Monday, 31 December 2012

ISRAEL’S DEFENSE STRATEGY OVERHAUL



 
ISRAEL REDEFINES VICTORY IN THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

By Yaakov Lappin via GSI
Senior ISRAELI officials have indicated this month that any round of future fighting with Hezbollah will make last month's Gaza conflict seem minor by comparison. Offense, not defense, is still preferred.

ISRAEL is redefining its concept of military victory in a MIDDLE EAST dominated by terrorist organizations turned quasi-state actors.


ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES (IDF) “KNOCKOUT” IMAGE – OUT OF DATE IN THE 21ST CENTURY BATTLE ARENAS OF THE REGION 

Once, decisive, unmistakable victories, accompanied by conquests of territory that had been used to stage attacks against ISRAEL, provided all parties concerned with a "knockout" image. Victory was seen by the ISRAEL Defense Forces as a clear-cut event, which ended when the enemy raised a white flag. Today, however, the IDF considers this thinking out of date in the 21st century battle arenas of the region, where a terror organization such as Hamas will continue firing rockets into ISRAEL, right up until the last day of a conflict, and claim victory despite absorbing the majority of damages and casualties.


SEIZING CONTROL OF THE ENEMY'S TURF IS SEEN AS A SHORT-TERM INITIATIVE


Today, the goal of seizing control of the enemy's turf is seen as a short-term initiative, and assuming long-term control and responsibility for hostile populations is a highly unpopular development among strategic planners, who now argue that this should be avoided wherever possible.

For decades, the IDF has been facing irregular asymmetric terrorist organizations which can change form, melt away and reform according to their needs.

The last time ISRAEL fought direct battles with organized, hierarchical military foes was during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Today, as the main goal of most conflicts, victory has been replaced by deterrence. Deterrence, rather than clear-cut conquest or triumph over the enemy, has formed the goal of ISRAEL'S last three conflicts: the Second LEBANON War of 2006; Operation Cast Lead against Hamas and Islamic Jihad in 2009 and Operation Pillar of Defense against the same entities in Gaza in November.


WAS THE SECOND LEBANON WAR A REAL VICTORY FOR HEZBOLLAH? 

Although the Second LEBANON War was claimed by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah as a "divine victory," six and a half years later, at the end of 2012, Hezbollah has still not repaired all of the damage it suffered in that conflict, and the LEBANESE-ISRAELI border has never been quieter. Despite several glaring tactical and operational shortcomings, as a deterrent the Second LEBANON War was an ISRAELI victory.

Nevertheless, deterrence-based military achievements are temporary by nature. At some point, deterrence erodes away, and must be reestablished all over again. This is what happened in Gaza last month. And the IDF has been preparing for a fresh confrontation with Hezbollah in LEBANON, which today is armed with at least 50,000 rockets and missiles, many of them with a range of 200 kilometers that can strike deep inside ISRAEL.


1500 TARGETS STRUCK IN GAZA DURING NOVEMBER'S OPERATION OVER THE COURSE OF 8 DAYS, COULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK IN 24 HOURS HAD THE IAF ELECTED TO DO SO


Quietly, the ISRAEL Air Force has been upgrading its weapons systems to allow it to face down Hezbollah with enhanced firepower. The new systems currently installed in IAF jets mean that a very large number of targets can be struck in LEBANON from the air within a very short period of time. The 1500 targets struck in Gaza, for example, during November's operation over the course of eight days, could have been struck in 24 hours had the IAF elected to do so.

ISRAELI intelligence has been mapping out the weapons storehouses in southern LEBANESE villages and towns, and building up a long list of targets, for the day that ISRAEL'S deterrence runs out.

The IDF's evolving new doctrine involves short spells of fighting, in which the IDF hits the other side hard – hard enough to ensure that the ISRAELI home front will enjoy prolonged calm after the fighting ends. As opposed to the mission of utterly destroying Hamas or Hezbollah, such limited goals can be obtained quickly. Hezbollah is fully aware, meanwhile, that should it begin another conflict, it will reap major destruction on LEBANON.

See related Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring articleIDF long-range, largely clandestine and multi-service missions and Depth corps, a new concept for the IDF at: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/05/idf-israeli-defense-forces.html


FLEXIBLE DOCTRINE 


The ISRAELI doctrine is flexible. It allows the IDF to choose the severity of the blows it lands on the enemy, depending on the circumstances of each fight, and the adversary involved.

