Monday 29 June 2015

IRAN-SYRIA ALLIANCE:

Illustration: Cem Kızıltuğ


SECTARIANISM OR REALPOLITIK?

“They are witnessing the ISLAMIC awakening and feel profoundly imperiled by the spreading idea of political ISLAM and the rule of ISLAM.”

“The project of political ISLAM has failed, and there should be no mixing between political and religious work.”

These two contradictory remarks were made in the wake of the ARAB “revolutions,” not by two rival MIDDLE EASTERN leaders, but by two longtime allies in the region. The first statement is from IRAN’S leader AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, who has described the ARAB uprisings as an “ISLAMIC Awakening.” The second came from SYRIAN President BASHAR AL-ASSAD, who has called political ISLAM a “plague” and asserts that SYRIA is “the last stronghold of secularism” in the region. The conflicting statements run against the grain of the dominant narrative that describes DAMASCUS-TEHRAN partnership as sectarian and its raison d’état the creation of a “SHI‘A crescent.” In the past four years, the mainstream media and pundits have had a tendency to overplay the split between the SUNNI and SHI‘A  to explain the sanguinary war in SYRIA. In doing so, they have reduced the manifold crisis and the complexity of the DAMASCUS-TEHRAN relationship to a simplified narrative of SUNNI-SHI‘I sectarianism.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOWNPLAY THE SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN DAMASCUS AND TEHRAN

As a key feature of the modern MIDDLE EAST, the SYRIAN-IRANIAN axis has been an important factor in shaping the geopolitics of the region in the past three decades. The partnership between a pan-ARAB secular state and a PERSIAN ISLAMIC Republic—and the longevity of this alliance—has always triggered the curiosity of observers, to which a plethora of academic and journalistic writing attests. Some observers, especially critics of the alliance, tend to trace the roots of the relationship to the reign of the SHI‘I clergy in IRAN and the ALAWITE in SYRIA and simply conclude that religious affinity has been inherent in the formation and continuation of the partnership. This sectarian narrative, so prevalent in the mainstream media, downplays significant political disagreements between DAMASCUS and TEHRAN and overlooks the irony of the paradox in their ideological foundations—a factor which has indeed been vital for perpetuating the alliance.

Background Information: ALAWITES


IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT AMONG THE ARAB REGIMES SYRIA IS THE MOST IMPLACABLE ENEMY OF ISRAEL
http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/the-alawites-and-israel.html



Bashar al-Assad receiving a big shiny golden “Allah” from Ali Larijani, 
the speaker of Iran’s Parliament after a meeting at the 
Presidential Palace in Damascus, Dec. 2014
Contrary to notions of post-revolution IRAN’S foreign policy as fanatic and purely religiously driven, the ISLAMIC Republic’s partnership with BA‘THIST SYRIA was not constructed on a spiritual basis to spread SHI‘A ideology. Rather it was primarily aimed at reaching out to the SUNNI movements in the ARAB EAST, a policy that was in line with TEHRAN’S overall strategy to present itself as the heart of MUSLIM revolutionary struggles and a champion of resistance for both SUNNI and SHI‘I movements. To export the revolution, the clergy in TEHRAN established ties with HAMAs, the ISLAMIC JIHAD in PALESTINE and EGYPT and the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, including its SYRIAN branch, as well as SUNNI clerical factions in LEBANON. This alliance lent a very credible SUNNI dimension to the ISLAMIC Republic’s policy.


THE UNIFICATION OF ISLAM’S TWO SECTS HAS BEEN CENTRAL TO POST-REVOLUTION IRAN’S FOREIGN POLICY.

IRAN’S leaders advocated this kind of MUSLIM unity and issued fatwas that banned the fomenting of disagreements harmful to “the brotherhood of Muslims.” Through specific support for the PALESTINIAN cause and symbolic initiatives such as the declaration of the Week of Unity between the SHI‘A and SUNNI, IRAN has sought to create a united ISLAMIC front against the common enemies of the umma, i.e. the MUSLIM community. This approach in IRAN’S regional policy has continued under the current leader of IRAN, who has repeatedly stated that “IRAN does not seek to PERSIANIZE ARABS or convert other MUSLIMS to SHI‘ISM. IRAN is after … reviving the ISLAMIC umma.

