BRITAIN AND THE FALKLAND / MALVINAS WAR - 33 YEARS LATER

BRITISH PRESENCE ON THE MALVINAS – FALKLAND ISLANDS IS PRIMARILY ABOUT FAST ACCESS TO THE ANTARCTICA, OIL EXTRACTION AND FISHERY INDUSTRY INTERESTS

Antarctica

February 2012, Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote: 

IT’S ABOUT  ANTARCTICA 

Recent warmongering over the MALVINAS - FALKLAND Islands between BRITAIN and ARGENTINA on the eve of the 30^thanniversary of the FALKLAND –MALVINAS war are not about the defense of the Islanders and the rest of confrontational rhetoric’s BRITAIN uses to justify its recent actions. They are  about latest oil discoveries, fishing industry interests and to ensure a military stronghold on the SOUTHERN CONE in order to have quick access to the ANTARCTICA the minute the ANTARCTIC TREATY becomes void and a run for natural resource exploitation and extraction will result in quarrels’ between countries claiming territory on the continent. This will most likely lead to armed confrontations and thus BRITAIN, with its MALVINAS – FALKLAND base will have a military advantage to forcefully protect its national interests. 

Se trata de la ANTÁRTIDA

Recientes actitudes belicistas alrededor de  las Islas Malvinas  entre Gran Bretaña y ARGENTINA, en vísperas del 30 aniversario de la guerra de Malvinas, no tienen que ver con la defensa de los isleños y el resto de la retórica de Gran Bretaña de confrontación que utiliza para justificar sus acciones recientes. Se trata de  los descubrimientos de petróleo, los intereses de la industria pesquera y para asegurar un fuerte militar en el Cono Sur con el fin de tener acceso rápido a la Antártida el momento que el Tratado Antártico se convertirá en nulo y una carrerapara la explotación de los recursos naturales y la extracción resultará en guerra  "entre los paísesque reclaman el territorio en el continente. Esto conducirá muy probablemente a los enfrentamientos armados y por lo tanto, Gran Bretaña, con sus  bases en  MALVINAS  tendrá una ventaja militar para proteger a la fuerza sus intereses nacionales.

ANTARCTICA HOLDS 75% OF THE WORLD’S FRESH WATER RESERVES

(See http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/06/water-golden-commodity-of-future.html)

It is free from pollution. It also has enormous amount of natural resources such as fresh water, flora and fauna, minerals, oil, coal etc. 

It is believed that ANTARCTIC continent have large deposits of minerals, oils (~45,000 million barrels and ~115 trillion cubic feet of gas) and coal (~11% of the world’s total). This can be ascertained by using sophisticated modern technique for resource assessment. As of now, mining is banned in ANTARCTICA. The member nations of ANTARCTIC TREATY (1959) have signed the treaty for non-exploitation of ANTARCTIC resources and helps in keeping the continent free of conflicts.

However, due to increasing human population and the need for resources in future, it is obvious that by the year 2040, ANTARCTICA will become the final target for various resources exploitation's.

ARE ANTARCTICA NATURAL RESOURCES WORTH THE QUARREL?

ANTARCTICA holds 75% of the world’s fresh water.

(See http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com/2011/06/water-golden-commodity-of-future.html)

It is free from pollution. It also has enormous amount of natural resources such as fresh water, flora and fauna, minerals, oil, coal etc. 

It is believed that ANTARCTIC continent have large deposits of minerals, oils (~45,000 million barrels and ~115 trillion cubic feet of gas) and coal (~11% of the world’s total).This can be ascertained by using sophisticated modern technique for resource assessment. As of now, mining is banned in ANTARCTICA. The member nations of ANTARCTIC TREATY (1959) have signed the treaty for non-exploitation of ANTARCTIC resources and helps in keeping the continent free of conflicts.

However, due to increasing human population and the need for resources in future, it is obvious that by the year 2040, ANTARCTICA will become the final target for various resources exploitations.

Antártida contiene el 75% del agua dulce del mundo. Se encuentra libre de contaminación.También cuenta con gran cantidad de recursos naturales como la flora y la fauna, minerales, petróleo, carbón, etc.

Se cree que el continente antártico tiene grandes depósitos de minerales, combustibles (aproximadamente 45.000 millones de barriles y ~ 115 billones de pies cúbicos de gas) y carbón (~ 11% del total mundial). Esto se puede comprobar mediante el uso de la técnica moderna y sofisticada para la evaluación de los recursos. A partir de ahora, la minería está prohibida en la Antártida. Los países miembros del Tratado Antártico (1959) han firmado el tratado para la no explotación de los recursos antárticos, y ayuda a mantener el continente libre de conflictos.

