This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Enduring Middle East Strategic Framework Begins to Emerge as Iran Surges, and the US Resiles
Submitted by www.oilprice.com
The Enduring Middle East Strategic Framework Begins to Emerge as Iran Surges, and the US Resiles
The lingering impact of August 3, 2010, clash on the Israeli-Lebanese border lies in the greater context of, and wider strategic dynamics in, the Middle East. These aspects were highlighted by HizbAllah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in his speech later that day.
See Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis, August 4, 2010: Clash on Israel-Lebanon Border Holds Potential for Strategic Escalation.
Overall, the issue dominating the overall situation in the Middle East is the reaction by the local powers to the emerging new grand strategic reality: namely, the demise of the United States as the dominant regional power. This is a dramatic reversal of a concentrated US policy of more than half a century.
Back in the Autumn of 1956, the US intentionally undermined the strategic posture of two of its closest Cold War allies, Britain and France. In the late-1960s, the US capitalized on the British unilateral withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and the active Soviet interceding in the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to consolidate the US role as the dominant Western, and later global, power in the Middle East.
This posture endured even after the US betrayed its close ally — the Shah of Iran — and permitted the rise of the Islamic Republic in the late 1970s. Consequently, however, the US has had to intensify its direct involvement in regional crises, culminating in the US active war-fighting in and against Iraq. Come August 31, 2010, the US will be abandoning it all with the disengagement from Iraqi security affairs and the beginning of a year-long withdrawal.
Led by an assertive and determined Iran, the aspirant powers of the region cannot wait to fill the void that is already emerging as the US is disengaging from military operations in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. This strategic posture is aptly demonstrated by the US Barack Obama Administration’s explicit abandonment of the twin-pillars of the US regional posture — Israel and Saudi Arabia — leaving them to cope on their own with a nuclear Iran.
Moreover, the US is exerting immense pressure on Israel not to strike Iran for fear of derailing the rapprochement with Iran which the Obama White House is seeking, and the possibility of Iranian retaliation against the remaining US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Persian Gulf energy infrastructure.
Tehran is cognizant of the significance of these developments. Iran had already started its drive to exploit and fill in vacuums created by the US in the early 1990s. At the time, Iran exploited the widespread trauma as a result of the US undermining and shaming of both (Iraq’s) nationalist Sunni Islam and (Saudi Arabia’s) traditional-conservative Sunni Islam in the 1990-1 Gulf War in order to push its own Shi’ite-based doctrine of revolutionary-militant Islam. By 1992, Sudan’s Hassan al-Turabi adapted the Iranian jihadist tenets and adopted them into the Sunni neo-salafite doctrine, thus setting the grounds for the ascent of the jihadist trend now popularly associated with Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their supporters.
Presently, Tehran is ready to surge and exploit the far more significant vacuum which will be created by the US de facto withdrawal from Iraq and Persian Gulf. The continued global preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program serves Tehran’s interests for it constantly reminds friends and foes alike about Iran’s claim to regional and global preeminence. Tehran uses the nuclear crisis to project self-confidence and threaten its neighbors against counting on the US to protect them.
The Obama Administration is playing into Iran’s hands. For example, on August 1, 2010, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, publicly acknowledged that the US had contingency plans for “the military options [which] have been on the table and remain on the table”, but quickly qualified that any military action against Iran could have “unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world”.
This caveat did not prevent Tehran from issuing counter-threats on August 3, 2010. “If any threat strikes against Iran, the Islamic Republic armed forces are fully prepared to counter them on the ground, sea and air,” IRGC Brig.-Gen. Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan stated. “Military threats of US officials against the Islamic Republic are nothing new, we’re certain that the US military forces are in an appalling condition. The increasing number of deaths and suicide among American forces attest to the failure of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Just to be sure that Tehran’s message was not lost on the West Iran orchestrated on July 28, 2010, a non-lethal attack on the Japanese-owned supertanker M. Star while it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. Apparently, the IRGC fired a few rockets/missiles with inert warheads at the supertanker, thus reminding everybody of Iran’s ability to do greater damage should Tehran choose to.