SAUDI ARABIA AND QATAR CONSTANTLY PROJECT A PROVOCATIVE SECTARIAN IMAGE OF TEHRAN’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE REGION

The ISLAMIC Republic’s effort to shed its image as a SHI‘I entity and assume an Islamic universalist discourse should be seen in the historical context of IRAN’S ethnic and religious isolation in the region. Historically, IRAN’S identification with the SHI‘A has been an obstacle to claiming a universalist ISLAMIC mantle and gave its regional rivals a pretext for depicting it as heretical PERSIAN entity. IRAN’S regional rivals have been able to undermine TEHRAN’S endeavor to overcome these ethnic and cultural barriers to its regional influence by highlighting IRAN’S SHI‘I and PERSIAN characteristics. This partly explains why media affiliated with SAUDI ARABIA and QATAR constantly project a provocative sectarian image of Tehran’s involvement in the region to both demonize the clergy and mobilize SUNNI public opinion.


Background Information: QATAR


QATAR AND THE SYRIAN CHAOS



QATAR AT ODDS WITH RUSSIA OVER ITS STANCE ON SYRIA? OR IS IT ABOUT DOMINATING THE GAS ENERGY MARKETS?



THE QATARI PROJECT: “DESTROYING SAUDI ARABIA”?



QATAR RUNS COVERT DESERT TRAINING CAMP FOR ‘MODERATE’ SYRIAN REBELS



QATAR, IT’S ALL ABOUT ENERGY


FOR TEHRAN, THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF SYRIA IS ITS GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AT THE HEART OF THE ARAB EAST AND ITS HISTORIC ROLE AS A BASTION FOR PAN-ARABISM.

This ideological weight was significant during the IRAQ-IRAN war when HAFEZ AL-ASSAD’S support blunted SADDAM HUSSEIN’S anti-IRANIAN propaganda and prevented the conflict from becoming an all-ARAB war against PERSIANS.
SYRIA is an essential link to the frontline of the struggle with ISRAEL and an entry point into the PALESTINIAN and LEBANESE arenas. For IRAN, an unfriendly regime or a power vacuum in DAMASCUS, resulting in the spread of extremists to neighboring countries, would jeopardize IRAN’S allies in both LEBANON and IRAQ. 
The partnership between a divine state in IRAN and a secular BAʿTHIST SYRIA is in the first place a product of these historical and geostrategic factors.

THE IRONY OF THIS ALLIANCE IS THAT THE TWO STATES ESPOUSE CONTRADICTORY IDEOLOGIES.

At odds with prevailing views, it is not religious affinity but ideological disagreement that has been a crucial factor in the longevity of the SYRIAN–IRANIAN axis. As JUBIN GOODARZI argues in his book about SYRIA–IRAN relations, “in the MIDDLE EAST, the record clearly shows that states sharing a common ideology compete for the mantle of leadership rather than form durable alliances.” An example of this is that despite the structural and ideological similarities between ASSAD’S and SADDAM HUSSEIN’S regimes, the unity plans between the two BAATHIST parties in the 1970s ended in failure and animosity partly because each claimed to be the legitimate leader of BA‘THIST PAN-ARABISM.



