The Nether-World

Middle East Spiraling Into Chaos

2007-06-18T04:13:00.001+01:00

I haven't commented recently on the current chaos engulfing the Middle East. This is partly because events are moving so fast that anything written becomes almost instantly redundant, partly because others have have written very eloquently on the subject saying pretty much what I was going to say, and partly because the whole situation is so depressing and tragic that commentary on it becomes difficult. However, the events in the region are too important to ignore so some sort comment is necessary.

Firstly, it seems unwise to focus just on one aspect of the crises. Obviously what is grabbing the headlines at the moment is the situation in Palestine where Hamas have taken control of Gaza leaving Fatah in nominal control of the West Bank. There is plenty to say about this but Palestine is only a part (albeit a very large part) of a broader set of problems. What we are seeing is the destabilising of the whole region which was widely predicted before the invasion of Iraq, and more countries are now being affected. This is not to say that the Middle East was completely stable before the invasion of Iraq, far from it, but each particular problem was more contained. Now, as the Iraq war is spilling over into other countries, there is what looks like a chain reaction of instability throughout the region affecting Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt to varying degrees.

It might be unfair to blame all this instability on the Iraq war but it does seem to have acted as a catalyst for discontent to explode into anger and hatred. To me all these problems seem to be linked and behind it all is US and Israeli foreign policy. America has been condemned fot its handling of the Middle East in a UN report. Removing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein created a vacuum in the region. Iraq, as it turned out, wasn't particularly powerful but it was thought to be, and so was feared. Also it was fiercely secular and kept a lid on sectarian tensions. The destruction of Iraq has made Iran much more powerful and it can much more easily influence events in southern Iraq and Lebanon. Whereas one of the excuses for the war was to combat terrorism, now terrorism is widespread and exists where it wasn't evident before, like in Iraq.

How does this have a bearing on the 60 year-old Israel/Palestine conflict? Hamas is said to be supported by Iran for a start. Just how true this is, and to what extent if it is true, is not really known. But the traditional Sunni/Shia divide which affects so much of relationships between Middle Eastern states is not a simple black and white issue. One thing all the states in the region have in common is a desire (stated at least) to see justice for the Palestinians. So many commentators have stated this obvious fact but it has been brushed aside by Bush and Blair in their unquestioning support for Israel. The Arab countries which benefit from support by the West have diluted their support for Palestine despite their rhetoric and this has created further divisions. At the start of the Iraq war, Tony Blair asked the Bush administration to renew its commitment to finding a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. After a token effort (if it can be called that), it became obvious that America would allow Israel to do precisely what it wanted and Blair quickly fell into line. Last year Blair again promised to concentrate his remaining time in office to finding a solution and again failed.

Another justification for the Iraq war was install a democratic government and make Iraq a beacon to the whole region; a model that other states would want to emulate. This crass propaganda has been sufficiently rubbished now. Who in their right minds would want to emulate Iraq? The continued oppression of the Palestinians with ever more restrictions, theft of land and unrestrained settlement building, has led to Fatah, mired in corruption, to be challenged by Hamas. Hamas won a free and fair election and was voted into power. America and Israel's commitment to democracy was instantly exposed as a sham when, with their pressure, all support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) was withdrawn leading to terrible suffering among the Palestinians. It was only a matter of time before they started fighting among themselves, and I think that this was so obvious that it must have been the plan all along. Like so many neocon plans, it backfired. Hamas, despite having more extreme views than Fatah were democratically elected and share the same aims as Fatah. When the wishes of the Palestinian people were ignored, Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and the people were still collectively punished by Israel although the Europe and the US started to waver.

Now, as we have seen the tensions have boiled over and Hamas has seized Gaza in what Margaret Beckett (among many others) are calling a coup d'état. Whatever one's views of the situation are, elected representatives fighting to keep what they had already won at the ballot box is not a coup d'état. This is one of so many examples of the pernicious propaganda we are all faced with. So, as a direct result of American and Israeli policy the two-state solution is postponed if not dead and we now have what Jon Snow of Channel 4 news called a three-state non solution. No one knows how long this situation can continue. Hamas might have Gaza, but the situation for all Gazans will worsen. What little aid that was trickling through will stop. Israel has already halted deliveries of fuel into Gaza. This will mean more Gazans will try to flee, adding pressure on the Egyptian border. Israel's claim to have withdrawn from Gaza was demonstrably false. True they dismantled the settlements there and moved back the army but Israel still has military dominance of the Gaza strip and the disproportionate bombings in response to rocket attacks never ceased. One thing Hamas might achieve which would increase its standing in the West (if only temporarily) is to secure the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston. As always there are mixed messages about this issue, with Hamas saying he could be released within hours and the kidnappers denying it.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Fatah has been asserting itself. It has nominal control (for now at least) of the remaining areas the PA is allowed to control and Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyah, and set up an emergency government. This move has been rewarded by America and Israel with some promises of aid. However, though more stable than Gaza, there is increasing instability in the West Bank and that is likely to put pressure on Jordan. Already we have heard of Palestinian factions from the Jordanian army preparing to help Fatah. Jordan is already under pressure from a huge number of refugees coming from Iraq. Instability spreading into Jordan is not inconceivable.