No less important was the US Fifth Fleet’s inability to prevent the attack, or identify and strike at the perpetrators. The recent claim by the Abdullah Azzam Brigades that the attack was carried out by a martyr-bomber named Ayyub Al Tayshan cannot be taken seriously because the dent in the tankers outer wall and damage to the crew’s cabin are the result of an external explosion and/or the impact of a projectile fired from sea-level; that is, a boat or a shore battery.
Concurrently, Tehran demonstrated its dominance over the key political developments in the Arab world using Damascus as the implementing proxy.
First came the Iran-sponsored mediation between various Shi’ite factions in Iraq. In late-July 2010, Tehran oversaw a series of meetings in Damascus between Iyad Allawi, Moqtada Sadr and Nouri al-Maliki in which the outline of a Shi’ite-wide coalition dominated by Tehran was formulated and agreed upon. It was in Damascus that all leading Shi’ite politicians agreed to Sadr’s demand that the US-backed Maliki would not be elected to a second term specifically because of the US endorsement.
Former transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who had been unseated under US pressure for his pro-Iran policies and replaced by Maliki, has emerged as the compromise candidate. Tehran’s overt dominance over the Iraqi Shi’ite political maneuvers — albeit in Damascus rather than Tehran — are a slap in the US face.
In early August 2010, Saudi Arabia’s King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud traveled to Damascus in order to confer with Pres. Bashar al-Assad. King ‘Abdallah’s primary objective was to explore ways to prevent the eruption of violence in and from Lebanon. Riyadh is most worried about Tehran using the HizbAllah in order to provoke a regional war with Israel, a war which Iran would then be able to exploit in order to further its regional aspirations to the detriment of Riyadh’s vital interests.
Given Tehran’s penchant for exploiting US election seasons for strategic gambits, and given Washington’s indecisiveness and weakness, the King had just experienced first-hand in his visit with Obama, King ‘Abdallah’s apprehension is warranted. Bashar al-Assad made it clear he would not break his close ties with Iran which he considers to be the guarantor of his survival.
However, Bashar agreed with King ‘Abdallah that the eruption of violence in Lebanon would be counterproductive. Essentially, King ‘Abdallah and Bashar have a common short-term objective but conflicting and contradictory long-term goals. Both want to prevent in the near-term a major war which would involve Israel and Iran. In the near-term, King ‘Abdallah fears the ensuing ascent of Iran at the expense of Saudi Arabia, while Bashar fears the destruction of Syria by a vengeful Israel which might lead to his toppling by the Sunni majority.
In the long-term, however, King ‘Abdallah dreads the ascent of Shi’ite Iran while Bashar considers Shi’ite Iran and the HizbAllah as the saviors of the Allawites’ hold onto power against Syria’s Sunni majority.
Hence, King ‘Abdallah and Assad traveled together to Beirut in order to convince Prime Minister Saad Hariri not to challenge Nasrallah’s ascent, fearing that Nasrallah would react with fury to any limit on his power and thus instigate a crisis that would escalate out of control. Just to make sure there was no “misunderstanding” by Hariri, Bashar or King ‘Abdallah, on August 3, 2010, Nasrallah instigated the clash on the border with Israel in order to demonstrate that he could both provoke and flare-up a war (as he did in the Summer of 2006), and that the HizbAllah was in control of the Lebanese Armed Forces or at the least their Shi’ite units.
That evening Nasrallah delivered a major speech in which he stressed the strategy and objectives of Iran and HizbAllah.
“Today we are marking four years since the Lebanon’s victory over the strongest and most terrorist military in the region,” Nasrallah declared. He quickly tied this anniversary with the clashes on the Israeli-Lebanese border earlier that day. “I wanted to start on this topic, but what happened today on the border between Lebanon and Palestine, in which officers and soldiers from our national military fought a battle of heroism, necessitates mention of their strong stance and their sacrifice.” Nasrallah stressed that the latest clashes were an integral part of a continued Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
“Israel’s aggression against Lebanon, its land, and its sovereignty never ceased, but continues in various ways. It has manifested itself in no less than 7,000 Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty since August 14, 2006, over which the world prefers not to open its mouth. These violations occur in the air, land, and sea, and what we saw today was just another expression of this.” HizbAllah, Nasrallah stressed, had been the primary guarantor of Lebanon and its interests throughout this period.