Sin embargo, debido a la creciente población humana y la necesidad de recursos en el futuro, es obvio que para el año 2040, la Antártida se convierte en el objetivo final para la explotación de recursos diversos.

April 2015, Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote: 

UK SPIED INTENSELY ON ARGENTINA AND CONDUCTED PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS AND MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS FROM 2006 UP TO 2012

The BRITISH government carried out an extensive program of intelligence collection and psychological operations in ARGENTINA until 2011, because it was concerned about the security of the FALKLAND ISLANDS, according to newly leaked documents. In 1982, the two countries went to war over the islands, which are ruled by BRITAIN but are claimed by ARGENTINA. The 74-day conflict, which killed nearly 1,000 soldiers and civilians on both sides, ended in defeat for the ARGENTINIAN forces and solidified BRITISH authority in the SOUTH ATLANTIC territory. But ARGENTINA continues to dispute BRITAIN’S rule over the FALKLANDS, which it calls MALVINAS, and has repeatedly threatened to take them over.

Documents released last week by ARGENTINE online news portal TN.com, reveal that a consortium of BRITISH Intelligence units implemented a broad program of spying and propaganda operations against ARGENTINA. The program, codenamed Operation QUITO, lasted from 2006 to 2012, and was aimed at hampering perceived efforts by the ARGENTINE government to subvert BRITISH rule in the FALKLANDS.

Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:

Given the current state the ARGENTINE Military is in, it is most unlikely that ARGENTINA could seriously challenge British Armed Forces. The campaign allegedly initiated by the BRITISH, as mentioned in this article is much more about deliberate psychological operations and misinformation because ARGENTINA does not comply with the International Financial Institutions neo conservative doctrines and because ARGENTINA’S current restrictions on foreign natural resources extraction. The BRITISH Magazine “The Economist” is a typical example of such misinformation campaigns when it comes to reporting on ARGENTINIAN issues, this is when “The Economist” loses its credibility and simply turn’s bias and a far cry from renowned journalism. 

Read:

THE ECONOMIST, THE POODLE OF ANGLO SAXON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICIANS?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/02/economist-far-cry-from-renowned-and.html

BRITISH MEDIA OFFENSIVE

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/02/british-multiple-offensive.html

In reality British Military presences on the Falkland Islands is simply about fast access to the ANTARCTICA, oil extraction and fishery industry interests. 

(See: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2015/04/britain-and-falkland-malvinas-war-33.html)

The news portal said it received the documents from EDWARD SNOWDEN, an AMERICAN former intelligence contractor who currently lives in RUSSIA under political asylum. According to TN.com, the secret program was implemented by the JOINT THREAT RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE GROUP (JTRIG, as reported by intelNews in February 2014). It is believed that JTRIG is an office operating under the command of the GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS (GCHQ), BRITAIN’S signals intelligence agency. Its focuses on psychological operations —known in BRITAIN as “effects operations”— which are aimed at discrediting their targets through sabotage and misinformation campaigns.

According to the newly released documents, JTRIG launched Operation QUITO as a “long-term, far reaching” program that included the interception of communications of ARGENTINE politicians, the planting of computer viruses on ARGENTINE networks and the spreading of misinformation or pro-BRITISH propaganda online. As of Sunday night there had been no official response to the news report from either the Argentine or the BRITISH governments.

BACKGROUND:

ARGENTINA’S foreign minister has accused the UK of deploying nuclear weapons near the disputed MALVINAS - FALKLAND Islands, militarizing the South Atlantic. Hector Timerman voiced the accusations as he lodged a formal protest with the UN. He said ARGENTINA had intelligence that BRITAIN had deployed a Vanguard class submarine in the area.

“Thus far the UK refuses to say whether it is true or not,” he told a journalists in New York. “Are there nuclear weapons or are there not? The information ARGENTINA has is that there are these nuclear weapons.”

Britain’s ambassador to the UN would not officially comment on disposition of BRITISH submarines, but called ARGENTINEAN allegations of UK’s militarization“manifestly absurd.” UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that he was concerned with the escalating row between ARGENTINA and BRITAIN over the MALVINAS - FALKLAND Islands. Earlier the BRITISH media reported that UK had deployed a Trafalgar-class nuclear-powered submarine armed only with conventional weapons to the region.

The tension between the two countries has surged in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the MALVINAS - FALKLANDS War. Back in April 1982, ARGENTINA tried to take control of the islands, and claims as its rightful territory. BRITAIN repelled the attack with military force. More than 900 people were killed in the hostilities.

