being edged out of the position of primacy it has enjoyed in the Middle East for twenty years, which dates — and this is no coincidence — from the time of the USSR’s collapse.

With Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons, the strategic balance will shift even more. This outcome also makes Tehran even more attractive as a partner to Moscow.

The situation is very bad, heading towards worse, and made all the more worrisome by the failure of the current U.S. government even to realize what’s occurring.

Inevitable Iran-Turkey-Syria-Russia Alliance

Fars News Agency
Originally Published on November 5, 2007

The Middle East has acquired immense strategic value as one of the determining fulcrums in the global balance of power due to its being the world's largest known storehouse of low-cost energy supplies.

The region's geopolitical importance, the kaleidoscopic nature of politics among its states, the presence of volatile social and political forces within them and the interference of world superpowers all insure that the region will remain a potentially explosive source of tension for years.

Emboldened by its military strength after World War II, Moscow prepared to carve up its southern neighbors. It demanded territorial concessions and control of the Bosporus from Turkey and refused to withdraw from northern Iran, which it had occupied in 1941. Turkey and Iran rebuffed Soviet coercive diplomacy with the support of the United States and became key allies in the American effort to contain Soviet expansion.

The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was a defense alliance between Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Great Britain. Originally named the Baghdad Pact, the name was changed when the Iraqi revolution led Iraq to withdraw in 1959. The United States had observer status in the alliance but was not a party to the treaty. The fall of the shah removed the American shield from Iran, sounded the death knell for the anti-Soviet CENTO alliance and sailed Iran towards new horizons.

Now the same faith is on the road for Turkey. The measureless and injudicious backup given by the occupying power in Iraq -- the US government -- to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and to Massoud Barzani, the former tribal leader of the Iraqi Kurds and now the leader of the Iraqi Kurdish region.

Turkey, taking into consideration the ongoing assaults by the PKK terrorists in the southeastern regions and the measureless backup given by US government to Iraqi Kurds, has drawn up a new strategic alliance policy that weakens ties with the US and strengthens relations with Iran and Syria, its millennium-long neighbors.

The US has failed to keep its promise to Turkey to confront the PKK. Turkey now feels that it has no choice but to attack the PKK's sanctuaries in northern Iraq together with Iran.

Iran is also suffering from similar assaults originating from the same terrorist group located in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq under the name of Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK).

The US and Iran are increasingly at odds over a range of issues, and Turkey has stood nearby the US as an old and devoted ally for the past 57 years, but now the sympathy of Turkish people towards the US had fallen sharply over the past couple of years, and it will take decades for US to recover it.

It seems it is now mandatory for Turkey and Iran to form a common cooperative ground in regard to common problems and interests. New and stronger cooperative action in the economic field by Turkey and Iran will play a major role in the eradication of the political distrust and concerns between the two countries. The parties have announced an upcoming doubling of the volume of their trade.

Both countries have already agreed on the elimination of the main source of discord: support for each other's separatist and oppositional organizations. Iran has committed to adding the PKK to its list of "terrorist organizations." Turkey has done the same concerning the anti-Iran terrorist group "Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO)."

The second stage is the escalation of high-level cooperation between Turkey, Iran and Syria and this is moving forward, as well.

Aversion to American global policy, in particular to the actions of the US in Iraq, the common allies of Syria and Iran, and also shared economic interests, will lead to the merging of the political strategies of Russia and Turkey. Countries that were previously historical opponents will turn into partners in the creation of a new Eurasian coalition.

The final effect of the region's aversion to American policies will be the formation of the "union of four:" Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Of course, this rapprochement between Ankara, Moscow, Damascus and Tehran will definitely affect Washington's position in the Middle East.