Nasrallah then stressed that HizbAllah intentionally stayed out of the latest clash out of respect for the wishes of the Lebanese Armed Forces. HizbAllah notified the Lebanese Army during the first moments of the clash of its willingness to help. “From the first moment, the opposition went on high alert in the region, followed all the events, and was in contact with the command headquarters. We notified the Lebanese military: We are prepared, we are with you, and we will help you with everything, if needed. Our people and our equipment stand at your disposal,” Nasrallah said. The decision on the extent of HizbAllah’s involvement was reached in direct consultations between HizbAllah and the highest ranking officials in Beirut.
“We also contacted the president, the parliament chairman, and the prime minister and updated them on this. We told them that we will not initiate any move, despite the painful images we saw. They asked for a quiet and responsible opposition. The message was clear to the Israeli enemy: Lebanon, all of Lebanon, will not leave any aggression on its occupied land unanswered and will stand by this courageously,” Nasrallah explained.
Nasrallah then addressed Israel and warned of the dire consequences of any Israeli aggression against Lebanon. “You are the ones threatening war, but Lebanon is not afraid of confronting you. All of the military alignments you dealt with are above the surface, but they are within fortified embankments. Even though we don’t have equipment on the same level, our fighters fight with courage and shocked them.” Nasrallah threatened that HizbAllah “is on alert and is ready to help the military in all the villages on the front. We are not concerned and are not hysterical like their coward settlers. The nation, the opposition, and the military have paid in blood for this act of heroism, but they did not bear fruit. Officers and soldiers in the Lebanese military are our brothers and loved ones. How could it be that the opposition will sit with its armed crossed from now on as the military is bombed? I will saw honestly: We will not sit with arms crossed, and the Israeli hand outstretched to strike the Lebanese military will be cut off by the opposition.”
Nasrallah then shifted to the original theme of his speech: the possibility that HizbAllah officials would be indicted by the International Special Tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005. Originally, the Tribunal identified and was ready to indict senior Syrian intelligence officials and their accomplices in Lebanese intelligence. However, this option was put aside for political reasons and alternate low-risk approaches — such as blaming HizbAllah — were explored.
Nasrallah, however, is adamant on avoiding any accusation of the HizbAllah. After all, Syrian intelligence killed Hariri while the HizbAllah’s security command only provided look-outs and perimeter security. Therefore, Nasrallah made Bashar a veiled offer which he knew Bashar could not refuse. HizbAllah would launch a propaganda campaign shifting the blame onto Israel. Any attempt by Damascus to interfere with this campaign would result in the exposure of the Syrian role.
Nasrallah blamed Israel for exploiting the tragic demise of Hariri for its own nefarious objectives. “They [Israel] speak of a big explosion, a civil war, crisis, and more. We want to expose the truth surrounding the circumstances of al-Hariri’s death, something that from our perspective is the right of every Lebanese. We want to protect the unity of Lebanon and the well-being of its citizens.”
Nasrallah then promised to reveal in a week time the whole truth about Hariri’s assassination and the responsibility of Israel. “This coming Monday [August 9, 2010], I will hold a press conference during which I will present evidence of Israel’s involvement in the al-Hariri assassination and the goings-on in the international tribunal in The Hague. We will present significant proof that Israel, via its agents, tried to convince al-Hariri already in 1993 that HizbAllah wants to assassinate him. We blame the Israeli enemy for the assassination, and the figures I will reveal will open new horizons in the investigation that will lead to the identity of the true murderer.”
And with that promise, Tehran and HizbAllah have wrested control over the political dynamic in Beirut, Damascus, and in effect the entire Arab world. And the threat of a regional explosion keeps rising.
Source: http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/Middle-East/The-Enduring-Middle-East-Strategic-Framework-Begins-to-Emerge-as-Iran-Surges-and-the-US-Resiles.html
Analysis by Yossef Bodansky for Oilprice.com who offer detailed analysis on Oil, alternative Energy, Commodities, Finance and Geopolitics. They also provide free Geopolitical intelligence to help investors gain a greater understanding of world events and the impact they have on certain regions and sectors. Visit: http://www.oilprice.com
»
- 14402 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
YOU, asking ME, if I'VE given up on reasonable discourse.