The current row has been brewing since at least 2010, when BRITISH companies started drilling for oil in the region. Argentina has put diplomatic and commercial pressure on the islands’ administration. Buenos Aires recently convinced LATIN AMERICAN countries no ban ships bearing the MALVINAS -FALKLAND Islands flag from their ports, troubling their supply logistics.

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

TESTS OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY 

The ANTARCTIC TREATY set the base line for peace and security. But the treaty was necessary for a reason. Furthermore, the Treaty has undergone revision in order to maintain peace in an ever-evolving international environment.

The initial reason for an Antarctic Treaty was the overlapping claims of seven nations, BRITAIN, FRANCE, DENMARK, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, CHILE and ARGENTINA to ANTARCTICA. War was inevitable when three countries claimed the same slice of the continent. The unknown value of the territory made the grab for territory even more contentious.

The ANTARCTIC TREATY rectified this situation by refuting all territorial claims to ANTARCTICA. However, this possibility still remains. The seven nations, although all original signatories of the Treaty, still nominally claim their sovereign territories. Furthermore, the UNITED STATES and RUSSIA, should the treaty structure fail, reserve the right to acquire territory. Hence, the infrastructure that supports the Treaty, and the additions and allow it to remain flexible become even more important. 

The next test for ANTARCTIC came in 1988, when an addition to the Treaty was proposed to regulate mining in ANTARCTICA. It was believed that oil reserves, as well as natural gas may be trapped underneath the eternal tundra and ice that covers the continent. Plans were made to enforce "safe" mining techniques, and study the environmental impacts mining had on the rare ecosystem. 

International outrage over the proposal was so strong, that many governments began to change their minds over the initiative. FRANCE and AUSTRALIA began to echo calls from other nations to make ANTARCTIC a global park. Nations in the UN argued that the environmental problems that ANTARCTIC would face would eventually face the world. When the initiative came to a vote, it was defeated. Instead, the consultative nations of the ANTARCTIC TREATY decided on the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the ANTARCTIC TREATY, commonly known as the MADRID PROTOCOL, in 1990. The Protocol first and foremost establishes ANTARCTICA as a natural reserve. Furthermore, it prohibits mining, and establishes a system for getting new scientific research approved by the Secretariat for international approval. 

One perpetual problem the Treaty faces is exclusivity. The Treaty precludes from consultative status (or voting status) any nations that do not have an on-going scientific program in ANTARCTICA. Repeated calls in the General Assembly have yet to lead to an opening up of the treaty. Despite the allowance of the UNEP to observe, poorer nations are being secluded from decision making on ANTARCTIC based on their poverty. ANTARCTIC cannot become a "global park" unless the entire globe is allowed to participate. In short, since what happens in ANTARCTICA does not stay in ANTARCTICA, these nations feel it is imperative that they should be allowed a say in the decisions that ultimately affect everyone. It is this dispute that puts the most pressure on the framework of Antarctica, and prevents other areas from being designated as an international territory. 

RUSSIA AND IRAN

A CHALLENGING TIME FOR RUSSIA-IRAN TIES

By M. K. Bhadrakumar via Asia Times

IRAN’S integration into the international community will significantly impact its relations with RUSSIA. The relationship between the two regional powers plays out on a big canvas spanning several regions and many ‘hotspots,’ stretching from CENTRAL ASIA to the CASPIAN and the CAUCASUS, PERSIAN GULF and the MIDDLE EAST and the INDIAN OCEAN.

The RUSSIAN-IRANIAN relationship has been historically a troubled one and despite the brave face put on it by both sides, there are strong undercurrents. The very fact that RUSSIAN experts have poured cold water on the framework agreement reached between IRAN and the world powers at LAUSANNE and are questioning the ability of the U.S. president BARACK OBAMA to weather the upcoming storm in the Congress and have a final deal with IRAN wrapped up by end-June as planned, can be taken as both a level-headed assessment of the realities in AMERICAN politics as well as a message of caution to TEHRAN to be wary of the pitfalls ahead and a subtle hint of RUSSIA’S continuing relevance.

Tehran 

Almost everything that RUSSIA says about IRAN has a double meaning – an intrinsic meaning and a relative meaning. The lack of transparency can be traced back to the heydays of the U.S.-RUSSIA reset when MOSCOW actively cooperated with the OBAMA administration circa 2010 to clamp down the sanctions regime on IRAN and to help the OBAMA administration heap unprecedented international pressure to isolate IRAN. RUSSIA also dragged its feet on various pretexts in completing the BUSHEHR nuclear power plant; and, in the unkindest cut of all, under AMERICAN pressure MOSCOW withdrew from the military deal to sell S-300 air defense system to IRAN at a juncture when the U.S. was holding out open threats of attacking IRAN.