Senior ISRAELI defense sources have indicated this month that any future round of fighting with Hezbollah will make last month's Gaza conflict seem minor by comparison. Even if the goal will not be to destroy Hezbollah, the organization is still susceptible to enormous damage; it is well aware of its exposure to overwhelming ISRAELI firepower.

The day after a future conflict ends, one defense source said this month, Hezbollah will have to "get up in the morning and explain to their people" why they invited yet more destruction to LEBANON.


HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH MORE VULNERABLE THAN EVER


The fact that Islamist terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah have formed political entities, and are responsible for managing the affairs of their people, means that they are more vulnerable than ever.

Unfortunately, the rocket and missile capabilities possessed by both means that ISRAELI civilians are also in the firing line; and the IDF is not counting on rocket defense systems such as Iron Dome to prevent wide-scale damage and secure future victories. Even in the service of the limited goal of deterrence, offense, not defense, is still preferred.

Finally, the new doctrine is not fixed in stone; should ISRAEL ever find that it cannot deter the enemies on its borders, it may choose to revert to its older method of defending its citizens: fully vanquishing hostile forces, despite the price it may have to pay.


Sunday, 30 December 2012

KOSOVO: NATURAL RESOURCES JACKPOT?






FIRE SALE: “PRIVATIZING” KOSOVO, THE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT WAY

Source: GSI

The Balkan states of ALBANIA and KOSOVO are, without doubt, the most pro-AMERICAN Muslim-majority countries in the world.
According to a new census including religious affiliation – the first since 1930 – ALBANIA now counts 57% of its total population of 2.8 million as Muslim, down from 70% eighty-two years ago. Its Catholic population has remained stable at 10%, and ALBANIAN citizens identifying themselves as Orthodox Christians have fallen from 20% in 1930 to about 7%.

Although KOSOVO does not tally figures for religious communities, the Muslim share of the population is thought to be larger, at around 80%. Both republics are secular.


TURKISH PRESSURE ON ALBANIA TO VOTE “YES” FOR PALESTINIAN OBSERVER SEAT IN THE UNITED NATIONS


AMERICANS are beloved in ALBANIA thanks to a significant history of ALBANIAN immigration and success in AMERICA, and early contributions by ALBANIANS in the U.S. to the national movement for freedom from the OTTOMAN EMPIRE. At the end of November, the ALBANIAN government of Prime Minister Sali Berisha was prepared to vote with the U.S. against a Palestinian observer seat in the United Nations, and, following unsuccessful pressure to vote “yes,” from the TURKISH Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ALBANIA became the sole Muslim-majority UN member to abstain on the Palestinian issue.


KOSOVO does not belong to the UN, although if it did, it might likely have followed the AMERICAN lead and voted against the Palestinian bid, which was supported, among the ex-YUGOSLAV successor states, only by SERBIA. The ALBANIANS of KOSOVO have expressed undiluted appreciation for the actions of the Clinton administration, represented by then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former General Wesley Clark as Supreme Allied Commander for Europe at NATO, in the 1998-99 military intervention that rescued the KOSOVAR ALBANIANS from SERBIAN repression.


Its pro-AMERICAN stance has caused the KOSOVO Republic to be denied diplomatic recognition by most of the Arab states. The late LIBYAN dictator Mu’ammar Al-Qadhdhafi dismissed the KOSOVARS contemptuously as “AMERICAN lapdogs.”


ENERGY QUEST: KOSOVO


Recently, however, Albright and others have commenced new efforts at involvement in KOSOVO that left local people concerned about the intentions of their benefactors of more than a decade past. In The New York Times on December 12, Matthew Brunwasser wrote under a page-one headline, “That Crush at KOSOVO’S Business Door? The Return of U.S. Heroes.” The Times account described Albright and James W. Pardew, a special envoy sent to the Balkans by President Bill Clinton, offering competing bids for privatization of the KOSOVO state postal and telecommunications agency, known as PTK (from its ALBANIAN and SERBIAN initials).


KOSOVO COAL MINES: POTENTIAL FOR SYNTHETIC FUEL PRODUCTION


Coal mining in Kosovo

General Wesley Clark, chairman of Envidity, a CANADIAN firm interested in KOSOVO’S coal mines and potential for synthetic fuel production, has also gone to KOSOVO in search of financial advantage.