You've been making up shit all day long. If discourse is your goal, your methods are not reasonable.
Nor, by the way, is Jewhate reasonable.
Dear Crockett, Never mind.
Goodnight Roseanne Roseannadanna.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7gLJr03vNQ&NR=1
The Gilda Radner SNL character who famously ended with "nevermind" was Emily Litella.
What's all this talk about violins on television?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4256/saturday-night-live-emilys-editorial-repl...
Hey, you got me!
So often I've lost count.
A real man admits when he is wrong as I did above. If, when a man admits he is wrong, another man takes that opportunity to not only gloat but to gather unto himself unearned laurels he reveals a base, unwholesome nature.
A real man admits every time he is wrong.
Once is a good start.
I don't understand why you appear to believe that it's fun to pretend to win an argument.
No pretense here.
Well, Ikea, it's been fun, but I'm going to leave you now. But as a parting gift I have something special just for you. I counted up your posts in this thread and got a total of 45. And so, in your honor I have just donated $45 to Free Gaza for the next flotilla.
I look forward to working with you again in the next Israel thread to further this important cause.
Cheers and goodnight.
http://www.freegaza.org/
Wow so glad I read throught this entire thread, when I could have just watched this, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc
skippy, you ignorant slut...
Aren'T we all but, some do try to rectify that state of mind. Mental steel wool (bulk buy) and endless hours of others thoughts, all to get even the slightest glimmer of what has gone on and what will....sigh.
I've stated here before that "If the actors involved the creation and implementation of the balfour declaration (and its early attachments) had stayed true to this:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Then maybe we would not be having such debates. Now how and why events unfolded the way they did is important but, as sad as it is, cannot be undone. Extremism seems to be the road block we must over come if a solution is to be found, and both sides can can lay claim to that distinction.
As an anecdotal observation I'm reminded of my days as a bouncer in night clubs around L.A. Once combatants were separated, interviewed, in almost in every case, it involved a insecure member of either sex instigating the fight over a perception of its diminishment/unwanted advances by others. Al la so mate your telling me you hit that guy cuz your he/she friend said that person did or said something they didn't like, yet you were half way across the club[?] and have no way to verify fact...lol.
Skippy...I was part of a riot at FT. Campbell where just such a thing happened, after all was done some 20 guys went to hospital and one individual that happened to be walking by was attacked and later died, which then turned into a racial issue by the local press, and so on. In the end 3 guys got BCD's for the accusation of murder. All because 3 African American guys from the 2/502 gave a low IQ redneck from the 2/327 getting beer, a hard time for his new hat and boots (of which he would have never had the money before to buy), all observed by a small white gang-banger from Oakland, CA. who then raced back to the 2/327 barracks screaming that he was getting his ass kicked....sigh.
PS. little Gang-banger was later BCDed for having a loaded .357 mag in his room and not in the armory...go figure.
PSS. Extremism is the enemy, we should all check in the mirror, daily.
Nice! Haven't seen that in ... a long time. Thanks for resetting that one!
Or could watch this, in keeping with the 'holy land' theme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
Its an old favorite of mine, thx.
The appalling display of vulgarity, aggressiveness and wickedness by the Israeli-firsters in this thread denotes the untenability of their cause. Their cause being of course to mantain and expand control over the American body politic to secure financial, diplomatic and military handouts to a rogue state; legitimacy, democracy, liberty and the rule of law be damned.
Fortunately, not all Jews are as shameless as the disloyal Zionist droids posting here, and some decent people like Phil Weiss are smart enough to see the writting on the wall, and to discuss it openly.
So here is today's reading tip to the Zionist fifth columnists:
Slater: rightwing Jewish support for Israel risks anti-Semitic backlash when U.S. wakes uphttp://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/slater-rightwing-jewish-support-for-israel...
Talk about some revisionist history. (this guy must have been schooled at Imperialist U).
We didn't backstab britain/france. We took over for them. You might remember another extension of that a little further east, called Vietnam.