The collateral damage inflicted by the U.S.-RUSSIA reset to RUSSIA’S relations with IRAN was substantial.  The mending of the fences calls for a determined effort from both sides.

RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICIES HAVE BEEN MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS

Ironically, RUSSIA had spurned the overtures of the one IRANIAN president who had been ideologically closest to the world-view that MOSCOW today espouses – MOHAMMAD AHMEDINEJAD – whereas, MOSCOW is today called upon to deal with, arguably, the most ‘western-oriented’ government in IRAN in the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC’S three-and-a-half decades of history. And this is at a time when RUSSIA’S own ties with the West are at an all-time low point since the Cold war ended.

Suffice it to say, the loci of the RUSSIAN and IRANIAN foreign policies have been moving in opposite directions lately and it poses a challenge for the two countries’ diplomats to reconcile this contradiction. The relationship needs attention at the leadership level.

In many ways, the trajectory of the IRAN-RUSSIA relationship in the period ahead will be a reflection of the foreign-policy choices in front of IRAN in an unprecedented environment free of sanctions where TEHRAN enjoys the space and freedom to maneuver like at no time since the ISLAMIC revolution in 1979.

Having said that, for RUSSIAN diplomacy IRAN is by no means a strange country. Besides, there are objective factors at work in regional and world politics today, which RUSSIAN diplomacy can be trusted to exploit.

RUSSIA lost no time after the news broke on the framework agreement being reached in LAUSANNE to signal that MOSCOW could resume implementation of the moribund contract to supply S-300 antiballistic missile systems to IRAN once the UN lifts the ban on arms sales to IRAN. RUSSIAN Defence Minister SERGEY SHOIGLU’S visit to TEHRAN in January was an important initiative undertaken with considerable foresight to re-launch the military cooperation between the two countries in anticipation of an imminent U.S.-IRAN nuclear deal.

RUSSIA IS POSITIONING ITSELF AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY FOR IRAN

In the RUSSIAN estimation, even with the integration of IRAN into the international community, it is inconceivable that the western powers will begin to supply arms to IRAN. Many factors impede such a development, including the longstanding relations between the western countries and the GULF ARAB states and ISRAEL’S sensitivities over transfer of military technology to IRAN. On the contrary, RUSSIA is positioning itself as a reliable source of military technology for IRAN.

IRAN will prioritize its relations with the West in order to attract cutting edge technology for the modernization of its economy as well as for boosting trade and investment. The IRANIAN middle class and technocrats and business community are known to prefer western partners. The West’s ‘soft power’, especially AMERICA’S, holds seamless attraction for the IRANIAN urban elites. But then, western countries do not transfer high technology very easily. Their preference will be to sell their products in IRAN’S big market. (The oil industry is an exception.) This is where RUSSIA comes in.

RUSSIA’S advantage lies in filling in a crucial role as partner in military cooperation or areas such as nuclear energy. Indeed, for an ambitious country such as IRAN, RUSSIA makes a ‘natural ally’ insofar as its quest for ‘strategic autonomy’ and its independent foreign policies do not grate on RUSSIA’S strategic calculus.

THE IRAN-RUSSIA-CHINA AXIS

Significantly, the foreign policy aide to IRAN’S supreme leader, ALI AKBAR VELAYATI visited MOSCOW as a special envoy of the IRANIAN president in early February and was received by President VLADIMIR PUTIN. VELAYATI has been a trusted interlocutor for MOSCOW for decades. VELAYATI has been the longest serving IRANIAN foreign minister (1981-1997) and has been aptly described as “a window into the foreign policy of IRAN’S Supreme Leader.”

VELAYATI is a strong votary of multipolarity in world politics and of an IRAN-RUSSIA-CHINA axis to counter the U.S.’ global hegemony. Therefore, it is extremely interesting that VELAYATI was brought in as IRAN’S interlocutor with the KREMLIN at a defining moment in IRAN’S foreign-policy trajectory. TEHRAN could not have sent a more convincing signal to the KREMLIN of its profound solidarity with RUSSIA.