But Albright’s involvement has given her the highest profile in the discussion of KOSOVO’S economic future. According to the Times, “Albright Capital Management, founded by Ms. Albright, has been shortlisted in the bidding for a 75 % share in PTK.” 


TheTimes estimates the probable payout to KOSOVO political leaders for PTK, if a deal is consummated, at “between $400 million and $800 million.” Officials of another Albright entity, Albright Stonebridge Group, have a minor share in PTK’s only competitor, the private company IPKO, based in SLOVENIA. Times correspondent Brunwasser wrote that the situation could “threaten… market competition if Ms. Albright’s consortium wins the bid” for PTK.”


Privatization in post-Communist economies often presents multiple problems: State enterprises may be handed over to individuals or groups favored by the prior dictatorial authorities, as has allegedly occurred in SLOVAKIA, previously a part of CZECHOSLOVAKIA. Government-owned companies may also be privatized, turned profitable, and then re-nationalized by authoritarian rulers. In RUSSIA, the Yukos oil company was branded an example of “oligarchic privatization” and taken over by the government of Vladimir Putin, only to be bankrupted between 2003-2007.


“VOUCHER” PRIVATIZATION


The abolition of statist “command” economics has most often been considered a positive outcome in any context. Some observers have advocated “voucher” privatization, through which shares in government-controlled companies are distributed to all the citizens of a country, either free or at a low cost. “Voucher” privatization succeeded most notably in the CZECH Republic.


KOSOVO is among the poorest countries in EUROPE, with the growth of its economy hampered by the failure of the “supervising” international authorities, with titles like the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in KOSOVO (UNMIK) and the EUROPEAN Union Rule of Law Mission in KOSOVO (EULEX). 

They have imposed all of KOSOVO’S most important political decisions, but these have left the country in a calculated stasis since the end of the 1998-99 war. They have interfered with media, elections, and border relations with SERBIA, but have neglected to reform KOSOVO’S financial regulations or even to settle who owns various industries, such as the large-scale Trepca mining complex in northern KOSOVO. Trepca, which produced lead, zinc, gold, silver, and rare minerals, is the object of opposing claims of proprietorship by SERBIA and KOSOVO; it also owes about 40 million Euros to FRENCH, GREEK, and BULGARIAN companies. Similar state assets are KEK, the KOSOVO Energy Corporation, and its subsidiary KEDS, or KOSOVO Electricity Distribution.


TURKISH STRONGHOLD IN KOSOVO


In June 2012, KEDS was sold by the KOSOVO government to a TURKISH consortium, Limak Yatirim Enerji and Calik Enerji Sanayi. Limak owns KOSOVO’S only international airport. Limak also purchased KEDS for 26 million Euros, although its capitalization totaled 180 million Euros. Economic analysts criticized a lack of transparency in the transfer to TURKISH control. KOSOVO still suffers frequent electrical power outages.

Unemployment in KOSOVO is estimated officially at around 50%, although local reporting suggests it is closer to 60%.


When Albright and other humanitarian liberators appear in KOSOVO as “privatizers,” questions are bound to be asked. Although “entrepreneurship” usually means investment and expansion of commerce, in the absence of a secure domestic financial system and other guarantees for legitimate and desirable foreign ventures, KOSOVO’S economy continues to shrink. As a prominent Democrat and Clinton administration figure, Albright is associated with that party’s strident rhetoric against the free market in the 2012 AMERICAN presidential election, including allegations of Republican corporate looting and similar “heartless” practices.




It is difficult for some KOSOVAR political leaders to imagine that Albright’s leap into their economy would create jobs, greater efficiency, and modernization of infrastructure. The KOSOVO “Self-Determination” movement, which is represented in the republic’s parliamentary opposition and which stands for a maximum standard of independence for the country, issued an open letter to the KOSOVAR public. It appealed for e-mails to be sent to prospective bidders for privatization of PTK, criticizing the project for the sell-off of the post and telecoms agency. “Self-Determination” warned that properties were being offered for sale as if they were the private holdings of politicians, rather than resources of all KOSOVO residents.


The “Self-Determination” representatives argued that Kosovo’s leaders aim to drive down the value of the state assets, so that they may be expropriated and sold. “Privatization is a name behind which these officials hide,” the opposition advocates declared. The call by leaders of “Self-Determination” for protests against privatization behind the backs of the populace led to accusations that “Self-Determination” is a violent, anti-American movement.