The ideological paradox, however, did exact a toll on the SYRIA–IRAN relationship in the formative years of the alliance. In the 1980s, the former SYRIAN President HAFEZ AL-ASSAD was concerned with the export of the ISLAMIC Revolution and connections between IRAN and his MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD opposition. While IRAN’S relationship with the SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD remained limited, the clergy’s support for radical SUNNI factions and HEZBOLLAH, an alternative to the pro-SYRIAN secular Amal, led to major tensions between DAMASCUS and TEHRAN in LEBANON. Likewise, the IRANIAN clergy were upset with anti-Islamic practices of the ruling BA‘THISTS. Around the same time that the ayatollahs in IRAN imposed an ISLAMIC dress code on women, the BA‘THISTS in SYRIA sought to enforce the unveiling of women and to target any public ISLAMIC symbols that could bear a trace of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. The IRANIAN diplomats in SYRIA were appalled by the BA‘THIST’S extreme policies, such as harassing ordinary people merely for their Islamic look. At one point SYRIAN security forces even arrested an IRANIAN diplomat and his chadur-clad wife in a DAMASCUS street and took them into custody believing that they were MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD supporters.

ASSAD: POLITICAL ISLAM HAS FAILED

Even though the current turmoil has made DAMASCUS heavily reliant on TEHRAN, political and ideological contradictions are still apparent in their foreign policy. President BASHAR AL-ASSAD calls political ISLAM “a plague that hit the ISLAMIC world” and has proclaimed that “the project of political ISLAM has failed.” This is in stark contrast to the ISLAMIC Republic’s promulgation of political ISLAM in the region. From the very beginning of the ARAB uprisings, IRAN’S leader called them an ISLAMIC Awakening and declared that this “unique historical moment” would usher in ISLAMIST governments in place of pro-WEST authoritarian regimes. But for ASSAD, “ARAB uprisings have only brought chaos.”

INTRIGUING ASPECTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE “ODD COUPLE”- SYRIA AND IRAN


The paradox of the alliance between the IRANIAN clergy and secular BA‘THISTS of SYRIA is one of the most intriguing aspects of the partnership between the “odd couple.” The alliance’s survival to this day despite various internal contradictions and regional differences remains an exceptional phenomenon in the history of the modern MIDDLE EAST. The DAMASCUS-TEHRAN relationship should be primarily analyzed in this context and not by the two states’ common SHI‘I roots. Recognizing the complexity of the historical and geopolitical factors behind the alliance would provide insights into building a common ground with IRAN over solving regional problems, including the conflict in SYRIA.


By Mohammad Ataie, who is an Iranian journalist and a PhD student in History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. 

Sunday 28 June 2015

YEMEN CONFLICT -



COULD BE A CATALYST FOR SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER

YEMEN is at the center of a proxy war between regional heavyweights IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA. It's the source of fears of a broader SUNNI-SHI'ITE conflict. And it has implications far beyond its borders.

Here is a look at the stakeholders in the fight.
THE PLAYING FIELD
The YEMEN conflict is a tale of two’s:
Two leaders: Former President ALI ABDULLAH SALEH (A SHI'A), who was replaced amid the ARAB SPRING uprising by his deputy, current President ABDU RABBU MANSOUR HADI (a SUNNI)
Two regions: NORTH YEMEN and SOUTH YEMEN, which merged in 1990, with SALEH as president
Two capitals: SANAA in the north, and ADEN in the south
Two branches of Islam: YEMEN is more than 99 percent MUSLIM, of which 65 percent are SUNNIS of the SHAFI'I school of thought, and 35 percent are SHI'A of the ZAYDI school.
Two powerful extremist groups: The HUTHIS are SHI'ITE rebels who first took control over north YEMEN, forcing President HADI to flee, expanded their control through most of the country, and are now moving on his refuge in ADEN.
Background Information: YEMEN
A CRITICAL BUT FORGOTTEN FRONT
http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/08/yemen_21.html

SABER-RATTLING - JUST THAT AND NOTHING MORE
http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2013/11/yemen.html

THE GEO-STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF YEMEN

In March, the group put a bounty on HADI'S head, and used the YEMENI Air Force it largely controls (with SALEH'S help) to strike ADEN, forcing HADI to go into hiding. The SUNNI militant group AL-QAEDA in the ARABIAN PENINSULA is the most active AL-QAEDA franchise, controls large areas of north-central YEMEN, and is pitted against the YEMENI government, SAUDI ARABIA, the HUTHIS, southern separatists and, ultimately, the UNITED STATES.