Why would IRAN be interested in the ‘B’ team when it has the West embracing it? First of all, the nuclear deal doesn’t mean that the ideals of the ISLAMIC revolution have become history. The western commentators often speak of President HASSAN ROUHANI as if he is a dissident tilting at the citadel of the ISLAMIC regime. Whereas, ROUHANI is as much a progeny of the revolution as his predecessors have been, and enormous continuity is what is to be expected in IRAN’S foreign policies alongside the inevitable fine-tuning geared to optimally exploit the new opportunities to engage with the West.

Second, IRAN cannot be under any illusion that the nuclear issue means a relaxation of tensions with the U.S. or even a full-fledged normalization of relations with AMERICA. To be sure, the U.S. will continue to peck at IRAN’S revolutionary ideals as disruptive and will remain wary of IRAN’S ambitions as a regional power.

RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL HASTEN THE ADMISSION OF IRAN AS A MEMBER OF THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION

The heart of the matter is that the deal with IRAN doesn’t mean that the U.S. is about to dump its traditional allies in the region. Without doubt, the U.S. will give due consideration to its allies’ anxieties regarding IRAN’S potentials once it is unshackled from the sanctions regime.

On its part, IRAN will anticipate that no sooner than the deal with IRAN has been negotiated, the U.S. will turn attention to offer new forms of security assurances and cooperation to its traditional allies. Without doubt, the OBAMA administration will do whatever it takes to shore up anxious friends and this, in turn, may even necessitate pressuring IRAN to show restraint.

All in all, IRAN cannot do without a strategic understanding with RUSSIA. VELAYATI’S mission to MOSCOW aimed at revamping the strategic ties with RUSSIA and attuning it to IRAN’S emergent concerns as a ‘normal country’. The high probability is that RUSSIA and CHINA will hasten the admission of IRAN as a member of the SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION.

MIDDLE EASTERN STRATEGIES

THE MIDDLE EASTERN BALANCE OF POWER MATURES

Recently, a coalition of predominantly SUNNI ARAB countries, primarily from the ARABIAN PENINSULA and organized by SAUDI ARABIA, launched airstrikes in YEMEN. The airstrikes target YEMENI AL-HOUTHIS, a SHIITE sect supported by IRAN, and their SUNNI partners, which include the majority of military forces loyal to former President ALI ABDULLAH SALEH. What made the strikes particularly interesting was what was lacking: U.S. aircraft. Although the UNITED STATES provided intelligence and other support, it was a coalition of ARAB states that launched the extended air campaign against the AL-HOUTHIS.

Three things make this important. First, it shows the UNITED STATES' new regional strategy in operation. WASHINGTON is moving away from the strategy it has followed since the early 2000s — of being the prime military force in regional conflicts — and is shifting the primary burden of fighting to regional powers while playing a secondary role. Second, after years of buying advanced weaponry, the SAUDIS and the GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL countries are capable of carrying out a fairly sophisticated campaign, at least in YEMEN. The campaign began by suppressing enemy air defenses — the AL-HOUTHIS had acquired surface-to-air missiles from the YEMENI military — and moved on to attacking AL-HOUTHI command-and-control systems. This means that while the regional powers have long been happy to shift the burden of combat to the UNITED STATES, they are also able to assume the burden if the UNITED STATES refuses to engage.

GROWING CONFLICT BETWEEN SUNNIS AND SHIITES AS WELL AS GROWING TENSION WITHIN SUNNI AND SHIITE GROUPS

Most important, the attacks on the AL-HOUTHIS shine the spotlight on a growing situation in the region: a war between the SUNNIS and SHIITES. In IRAQ and SYRIA, a full-scale war is underway. A battle rages in TIKRIT with the SUNNI ISLAMIC STATE and its allies on one side, and a complex combination of the SHIITE-dominated IRAQI army, SHIITE militias, SUNNI ARAB tribal groups and SUNNI KURDISH forces on the other. In SYRIA, the battle is between the secular government of President BASHAR AL ASSAD — nevertheless dominated by Alawites, a SHIITE sect — and SUNNI groups. 

However, SUNNIS, DRUZE and CHRISTIANS have sided with the regime as well. It is not reasonable to refer to the SYRIAN opposition as a coalition because there is significant internal hostility. Indeed, there is tension not only between the SHIITES and SUNNIS, but also within the SHIITE and SUNNI groups. In YEMEN, a local power struggle among warring factions has been branded and elevated into a sectarian conflict for the benefit of the regional players. It is much more complex than simply a SHIITE-SUNNI war. At the same time, it cannot be understood without the SUNNI-SHIITE component.