In Lebanon, the army is claiming that it has control of 90 percent of the Fatah al Islam strongholds in Palestinian refugee camps. If true then it still does not mean an end to Lebanon's problems. Katyusha rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon and this time Hezbollah are denying any responsibility. Let's just remind ourselves briefly that Fatah al Islam was originally backed by the USA and the Lebanese government in an attempt to have a force to challenge Hezbollah. Needless to say the plan backfired. The truce between Israel and Hezbollah is shaky at best and hostilities could resume at any time, particularly because Israel is still smarting from last summer's defeat and wants to assert itself. The assassination of another anti-Syrian MP is putting more pressure on Syria.

While that potential conflict is brewing, another flash point is starting to manifest. Both Israel and Syria have been massing their forces on each side of the Golan Heights in preparation for what might be another war. At the same time there have been talks (or talks about having talks) over the handing back of the Golan to Syria. This is potentially positive if it happens. The price for Syria would be to renounce any support for any Palestinian and Iranian groups and presumably any involvement in Lebanon. It remains to be seen if this is a possible peace or a possible war. It might be an attempt by Israel to make attacks on Lebanon and/or Iran easier.

We are seeing the long established pattern of positive diplomatic developments scuppered by facts on the ground. This usually happens when Israel is offered a chance for peace by its Arab neighbours and realises it has to make concessions. Then, suddenly, a conflict mysteriously flares up allowing Israel to scrap any deal. I've lost count how many times this has happened. Remember the last Arab League summit a few months ago when Israel expressed an interest in a Saudi sponsored peace deal which was in effect a return to the 1967 border in exchange for normalised relations with Arab countries? Lo and behold we now have a host of new conflicts brewing.

Once again the lost cause of Iraq has caused America to take its eye off the ball in the wider region. Anyone looking to the USA to solve these crises will be disappointed. Iraq is disintigrating with Turkey attacking Kurds in the north and a full blown insurgency and numerous civil wars. America, despite its ill-advised 'surge' can barely control 40 percent of Baghdad. The casualties on both sides are mounting and Bush's support is at an all time low. It is now blatently obvious that the Iraq war has been lost and Bush is trying to hang on so that another administration faces the humiliating withdrawal. Despite the hate campaign against Iran and Syria the hawks in Washington are now in the minority. Dick Cheney, and now Joseph Lieberman, calling for the bombing of Iran are looking ever more ridiculous. This must be worrying for Israeli hawks who have been pushing for America to commit to a war Iran as they did with Iraq. They could initiate an attack themselves and Washington would no doubt support it, but the resulting retaliation on so many fronts would lead to a catastrophe. For the Bush administration, time is short as the President prepares to limp and quack into the sunset, the Democrats, however, don't seem to be any less hawkish and their opposition to the Iraq war (such as it is) is merely a political game. Whether they can see the futility of further conflict and the failure to pandering to lobby groups like AIPAC is questionable. In Britain, Gordon Brown is sending mixed messages, a continued British presence in Iraq, failure to completely rule out involvement in an attack on Iran and yet more cash for the Palestinians.

With all these small regional conflicts so tangled up with each other, and with American power games playing such a large part in them, the chances of some sort of mishap triggering a bigger catastrophe increase. And that's even if America doesn't succumb to the insane plans of some neocons in Washington to launch an attack on Iran.

Related Bloggage

Tags: Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel,US Politics

Spot the obstacle to peace

2007-01-21T10:03:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, Syria, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, US Politics

Amidst all the turmoil in the Middle East, there are some attempts being made in certain diplomatic circles to try and stabilise the region. One country however seems to be doing its level best to scupper these small efforts. No prizes for guessing who it is.