Two regional backers: IRAN supports the HUTHIS, materially and militarily; SAUDI ARABIA backs the YEMENI government headed by HADI, and on March 25 led air strikes involving 10 ARAB countries against HUTHI rebels, leading TEHRAN to denounce the intervention.


SUNNI SOLIDARITY
The countries involved in the SAUDI-led air strikes are SUNNI, underscoring broader SUNNI solidarity centered on GULF ARAB countries but which extends to EGYPT, SUDAN, PAKISTAN, and TURKEY, among others.
Yemen will be the main topic of discussion at an ARAB LEAGUE SUMMIT IN SHARM-EL SHEIKH, EGYPT, with HADI attending. Aside from participants' role in the current YEMEN intervention, the gathering of foreign ministers may move closer to establishing a joint ARAB military force. The idea has been spearheaded by EGYPT and the PERSIAN GULF states as a way of combating terrorism and staving off IRANIAN influence.
SAUDI ARABIA has deployed about 100 aircraft in the YEMEN intervention, dubbed Storm of Resolve, and planes from EGYPT, MOROCCO, JORDAN, SUDAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, KUWAIT, QATAR, and BAHRAIN are also contributing.
SAUDI ARABIA is also is contributing as many as 150,000 troops to the campaign, and EGYPT, JORDAN, and PAKISTAN have expressed their readiness to take part in a ground offensive as well.
SUDAN, which has had traditionally good relations with TEHRAN, also said it was ready to send ground troops.
GLOBAL OIL PRICES IMMEDIATELY SURGED ON NEWS OF SAUDI-LED STRIKES IN YEMEN.
BENCHMARK BRENT crude prices rose nearly 6 percent (to near $60 a barrel), before easing a little due to fears that the military intervention could spark a broader regional conflict and disrupt oil supplies. On March 27, prices fell more than $1 a barrel (midday low $57.76) after GOLDMAN SACHS said the YEMEN campaign would have little effect on global oil supplies.
SAUDI ARABIA, the largest oil producer in the MIDDLE EAST, has been a central figure in the global fall in oil prices that began in 2014. Oil accounted for some 90 percent of SAUDI ARABIA'S budget in 2013, according to Reuters, yet RIYADH has steadfastly refused to cut production to buoy prices.
IRAN has characterized the fall in oil prices as the result of a SAUDI and U.S. conspiracy against TEHRAN, whose oil income has been hurt by sanctions over its contentious nuclear program, and RUSSIA, which relies heavily on oil income and is at odds with the WEST over its intervention in eastern UKRAINE.



Background Information: THE ENERGY EQUATION
IRAN-IRAQ: PIPELINE TO SYRIA UPS ANTE IN PROXY WAR WITH QATAR

IRAN - IRAQ - SYRIA GAS PIPELINE AGREEMENT A “WIN WIN” SITUATION, BUT NOT FOR QATAR AND TURKEY

IS THE TRANS ARABIAN PIPELINE “TAPLINE” THE ANSWER TO FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN THE SYRIAN UPRISING? At http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2011/12/syria-cause-and-effect.html

ENORMOUS GAS FINDINGS AND PROSPECTS OF OIL FINDINGS COMPLICATE TURKEYS STANCE IN THE REGION. At http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2012/02/eastern-mediterranean-sea.html

REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA WOULD DIMINISH RUSSIA’S IMPORTANCE AS GAS EXPORTER AS WELL AS NAVAL PRESENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/syrias-destiny-sealed.html  and


RUSSIA
MOSCOW, which stands to gain from any rise in oil prices, has been working the phones and playing the peacemaker role since the SAUDI-led air strikes began.
Could this be the reason for SAUDI ARABIA'S stance on oil supplies? 

Background Information: RUSSIA

RUSSIA AND SAUDI ARABIA


There's an incredible energy development we've been keeping track of for you over the past year... It's the reason SAUDI ARABIA is acting in desperation... depressing oil prices... and even risking internal unrest. Their (and OPEC’s) very survival is being threatened.

Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN spoke with ISRAELI Prime Minister BENJAMIN NETANYAHU and "expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in YEMEN," according to the KREMLIN press service. He also stressed the importance of "intensifying international efforts to achieve a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in the country."

In a telephone conversation with IRANIAN President HASSAN ROHANI, PUTIN called for the "immediate cessation of hostilities" in YEMEN -- read by the IRANIAN press as a call for SAUDI ARABIA to halt its intervention -- and also expressed satisfaction with progress made in the ongoing nuclear negotiations between IRAN and the six world powers.

IRAN

As TEHRAN tries to cut a nuclear deal in SWITZERLAND that will result in sanctions relief and allow it to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, it must fend off criticism of a possible deal from regional players ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA.
NETANYAHU has been openly critical of the talks, which he argues are not going far enough to ensure that IRAN cannot acquire nuclear weapons, and has raised the alarm about IRAN'S growing influence in the region.


Background Information: ISRAEL AND IRAN

Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:

As mentioned numerous times on this blog, mainstream media and to some extend even alternative media report that IRAN presents the most serious threat to ISRAEL, and that IRAN’S nuclear threat should be a concern for the entire world is mainly a convenient bargaining tool for both, ISRAEL and IRAN. In most likelihood the behind the scene scenario looks rather different. Like with AZERBAIJAN, ISRAEL may conduct secrete wheeling and dealings with the PERSIAN state, a scenario not at all impossible, since ISRAEL’S new political doctrine fosters geopolitical as well as economic alliances with non-Arab Muslim stated. After all the two countries, in the not too distant past, had not always been arch enemies. See:

ARE IRAN AND ISRAEL REALLY ARCHENEMIES, OR IS IT JUST A FACADE? 

IRAN SOFTENS TUNE ON ISRAEL

AZERBAIJAN'S ISRAEL DIPLOMACY TESTS IRAN
and
ISRAEL’S IRAN “WARMONGERING RHETORIC’S” ARE DECEIVING TACTICS FOR A GREATER CAUSE

POLITICAL DYNAMICS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND IRAN’S PRIORITIES IN THE REGION

ISRAEL SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH NINE NON-ARAB MUSLIM STATES

ISRAEL’S ARMENIAN, IRANIAN AND AZERBAIJAN EQUATION

RIYADH has expressed its own concerns about IRAN'S encroachment in the region and has sparked fears of a nuclear arms race by saying that any deal that allows IRAN to enrich uranium will lead SAUDI ARABIA to seek the same.
IRANIAN Foreign Minister MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, who is also IRAN'S chief nuclear negotiator, on March 26 demanded an "immediate stop to the SAUDI military operations in YEMEN." He was also quoted by the ARABIC-language Al-Alam news network as saying IRAN would "spare no effort to contain the crisis in YEMEN."

TURKEY

TURKISH President RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, has been outspoken in his criticism of TEHRAN'S role in YEMEN. "IRAN and the terrorist groups must withdraw," he told FRANCE 24, alluding to HUTHI militants.
"We support SAUDI ARABIA'S intervention," ERDOGAN said, adding that TURKEY "may consider providing logistical support based on the evolution of the situation."


IRANIAN Foreign Minister ZARIF responded to earlier remarks by ERDOGAN in which he accused IRAN of trying to dominate the MIDDLE EAST.
"The Islamic Republic of IRAN is ready for cooperation with its brothers in the region to facilitate dialogue between various groups in YEMEN to maintain unity and return stability and security in that country," FARS quoted ZARIF as saying.