Background Information: Sunni versus Shiite

SUNNI VERSUS SHIA: THE MIDDLE EAST’S NEW STRATEGIC CONFLICT

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/07/sunni-versus-shia-middle-easts-new.html

SAUDI ARABIA CREATED ITS OWN GEOPOLITICAL FRANKENSTEIN

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2014/09/saudi-arabia-islamic-state-between-iraq.html

THE MIDDLE EAST IS PERVADED AND INCREASINGLY INFECTED BY THE SECTARIAN RIVALRY BETWEEN THE SHIITE PERSIANS AND THE WAHHABI SAUDIS

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/05/turkey-shiite-persians-versus-wahhabi.html

IRAN'S STRATEGY AND THE SAUDIS' RESPONSE

One reason this is so important is that it represents a move by IRAN to gain a major sphere of influence in the ARAB world. This is not a new strategy. IRAN has sought greater influence on the ARABIAN PENINSULA since the rule of the SHAH. More recently, it has struggled to create a sphere of influence stretching from IRAN to the MEDITERRANEAN SEA. The survival of the AL ASSAD government in SYRIA and the success of a pro-IRANIAN government in IRAQ would create that IRANIAN sphere of influence, given the strength of HEZBOLLAH in LEBANON and the ability of AL ASSAD'S SYRIA to project its power.

For a while, it appeared that this strategy had been blocked by the near collapse of the AL ASSAD government in 2012 and the creation of an IRAQI government that appeared to be relatively successful and was far from being an IRANIAN puppet. These developments, coupled with WESTERN sanctions, placed IRAN on the defensive, and the idea of an IRANIAN sphere of influence appeared to have become merely a dream.

RISE OF ISLAMIC STATE HAS PARADOXICALLY REINVIGORATED IRANIAN POWER

However, paradoxically, the rise of the ISLAMIC STATE has reinvigorated IRANIAN power in two ways. First, while the propaganda of the ISLAMIC STATE is horrific and designed to make the group look not only terrifying, but also enormously powerful, the truth is that, although it is not weak, the ISLAMIC STATE represents merely a fraction of IRAQ'S SUNNI community, and the SUNNIS are a minority in IRAQ. At the same time, the propaganda has mobilized the SHIITE community to resist the ISLAMIC STATE, allowed IRANIAN advisers to effectively manage the SHIITE militias in IRAQ and (to some extent) the IRAQI army, and forced the UNITED STATES to use its airpower in tandem with IRANIAN-led ground forces. Given the AMERICAN strategy of blocking the ISLAMIC STATE — even if doing so requires cooperation with IRAN — while not putting forces on the ground, this means that as the ISLAMIC STATE'S underlying weakness becomes more of a factor, the default winner in IRAQ will be IRAN.

A somewhat similar situation exists in SYRIA, though with a different demographic. IRAN and RUSSIA have historically supported the AL ASSAD government. The IRANIANS have been the more important supporters, particularly because they committed their ally, HEZBOLLAH, to the battle. What once appeared to be a lost cause is now far from it. The UNITED STATES was extremely hostile toward al ASSAD, but given the current alternatives in SYRIA, WASHINGTON has become at least neutral toward the SYRIAN government. AL ASSAD would undoubtedly like to have U.S. neutrality translate into a direct dialogue with WASHINGTON. Regardless of the outcome, IRAN has the means to maintain its influence in SYRIA.

Background Information: ASSAD

EX-CIA CHIEF: ASSAD WIN MAY BE SYRIA'S BEST OPTION

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2013/12/syria.html

ASSAD WINNING THE WAR

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.co.at/2013/02/syria-assad-winning-war.html

ASSAD FIRM IN THE SADDLE (January 2013)

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/01/syria-assad-firm-in-saddle.html

SYRIAN REGIME LIKELY TO SURVIVE UPRAISE (June 2011)

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/06/syrian-regime-likely-to-survive-upraise.html 

THE SYRIAN EQUATION

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/syria-israel-iran-and-usa.html

ASSAD FIRMLY IN CHARGE IN SYRIA (March 2012)

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/syria.html

SYRIA'S ASSAD, 'THE MAN WHO CAN DELIVER A MIDDLE EAST SOLUTION'

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2015/03/syria-assad.html

YEMEN: SAUDIS AND THE GULF STATES FACING A SHIITE OR IRANIAN ENCIRCLEMENT 

When you look at a map and think of the situation in YEMEN, you get a sense of why the SAUDIS and GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL countries had to do something. Given what is happing along the northern border of the ARABIAN PENINSULA, the SAUDIS have to calculate the possibility of an AL-HOUTHI victory establishing a pro-IRANIAN, SHIITE state to its south as well. The SAUDIS and the GULF countries would be facing the possibility of a SHIITE or IRANIAN encirclement. These are not the same thing, but they are linked in complex ways. Working in the SAUDIS' favor is the fact that the AL-HOUTHIS are not SHIITE proxies like HEZBOLLAH, and SAUDI money combined with military operations designed to cut off IRANIAN Supply lines to the AL-HOUTHIS could mitigate the threat overall. Either way, the SAUDIS had to act.