Albin Kurti, a young philosopher and the articulate founder of “Self-Determination,” refuted in late December charges by U.S. ambassador Tracey-Anne Jacobson that he and his colleagues threatened Madeleine Albright. The leaders of “Self-Determination” pointed out that after they published their letter in September against a distorted privatization, they met with Albright in Kosovo in November. “Self-Determination” did not oppose her visit, or threaten her as Ambassador Jacobson alleged. Kurti has insisted that he and his colleagues respect American principles of freedom, independence, and public responsibility.


The friendship of Kosovo, as a Muslim-majority state, is a major benefit for American foreign policy. The Balkan republic has resisted Islamist radicalization, excluded religion from public education, and acted to protect women’s rights.





Comment by GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS AND MONITORING:  


PART OF THE KOSOVO PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN NATURAL RESOURCES

Though not admitted officially……….


The vast amounts of Mineral deposits in KOSOVO have and still are part of the problems the small country faces, asides of ethnic and religious differences. 


KOSOVO POSSESSES THE WORLD'S FIFTH-LARGEST PROVEN RESERVES OF LIGNITE; KOSOVO also has substantial amounts of other natural resources such as lead, zinc, gold, silver, rare minerals and allegedly uranium. See Mineral Deposits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Kosovo


It is alleged that the USA built Balkans largest army base, Camp Bondsteel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel deliberately on top of a large uranium ore basin in KOSOVO.

In view of these facts it becomes obvious that the northern SERBIAN enclaves of KOSOVO, Mitrovica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovska_Mitrovica etc. where the Trepca mining complex is located insist on “reuniting” with SERBIA and that certain USA entities once again want to make sure to keep a foothold in the region in case, rare minerals, lignite and uranium indeed are available in quantities worthwhile to extract, pending increased market demands for afore mentioned minerals. 

CONTROVERSIAL OPPOSITION FIGURE: ALBIN KURTI


Albin Kurti, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albin_Kurti, has been and still is a controversial figure in KOSOVO. According to known sources Kurti allegedly fosters ties to certain radical UCK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army entities that still are active today and who envision a GREATER ALBANIA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Albania as well as having alleged ties to organized crime groups that terrorize communities, and ties to radical Islamic factions in KOSOVO as well as the notorious SANDŽAK region in MONTENEGRO. 

Vision of "Greater Albania"


See www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/crime_omero.pdf and Sandžak region, not only the gateway for Balkans organized crime syndicates, but also for spreading Wahhbism to Europe? http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/wahhabism-in-bosnia-herzegovina-part-4.html



SANDŽAK IS AN IMPOVERISHED REGION IN SOUTHERN SERBIA


that is predominantly occupied with ethnic Bosniaks, (Bosnian Muslims)with the region technically extending into the northeastern part of MONTENEGRO as well. SANDŽAK is also populated with ALBANIANS within the PreÅ¡evo Valley region. The citizens of SANDŽAK are fairly content with remaining a part of SERBIA, but have highlighted the dearth of economic activity, lack of political representation, and social woes (mainly organized crime and drug use amongst the youth) as primary obstacles for their communities. 


SLOW GROWING WAHHABI MOVEMENT 


These two factors are also targeted as being a reason that various frustrated youth been drawn by the small Wahhabi movement that’s steadily growing in the region. SANDŽAK was treated as a special interest region during the BOSNIAN war, where (SERBIAN military) General Mladić was strictly forbidden from killing Muslims on SERBIAN territory. The bulk of the terror reigned on SANDŽAK’S citizens included harassment and humiliation techniques. But this didn’t stop many SANDŽAK locals from being forcibly bussed across the BOSNIAN border to be killed. 

The pre-war census in 1991 stated that approximately 224,000 BOSNIAKS were living in SANDŽAK, with between 60-80,000 SANDŽAK refugees leaving the region in 1992 to WESTERN EUROPEAN countries, according to UN sources. It is a tell-tale sign of the devastation that the region experienced less than 20 years ago. The region has experienced significant trauma, and growing poverty and perceived discrimination have aggravated existing inter-ethnic tensions in the country. These tensions are simmering, and while they are not an imminent threat to SERBIA and the regions’ stability, the region’s BOSNIAKS must have their overall standard of living improved to enhance other integration mechanisms.