DUBAI (AFP) - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is urging the United States to talk with Syria, claiming in an interview that Damascus "supports" Iraq in fighting the insurgency.
Source

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria on Saturday condemned insurgent attacks on the U.S.-backed Iraqi army and security forces, describing them as "terrorism", in another shift in the Damascus government's position toward its neighbour.
Source

BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reiterated Washington's opposition to talking to Syria or Iran to get their help in easing unrest in Iraq.
Source

Here's some other examples that I referred to obliquely in a previous post.

Israeli officials have confirmed that the Foreign Ministry knew about a series of peace talks that have taken place in Europe between Syrians and an Israeli team headed by a former senior diplomat. The teams discussed Israel handing back the Golan Heights, which it has occupied since the Six Day War in 1967, to Syria under a formula providing for President Bashar Assad to stop giving support to Hamas and Hizbollah and to distance his regime from Iran.
Source

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House denied media reports that Israelis and Syrians reached understandings for a peace treaty in secret unofficial talks over the past two years.
Source

Oh, and there's this:

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Source

And these are just examples of what has been happening on various diplomatic fronts. Only a lunatic would want the various wars in the Middle East to continue, only a lunatic could think that a disastrous policy can be put right by repeating it, and only a lunatic would want to start yet another war in the region. Unfortunately, a lunatic is running the United States of America.

Another Roundup of Middle East Turmoil

2007-01-15T08:11:00.000Z

Condoleezza Rice's latest trip to the Middle East cannot be described a peace-making mission. The motives for her trip appear to be to drum up support for the destabilisation force Bush is sending to Iraq, and to poison the minds of Arab leaders even more against Iran in preparation for what is looking ever more likely to be another Middle East war. However, some Arab leaders have had the temerity to impose conditions on the USA in exchange for their support. The price is US engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so once again Condoleezza has to pretend that she wants to see a Palestinian state and is able to win meaningful concessions from the Israelis.

"I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement," she said after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

So far she has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan. Today she will meet Ehud Olmert and then go on to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to promote war. It won't escape the attention of these Arab leaders that she has absolutely nothing new to offer. What she will try to gain is unconditional support for more chaos in Iraq and new Chaos in Iran and beyond by telling them that all this is in their interest.

In advance of her visit, the secretary of state said she was not bringing new proposals but would be listening, talking and looking for creative solutions.

At a press conference she had to deny that USA was too distracted by concerns about Iraq and Iran to have effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state... and if there is anything that I can do and that the president can do to finally realise that day, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

The answer to that of course is that the Bush administration is so pro-Israel and controlled by Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC that it cannot possibly be considered as a fair arbiter in any negotiations and is responsible along with Israel for the appalling conditions in which the Palestinians are forced to live. America has had plenty of opportunities to restrain the worst excesses of Israel and has failed to do so every time.

Still, Condi should be able to drum up enough support for Bush's nefarious plans in the region. Iran is disliked and feared by many Arab countries, and by spreading the fear of Iranian influence over Iraq (even though it was America's invasion that created this problem) as well as pretending that sending another 20,000 troops into the quagmire will somehow make the situation more secure for the region she'll probably get enough support to give a veneer of legitimacy to her plans. Bush needs this support because it certainly doesn't exist back home where even the Republicans are in open revolt over the "surge" plans.

Bush has finally been forced to acknowledge that the invasion has made Iraq more unstable, but he still maintains that despite some mistakes he did the right thing.

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”
He added: “I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.” But toppling Saddam was not a mistake. “We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.”

Yes, that's right, he actually thinks Iraqis should be grateful for the murder and mayhem that that has engulfed their country because of the invasion. I don't know which Iraqis he's been talking to but 90 percent of them seem to think they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

Not content with wrecking one country, the Bush administration is now working flat out to try and wreck another. The recent incidents in Northern Iraq (authorised by Bush) where Iranian diplomats have been arrested and a consular office raided have increased tensions between the US and Iran. These diplomatic incidents look like being the first moves in an attempt to provoke a conflict. America is now threatening to "deal with" Iran and Syria over their alleged support of insurgents while Iran is demanding the release of its kidnapped diplomats. The White House is emphatically refusing to rule out an attack on Iran.

The attack could take the form of air strikes or cross-border raids, most likely it will be both. The legality of such action hasn't been discussed; the last time the UN was mentioned vis-à-vis Iran was last month when limited sanctions were imposed. Whether or not the US Congress can prevent its commander in chief make another even more catastrophic foreign policy blunder is unknown, but we have already seen how much respect Bush has for legal processes.