SAUDIS ARE FRIGHTENED BY RISING IRANIAN AND SHIITE POWER

During the ARAB SPRING, one of the nearly successful attempts to topple a government occurred in BAHRAIN. The uprising failed primarily because SAUDI ARABIA intervened and imposed its will on the country. The SAUDIS showed themselves to be extremely sensitive to the rise of SHIITE regimes with close relations with the IRANIANS on the ARABIAN PENINSULA. The result was unilateral intervention and suppression. Whatever the moral issues, it is clear that the SAUDIS are frightened by rising IRANIAN and SHIITE power and are willing to use their strength. That is what they have done in YEMEN.

Background Information: Saudi Arabia and Iran

FOR THIRTY YEARS, SAUDI ARABIA HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN A PROXY WAR WITH IRAN

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/saudi-arabias-proxy-war.html

MIDDLE EAST UNDER THREAT AS IRAN ENCOURAGES SHIITE UPRISING IN SAUDI ARABIA?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2013/03/saudi-arabia-and-iran.html

In a way, the issue is simple for the SAUDIS. They represent the center of gravity of the religious SUNNI world. As such, they and their allies have embarked on a strategy that is strategically defensive and tactically offensive. Their goal is to block IRANIAN and SHIITE influence, and the means they are implementing is coalition warfare that uses air power to support local forces on the ground. Unless there is a full invasion of YEMEN, the SAUDIS are following the AMERICAN strategy of the 2000s on a smaller scale.

THE U.S. STANCE

The AMERICAN strategy is more complex. The UNITED SATES has undertaken a strategy focused on maintaining the balance of power. This kind of approach is always messy because the goal is not to support any particular power, but to maintain a balance between multiple powers. Therefore, the UNITED STATES is providing intelligence and mission planning for the SAUDI coalition against the AL-HOUTHIS and their IRANIAN allies. In IRAQ, the United States is providing support to Shiites — and by extension, their allies — by bombing Islamic State installations. In Syria, U.S. strategy is so complex that it defies clear explanation. That is the nature of refusing large-scale intervention but being committed to a balance of power. The United States can oppose Iran in one theater and support it in another. The more simplistic models of the Cold War are not relevant here.

All of this is happening at the same time that nuclear negotiations appear to be coming to some sort of closure. The United States is not really concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons. As mentioned many times, we have heard since the mid-2000s that Iran was a year or two away from nuclear weapons. Each year, the fateful date was pushed back. Building deliverable nuclear weapons is difficult, and the Iranians have not even carried out a nuclear test, an essential step before a deliverable weapon is created. What was a major issue a few years ago is now part of a constellation of issues where U.S.-Iranian relations interact, support and contradict. Deal or no deal, the United States will bomb the Islamic State, which will help Iran, and support the Saudis in Yemen, which will not.

IRAN’S GROWING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA, INCLUDING YEMEN

The real issue now is what it was a few years ago: Iran appears to be building a sphere of influence to the Mediterranean Sea, but this time, that sphere of influence potentially includes Yemen. That, in turn, creates a threat to the Arabian Peninsula from two directions. The Iranians are trying to place a vise around it. The Saudis must react, but the question is whether airstrikes are capable of stopping the al-Houthis. They are a relatively low-cost way to wage war, but they fail frequently. 

The first question is what the Saudis will do then. The second question is what the Americans will do. The current doctrine requires a balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the United States tilting back and forth. Under this doctrine — and in this military reality — the United States cannot afford full-scale engagement on the ground in Iraq.

TURKEY'S ROLE

Relatively silent but absolutely vital to this tale is Turkey. It has the largest economy in the region and has the largest army, although just how good its army is can be debated. Turkey is watching chaos along its southern border, rising tension in the Caucasus, and conflict across the Black Sea. Of all these, Syria and Iraq and the potential rise of Iranian power is the most disturbing. Turkey has said little about Iran of late, but last week Ankara suddenly criticized Tehran and accused Iran of trying to dominate the region. Turkey frequently says things without doing anything, but the development is still noteworthy.