Background Information: ISRAEL, IRAN AND TURKEY

PROFOUND STRATEGIC RIVALRY

SHIITE PERSIANS VERSUS WAHHABI SAUDIS
The MIDDLE EAST is pervaded and increasingly infected by the sectarian rivalry between the SHIITE PERSIANS and the WAHHABI SAUDIS, who are now fighting proxy wars all over the region. At: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/05/turkey-shiite-persians-versus-wahhabi.html

TURKEY AND SYRIA: AN UNDECLARED STATE OF WAR

IRAQ

IRAQ finds itself in a tricky balancing act. It is relying on IRANIAN-backed militias to help beat back an incursion by the hard-core SUNNI ISLAMIC STATE group on the ground, and U.S. air support to strike IS from above.


The UNITED STATES agreed to conduct air strikes in support of BAGHDAD'S effort to retake the SUNNI-stronghold TIKRIT. Once QUDS Force commander QASSEM SOLEIMANI and his IRAN-loyal militias had left the scene, U.S.-led air strikes followed.
During the ARAB League summit in EGYPT, IRAQ can also expect to hear calls for its participation in the establishment of a joint ARAB military force, an idea it has been reluctant to endorse because of its ties to IRAN.

UNITED STATES

YEMEN, once a poster child of success for WASHINGTON, now adds to the complex challenges facing the UNITED STATES in the MIDDLE EAST.
On the one hand, the UNITED STATES is in the unlikely position of being on the same side as IRAN in fighting IS in IRAQ.
But in SYRIA -- where it is also targeting IS -- WASHINGTON is arming some of the groups fighting the IRAN- and RUSSIA-backed regime of BASHAR AL-ASSAD.
And now, the UNITED STATES finds itself backing (not yet militarily, but with logistical and intelligence support) longtime ally SAUDI ARABIA against IRAN-backed militants in YEMEN.
All this at a time when WASHINGTON is trying to seal a nuclear deal with IRAN.

Adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original article written by Michael Scollon for RFERL

Wednesday 24 June 2015

Israeli and Syrian Druze join forces - complicating Israel’s military position vis-à-vis southern Syria

Even if Druze tempers are temporarily calmed over the fate of their Syrian brethren, the fallout from the Syrian civil war has already spilled over into Israel from an unexpected quarter. For nearly five years, Israel carefully kept its hands off the conflict raging on its northern border, restricting itself to responding ad hoc to dangers and building a quiet aid mechanism for selected Syrian rebels. But in recent months, Israel has re-channeled its military intervention into areas close to its border.

The way this involvement is disavowed by Israeli officials is seriously detrimental to the government’s military credibility.

When IDF spokesman Brig. Motti Almoz reiterated past statemants that the military does not identify or assort by organization the injured Syrian rebels reaching the Israeli Golan border for treatment, he found that the Druze serving in Israel’s armed forces and those living in Golan villages knew better. Israeli Druze and Golan villagers - many loyal to Bashar Assad - were so incensed by this and past evasions that they came together for violent action – hence the attacks Monday, June 22, on two IDF ambulances ferrying injured Syrian rebel fighters to hospital.

After the first ambulance was attacked, the second should have been much better secured. It turned out that the military police escorting it were not up to fighting a raging Druze lynch mob outside Majdal Shams on the Golan. The Syrians were badly beaten up and one died later.


Israeli and Golan Druze have found a common cause, in itself a destabilizing factor, in the conviction that Israel is aiding the Syrian Al Qaeda arm, the Nusra Front, although some of the information from South Syria is disinformation slanted by hostile elements for stirring up trouble for Israel.

The thousand-year old secretive sect is treated as heretic by jihadis, including the Nusra Front. When a rebel alliance neared Jabal Druze in Syria, Nusra leaders promised not to harm the Druze provided that they “retreat from their religious mistakes.” They then forced several hundred Druze to convert to Sunni Islam and desecrated their shrines.

Nusra Front is therefore a red flag for the Druze bull

This is just one more complicating factor in considering the ill-defined, fractious rebel alliance fighting in South Syria across from the Israeli Golan.

Israeli protestations that it doesn’t support Al Qaeda-linked rebels may hold true one day, while the next day, that same group may break up and join a jihadi faction. Some of them are constantly on the move in and out of Al Qaeda.