Tuesday, 25 December 2012

ISRAEL AND TURKEY





TURKEY RESUMES NATO TIES WITH ISRAEL

On 29 Jan 2012, Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote amidst rising political tensions between ISRAEL and TURKEY, that:

ISRAELI Exports to TURKEY rise 42% to equal exports to GERMANY  
See:


As claimed in numerous articles on this Blog, TURKEY and ISRAEL can’t really afford to be at each other’s throat over (unofficially) energy issues in the EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA. Gas findings in the region were one of the main reasons, aside of geopolitical strategies in the wake of the Arab Spring, for the rift between the two countries, and not the Gaza flotilla incident, as portrayed in mainstream media. 

See: THE TRUE REASON BEHIND TURKEYS WARMONGERING AGAINST ISRAEL 

 




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute


Now that the Arab Spring has almost evaporated into thin air, TURKEY reevaluated its stance in order to gain maximum geostrategic leverage, thus it comes as no surprise that…….


Via debkafile

……..TURKEY dropped its ban on cooperating with ISRAEL as a third-nation NATO partner at the 28-member alliance meeting in Brussels on Dec. 4, in response to a reprimand from Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen that the ban had "created a lack of confidence among the partners." The same meeting approved the deployment of Patriots on the TURKISH border with Syria.


TURKEY REVIVES STRATEGIC COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL


TURKEY’S consent to effectively revive its strategic cooperation with ISRAEL represents a major breakthrough for Binyamin Netanyahu. As he runs for reelection on Jan. 22, he is constantly accused by opposition leaders of bringing ISRAEL into deep international isolation. TURKEY and NATO have undercut that charge
 President Barack Obama has strived hard to restore TURKISH ties with ISRAEL – and not only on ISRAEL’S behalf, but as a prop for his burgeoning Sunni Muslim Middle East bloc, headed by EGYPT, and a step on the path toward resuscitating the ISRAEL-Palestinian peace process.


The two scenarios are part of a four-point understanding which President Obama and Netanyahu quietly concluded last fall when the US president was campaigning for reelection and which were made known to AMERICA’S EUROPEAN allies, as well as Moscow, Tehran and Ramallah.  


debkafile outlines those four points:


1. The ISRAELI Prime Minister promised last fall not to rock the boat of Obama’s reelection campaign by a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program until his inauguration for a second term on Jan. 21, 2013 – the day before the ISRAELI general election. Netanyahu also agreed to let the direct US-Iranian negotiating track launched in SWITZERLAND on Dec. 1, take its course for three months up to March 1.


2.  President Obama counter-pledged that if at the end of those three months, IRAN’S ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not delivered on the seven stipulations for curtailing on IRAN’S nuclear program, which administration officials put before IRANIAN representatives in those secret talks, the military option would move to the top of AMERICA’S agenda for IRAN.
This was not to say that AMERICA would go to war forthwith. However, if IRAN approached break-out capacity in 2013, as predicted, the US would find it hard to avoid a preemptive operation.
debkafile’s sources report that the direct US-IRAN negotiations launched on Dec. 1 quickly deadlocked. 


OBAMA REWARDS NETANYAHU


3.  During Netanyahu’s critical three-month election campaign, Obama promised him a reprieve from outside pressures - on the understanding that ISRAEL and the Palestinians would get together in March to resume peace negotiations under joint US-Muslim sponsorship.


4. The Moslem side of this sponsorship was projected to consist of EGYPT, TURKEY, QATAR and JORDAN. i.e. the Sunni Muslim-led axis which the Obama administration has been working on with ISRAEL ever since its anti-terrorist operation in the Gaza Strip in November.

Sunday, Dec. 23, it was revealed that TURKEY had assumed its role in the new pro-US axis by dropping its two-year boycott of military cooperation with ISRAEL within the framework of NATO. Ankara initially cut off ties of cooperation over the IDF raid of the TURKISH Mavi Marmara ship which was on a mission to break ISRAEL’S naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.


In recent months, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo and the Turkish MIT intelligence director Fidan Hakan maintained back-channel interchanges and laid the groundwork for the two governments to start working together.  December saw the start of a process for healing relations between Ankara and Jerusalem, urged on both sides by the Obama administration. ISRAEL’S input was deemed necessary for US efforts to extinguish the flames in SYRIA together with its Middle East allies, chiefly EGYPT, and other ventures.

Sunday, Dec. 23, Netanyahu said that “far-reaching changes in the SYRIAN regime are close at hand with implications for the sensitive weaponry [chemical weapons] present there.”

He had obviously been authoritatively briefed on the state of play in the SYRIAN crisis.