It should be remembered that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hoped to see Turkey as a regional leader and the leader of the Sunni world. With the Saudis taking an active role and the Turks doing little in Syria or Iraq, the moment is passing Turkey by. Such moments come and go, so history is not changed. But Turkey is still the major Sunni power and the third leg of the regional balance involving Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Background Information:TURKEY 

TURKEY'S IMPERIAL FANTASY OF ESTABLISHING THE IKHWAN (MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD) BELT FROM TUNISIA TO GAZA

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2014/10/turkeys-evil-triumvirate-assad-regime.html

TURKEYS CURRENT MIDDLE EAST POLICY MAKES ENEMIES WITH EVERYONE

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/05/turkey-everyones-enemy.html

WHY IS TURKEY SUPPORTING ISLAMIC STATE FIGHTERS IN IRAQ?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2014/08/turkey-and-isis-comrades-in-arms.html

DOES TURKEY WANT KOBANE TO FALL?

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2014/10/does-turkey-want-kobane-to-fall.html

The evolution of Turkey would be the critical step in the emergence of a regional balance of power, in which local powers, not the United Kingdom or the United States, determine the outcome. The American role, like the British role before it, would not be directly waging war in the region but providing aid designed to stabilize the balance of power. That can be seen in Yemen or Iraq. It is extremely complex and not suited for simplistic or ideological analysis. But it is here, it is unfolding and it will represent the next generation of Middle Eastern dynamics. And if the Iranians put aside their theoretical nuclear weapons and focus on this, that will draw in the Turks and round out the balance of power.

By George Friedman via Stratfor

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

MYSTERIOUS AIRBASE

by Tony Osborne via Aviation Week

Google Earth imagery has revealed a mysterious, and so far nameless air base in the United Arab Emirates desert near the country’s border with Oman and Saudi Arabia.

The unnamed airfield in its current form. Credit: Google Earth

Previously a concrete airstrip, the airfield has recently been the subject of a rapid expansion program. The original runway is now a parallel taxiway to a much longer 3,000 m (9,850 ft.) long, 60 m (200 ft.) main runway. New parking aprons have been constructed or are currently being built.

How the airfield looked before its rapid expansion. Credit: Google Earth

Imagery of the entire base has only become available on Google Earth in the last few days, previously only half the site could be viewed.

What is clear is that the UAE armed forces have prepared this site for fighter deployments and operations. The runway is equipped with arrestor cables at each end in case of emergency while the ramp in the south west corner has 10 sun shelters ready for two fighters each.

Sun shelters for fighters on this ramp in the south west corner of the airfield. Credit: Google Earth

More notable however is the vast new parking area being built on the north side of the airfield. At just over 1,000 meters in length and just over 400 meters wide according to Google Earth measurement tools, the ramp is just marginally smaller in terms of area than the main U.S. Air Force ramp at Al-Udeid air base in Qatar which a quick glance on Google Earth will show that can be loaded with 40-50 large aircraft of KC-135 or B-1B size.

It is possible - given the siting of the new facility - that it could be playing a role in the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

What is most telling about this new airfield is its remoteness. Located some 50 miles from the nearest UAE settlement of Al Khis, the airfield is about as far into the United Arab Emirates you can get from Iran. The UAE has long been concerned about the vulnerability of its military sites and the relatively small number of airfields available to its air force. This led to the construction of a new fighter air base called Al-Safran AB near the town of Al-Gharbia, housing at least one Mirage 2000 unit. Al-Safran is believed to have opened between around 2008.

UAEAF Mirage 2000-9s are based at Al-Dhafra and Al-Safran airfields.Credit: Google Earth

No aircraft currently appear on the Google Earth imagery at the new airfield. Of course they may well be hidden in hangars or under sun shelters but the site could also act as a bare-base similar to the concept developed by the Australians for their mainland defense strategy, building airfields around the country provisioned to support the armed forces in wartime.

Other bases which have recently grown include a airfield that Google names as Abu Dhabi Northeast, that now features a 4,000 meter runway having grown from a mere airstrip 2,000 meters long. This airfield now appears to be home to UAE Special Forces flying the Cessna Caravan, the AT-802 Air Tractors and DHC-6 Twin Otters.

The UAE Air Force’s airlift fleet has also been re-housed on a new ramp on the north side of Abu Dhabi International Airport. Previously the fleet had been scattered around different airfields, with C-17s at Al-Minhad and the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transports (MRTTs) at Al Ain. The move to Abu Dhabi airport brings all the airlift squadrons into one site presumably easing planning co-ordination.