Saudi Arabia ran up against this phenomenon in recent weeks when it bought and armed 3,000 Nusra Front fighters on condition that they leave their group and join up under an umbrella anti-Assad rebel front called the Southern Front, or the Southern Army of Conquest.

The Saudi step relieved Israel of charges of supporting jihadi movements. But it was no means let off the hook as far as the Druze were concerned, because of the notoriously volatile nature of the rebel movement.


Most of Nusra’s commanders did indeed repudiate their allegiance to Al Qaeda to win Saudi backing, but they soon switched back after Nusra in the north spearheaded major rebel victories. Clearly, victorious groups hold a fatal attraction for the hundreds of hazy rebel factions

The Druze demand for Israel to abandon the Nusra Front is tantamount to its repudiating the Syrian rebel cause at large. For the IDF this is a non-option: Ditching its under-the-radar links with certain Syrian rebel groups is the recipe for ending the relative calm on its Golan border with Syria. And withdrawing from its cooperation with the US-Saudi-Jordanian backed rebel force would endanger their effort to capture southern Syria, in the same way as comparable forces attained control of most of the north.

At the same time, the Israeli government must persuade its up-in-arms Druze citizens that IDF actions in South Syria will not bring harm to their Syrian brethren. This is an uphill task that may not prevent further Druze violence.

Via DEBKAfile

Sunday 21 June 2015

RUSSIA AND THE BALKAN



RUSSIA’S UNENDING BALKAN INTRIGUES

Historically, RUSSIA has treated the BALKANS as an area solidly within its sphere of vital interests, and that is still the case today. While individual BALKAN countries are not especially important geostrategic players in EUROPE, their location imparts to them a greater, even possibly exaggerated, significance in RUSSIAN thinking. Moreover, WESTERN anxiety about the area has grown with MOSCOW’S invasion of UKRAINE, military buildup in the BLACK SEA and the possibility of further military action involving RUSSIA’S satellite “proto-state” in the MOLDOVAN separatist region of TRANSNISTRIA—or even an attack on MOLDOVA. MOSCOW uses every instrument of power it possesses in order to enhance its influence and diminish WESTERN presence in the BALKANS and will arguably exploit any source of trouble for its purposes.

Background Information:

COMPETITION FOR MOLDOVA BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION IS GETTING MORE INTENSE


UNFREEZING ALL OF THE ‘FROZEN’ CONFLICTS INSIDE THE OLD BORDERS OF SOVIET MOLDOVA – A PANDORA’S BOX


MACEDONIA is a case in point. The rioting that broke out there in May over a government wiretapping program evolved into large-scale protests against the government of Prime Minister NICOLA GRUEVSKI. Adding to this domestic crisis were concurrent ethnic riots spurred by the killing of a young MACEDONIAN man by an ethnic ALBANIAN robber (Osw.waw.pl, May 20; Balkan Insight, May 21). At the same time, violence broke out in KOSOVO. Aiming to incite trouble, RUSSIAN Foreign Minister SERGEI LAVROV immediately blamed the WEST for this political and ethnic unrest. LAVROV also accused the EUROPEAN UNION and the UNITED STATES of trying to undermine the MACEDONIAN government—allegedly, on account of its strong support for RUSSIA’S new pet project, the TURKISH Stream natural gas pipeline. RUSSIA’S ambassador to the EU, VLADIMIR CHIZHOV, seconded LAVROV’S bizarre charges, admitting implicitly that the only truly viable route for TURKISH Stream is through MACEDONIA. Therefore, GRUEVSKI’S fall could seriously damage prospects for the pipeline’s completion.

RUSSIA’S LENINST-STYLE FOREIGN POLICY?