THE CHANGING WASHINGTON LANDSCAPE


Obama’s new regional grouping was given its first spurt in mid-November as a product of Israel’s Pillar of Defense operation in the Gaza Strip. It has evolved into the mainspring of the US president’s Middle East policy for his second term.

Netanyahu has taken the four understandings he reached with Obama as the guidelines for his current and post-election policy. However, this week, certain changing circumstances evolving in Washington suggested that the new administration may again be veering away from US military action to curb IRAN’S drive for a nuclear weapon.
One such circumstance was Senator John Kerry’s nomination as Hillary Clinton’s successor in the State Department; another, informed speculation that Chuck Hagel is the frontrunner for defense in place of Leon Panetta.
Hagel’s views on war against IRAN - and ISRAEL per se - approximate those of Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates. Both these appointments would indicate that the US president may be stepping back from - rather than forward to - a military operation against IRAN.


Thursday, Dec. 12, two letters addressed to the White House were released in Washington by a group organized by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the State Department’s No. 3, of former high-ranking US diplomats and generals. One of those letters strongly recommended Hagel’s appointment to defense, while the other just as strongly opposed an AMERICAN attack on IRAN - or even the stiffening of sanctions:
“US military action [against IRAN] would have grave consequences for the US and the region and, short of a full-scale occupation, would not stop IRAN’S nuclear program,” said that missive.


IS THE OBAMA-NETANYAHU ACCORD IN JEOPARDY? 


Although there are still more than three months to go before the understandings he reached with Obama on IRAN are due to go into effect,  Netanyahu is nonetheless getting the feeling that the factions in Washington most adamantly opposed to Jerusalem’s policies and an Israeli role in Obama’s plans are working hard to pull them apart.


ALLEGEDLY PALESTINIANS ARE PLANNING TO DESTABILIZE WEST BANK SECURITY, ENCOURAGING RUMORS THAT A “THIRD INTIFADA” IS IMPENDING



Another party keen to sabotage those understandings is Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). He set out, with the encouragement of some EUROPEAN governments, Western media and RUSSIA, on a campaign for turning up the heat around the Palestinian question. After the UN General Assembly approved his unilateral application for nonstate observer status, he threw out threats to prosecute ISRAEL’S leaders and IDF officers as “war criminals,” gave free rein to Palestinian hotheads acting to destabilize West Bank security, and encouraged rumors that a “third intifada” was impending.

Abu Mazen took those steps to ramp up Palestinian leverage ahead of peace negotiations and give vent to his wounded pride at the decision by Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo and Ankara to exclude him from partnership in the rising Sunni-led bloc.

Netanyahu responded by expanding Jerusalem and settlement expansion. He was visibly unconcerned by the international outcry and by the Palestinian leader’s steps.

Three major issues remain to be settled before the new axis can take off:


1.  The EGYPTIAN President Mohamed Morsi is by no means sure to weather the turmoil against his rule and be in a position to meet President Obama’s high expectations – even on the quiet. The US president had hoped Morsi would identify with his Middle East goals and take the lead in such pursuits as the ISRAELI-Palestinian peace process.  


2.   The SYRIAN conflict has an endless capacity for growing more savage. The approach of chemical and biological warfare on both sides – the government and the insurgents – may confront the US and ISRAEL with the imperative need for strong intervention.


3. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are building up their assets in SYRIA, JORDAN and Sinai with the solid support of local Muslim Brotherhood branches. Those assets are linking up into a ring of terror, which is coiled to strike at JORDAN and ISRAEL and resort to the usual al Qaeda atrocities for thwarting Obama’s designs.


Comment: Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring does not concur with claims that the US and ISRAEL are going to attack IRAN. These warmongering tactics have been used, by both ISRAEL and the US for geopolitical bargaining reasons. Both countries have no real intentions to endeavor such adventure, for the outcome is unpredictable. The same applies for US and NATO intervention in SYRIA. As indicated numerous times on this Blog, ISRAEL, unofficially at least, does not want the Assad regime to go, even if it means that IRAN is at its doorsteps, but at least Assad is predictable. Toppling Assad would only make sense for ISRAEL if it was assured that the new Suni Muslim Brotherhood rulers of SYRIA would create a status-quo between SYRIA and ISRAEL, similar to that of the current regime in Syria and ISRAEL, something that in the light of developments in EGYPT and the evolving situation in SYRIA is utopia.