After WWII America, with it's global friendly face, put a good spin on the imperialists dirty business. We didn't betray Britain and France, we became their lackey. Doing their dirty work for them. That's not betrayal, that's being SUCKERED.
But alas what else happened around that timeframe, oh yeah, Britain/France sabotaging the Bretton Woods agreement (through gold calls and fx manipulation) and launching us all onto the debt/derivatives bandwagon. End of Bretton Woods = Means for outsourcing.
Only the cheap credit flowing to the top in ever larger numbers somehow fooled a dumb down populace to believe the economic system of post bretton woods was modern, new, and better than ever...instead of the reality that it was broken and rigged to hell and all smoke/mirrors.
We never should of been the 'dominant' power. It's not our place to be imperial masters. It's about soverign nation-states working together, not imperial dominance over another, the british way.
Of course the vacuum the Queen wants to create will create the chaos she needs to create. Then use the chaos for your benefit. So the act of us leaving will create the conflict she desires, but if we stay it benefits her too. We must bite the bullet, get out, and strategically go about the situation. Not play the game of being dumb and dumber.
The Shah of Iran was a scumbag. The Queen loved him. But you see the U.S. can be a scumbag like the Queen can, we actually had to give the 'people' of Iran a chance at expressing themselves, which of course being as fucked up a situation as Iran and the Shah was, created the islamic revolution that occurred. Without the shah, you don't have a revolution. Without imperialism, you don't have that revolution and would not face what we are facing now. Of course as a replacement it couldn't have been another Imperialism-loving crony in the Shah's place.
So I love how the clueless author goes into how WE in our AMERICAN tradition, SCREWED UP, because we allowed the Iranians to form what became their Islamic Revolution. As if, continuing to beat them down would have garnered a better result.
We KNEW, BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR, that when we broke Iraq, Iran would sweep in. So the author it a bit retarded in talking about it like he is. We knew this would happen. If we didn't want it to, we shouldn't of invaded. Now that we have, many years ago, none of this should be a surprise.
Besides wouldn't it be weird to keep Virginia from trading with D.C. because of the civil war? Remember, the lines we know as Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine, Iran were drawn, usually over grand British dinners. I guess the guy who gave the same land to two people must of been drunk, but who cares, right?
Iran is a natural trading and cultural partner with Iraq. You ain't going to be changing this. So Iran will exploit it. At least it's more NATURAL than Imperialist Britain and my fellow U.S. exploiting it. Exploitation is bad, but it's not like we're preventing exploitation ourselves.
Again, how is Iran potential for some exploitation of Iraq directly and implicity threaten an American citizen? So why the fuck should I really care other than for humanitarian and compassion reasons whether we do the screwing or someone else? Let someone else do it....if they will.
So if you really want to end problems like Iran, quit fucking with them imperially. It's really mostly that simple. Imperialism created the islamic revolution by how badly it treated the people of Iran, not to mention 3rd world nations.
Remember, according to Iranians, America is 'The Great Satan'
However, Imperialist Britain, is 'The Greatest Satan'.
They ain't talking about our genetics, they're talking about econoimcs. End the economic rape, and cooler heads can deal with the criminals. But my guess is that the majority of the dynamics that create these sort of things will be gone...at least there. But you then have to implement this worldwide, so the same sort of imperialist rape doesn't go on elsewhere, or else, people may use the same sort of tactics, that their side sees, as at least somewhat 'working'.
Who cares if Iran's 'dominance' over poltical matters in muslim countries, outweighs us. They're muslim! It's their region! Boo fucking hoo if we don't have as much say as the people who live there. That they may have a little more control in their lives.
It's not about such petty emotional hangups as possible like the article author's states we should be concerned about. C'mon, Mr. Imperialist, it's not our fucking business.
It's just so stupid. More wars and more imperialism, instead of fixing what's broken. Where are the water and food projects...oh that's right, us Americans and Britains didn't do it, and didn't allow them to. Gee, I wonder why we have such strife, when our dominance hasn't been used to fix anything. Oh how we should lament they actually have the means to control what can sustain them on their own land. Perish the thought.
Imperialism is the real enemy, not the people of Iran. This author, completely fucks up by not realizing this.