Supposedly, these RUSSIAN assertions were prompted by GRUEVSKI’S earlier refusal to join the WEST’S sanctions against RUSSIA as well as his growing dependence upon RUSSIA following the EU and US’s withdrawal of support due to the ethnic violence and wiretapping scandal in MACEDONIA. But in fact, LAVROV’S and CHIZHOV’S comments highlight not only MOSCOW’S utter cynicism and paranoia but also one of the most long-standing aspects of RUSSIAN foreign behavior, indeed one traceable to the SOVIET government of VLADIMIR LENIN. This phenomenon is RUSSIA’S egocentric and paranoid belief that whatever happens in the world—and especially within its extended neighborhood—must be due either to MOSCOW’S efforts or, alternatively, to WASHINGTON’S or BRUSSELS’ machinations to undermine RUSSIAN power and reduce its influence. This “sacred egoism” reinforces RUSSIA’S natural paranoia and confirms MOSCOW’S great power syndrome because it implicitly denies that other countries’ internal affairs could possibly have no connection to RUSSIAN policy.

DOES RUSSIA WANT TO GAIN MAJOR LEVERAGE OVER GREECE’S POLITICS?

Thus, RUSSIA’S LENINST-style foreign policy egoism as well as its historical efforts to oust the WEST from the BALKANS and create a sphere of influence there go hand in hand; together, they represent MOSCOW’S unending efforts to control the BALKAN region. One of the most practical regional issues for MOSCOW is the transmission of RUSSIAN energy through the BALKANS to CENTRAL EUROPE. RUSSIA aims to cement a monopoly on providing this energy; yet, it neglects to do the practical things necessary to build pipelines or win local governments’ willing assent to its plans. In seeking to eliminate rivals to its regional energy strategies, RUSSIA is obstructing AZERBAIJAN’S efforts to buy a 66-percent stake in the GREEK gas grid operator DESFA. MOSCOW has long coveted not only the GREEK grid but also other distribution networks throughout EUROPE. If RUSSIA can block AZERBAIJAN here and gain this contract for itself, it will be able to control domestic distribution and gain major leverage over GREECE’S politics. 

Even more importantly, RUSSIAN control of DESFA could also thwart AZERBAIJAN and TURKEY’S TRANS-ANATOLIAN Gas Pipeline (TANAP), which will connect to the planned TRANS-ADRIATIC PIPELINE (TAP). In that instance, RUSSIA would become the sole purveyor of energy through the BALKANS to ITALY or AUSTRIA and GERMANY. These intrigues indicate the centrality of Greece to BALKAN pipeline projects. Indeed, the US, too, is seeking to pressure GREECE to reject TURKISH Stream and solely support TANAP-TAP instead. And WASHINGTON is pushing TANAP-TAP throughout the BALKANS.

But even as MOSCOW brings pressure to bear on smaller countries, it has also undermined its own position by its heavy-handed policies. Thus, when RUSSIA abruptly terminated the former SOUTH STREAM gas pipeline project in December 2014, without previously notifying anyone, SERBIA was furious. As a result SERBIAN Prime Minister ALEXANDER VUCIC recently publicly announced that SERBIA will accept US calls to reduce its dependence on RUSSIAN gas by joining the TANAP-TAP line. This represents a major blow to TURKISH STREAM because all BALKAN pipelines to the west must go through SERBIA or face expensive rerouting through HUNGARY and SLOVAKIA to AUSTRIA and beyond. Moreover, although SERBIA refused to join EUROPE’S sanctions on RUSSIA, it is still moving to formally join the EU.

Finally, diplomats in WASHINGTON point out that for all the talk of TURKISH STREAM and RUSSIAN-sponsored reports that HUNGARY and GREECE will join it, to date no agreements have been signed or financing arranged. Thus, there is an element of bluff to RUSSIA’S position as it sees determined indigenous and US counters to its policies in MACEDONIA, GREECE and SERBIA. MOSCOW will, undoubtedly, continue to exploit every conceivable fissure in the BALKANS. But now it appears that the game has been joined in earnest by the WEST, which alone has the resources to actually deliver tangible benefits to the BALKANS at reasonable prices. As a radio announcer might say: stay tuned, for rivalries in the BALKANS are likely to heat up.

By: Stephen Blank via Eurasia