Tags: Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, US Politics, Bush, Condoleezza Rice

Iran's Response to American-Led 'War Games' in the Persian Gulf'

2006-11-02T11:06:00.000Z

I have been posting recently about the covert build-up of American and allied war ships in the Persian Gulf for the purpose of military exercises organised by the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative. The stated objective of these exercises is to practice maneuvers to stop ships bound for Iran that might contain nuclear materials. The unstated objective is to intimidate the Iranian regime although the Americans are saying that they want Iran to take notice of their fire power.

"From Iranian news reports we know the exercise got the attention of Iran," Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said Friday.
Source

Well, how could the Iranians fail to pay attention to a hostile foreign armada off their coastline? Needless to say the Iranian regime criticised the exercises.

Iran called the two-day maneuvers "adventurist," but the Foreign Ministry said the Islamic Republic's response would be "rational and wise."
"We are watching their movements very carefully," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in Tehran, adding that the exercises would not improve security in the gulf, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil transits.
Source

The Iranians have also said that they are unconcerned as they have the ships under close observation.

"US warships move regularly in the Persian Gulf and in the Sea of Oman, and we have them under surveillance," said the navy's commander Sajad Kouchaki, quoted by the Iranian press on Sunday.
"The presence of two US warships shows the aggressive and dominating character of the Americans," he added.
"If they want to threaten the Islamic republic of Iran we are capable of keeping them under control. The Iranian navy does not believe in such a threat and has the enemy completely under control," he said.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters that "Iran does not believe that these maneuvers constitute a threat".

Despite their nonchalance, the Iranians have responded to this provocation with some exercises of their own. This was a fairly predictable move and demonstrates that the regime is as defiant as ever, and while Iran's statements of being unconcerned with the war games in the Gulf may be a bluff, its determination to protect itself is not.

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozen of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3, during the first hours of new military maneuvers, Iranian state-run television said Thursday.
The report said several kinds of short-range missiles were also fired in a central desert area of Iran during the maneuvers, which came two days after U.S.-led warships finished an exercise in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist."
"We want to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message of the maneuvers," said the head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, in an apparent reference to the US and other western powers.
The general said the 10-day maneuvers, named "Great Prophet," would take place in the Gulf, the Sea of Oman and several provinces of the country. He did not specify how many troops were involved.
Source

This was the sort of escalation I was concerned about when I wrote this post. Now we will have to see what America (under the guise of the 'international community') will do about this latest development. If the Bush administration continues to escalate the situation, it could develop into a crisis very quickly. We already know that Bush and his government are in desperate trouble at home and about to lose an election, a fact that the Iranians are also well aware of.

America has also been threatening Syria again too, accusing the Assad regime of trying to topple the Lebanese government. This at a time when Blair is trying to build bridges with the Syrians in order to do something to try and rectify the terrible mess he and Bush have created in the Middle East. It doesn't seem to be an initiative the Bush administration or Israel approve of. I think it would be naive to think all these events are unrelated.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Israel, Bush, Blair, US Politics

The “unseemly” horse trading at the UN: Jobs for the boys or a prelude to war?

2006-10-05T06:10:00.000+01:00

I have to admit I was a bit surprised to hear about the extraordinary unanimity in the choice of Ban Ki Moon as the likely successor to Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the UN when he stands down at the end of this year. I needn't have been that surprised. Behind the scenes there was, it seems, an awful lot of argument about the selection of Ban Ki Moon, mostly from the five permanent members of the security council, particularly Britain, and what the horse trading was about was getting top jobs for British officials.

BRITAIN has demanded a key United Nations policy job as the price of supporting the man likely to become the new UN Secretary-General.
Before throwing its weight behind Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean in the leading position to succeed Kofi Annan, the Government set out conditions that included the promise of top jobs for British officials.
The “unseemly” horse trading also involved other countries, according to diplomatic sources. It took place behind closed doors before Mr Ban cleared the latest hurdle — an informal straw poll of the 15-strong Security Council — earlier this week.
“It was like the European states carving up Africa in the 19th century,” one diplomat at the UN said. “The very same countries that lecture the UN on the need to reform and to make appointments based on merit were the ones pressing for their candidates to be given top jobs.
[...]
In particular, the British want to reclaim the job of under-secretary-general for the Department of Political Affairs, responsible for all the main international crises, including the Middle East, Iran, North Korea and other flashpoints.
“The British made it clear to Ban Ki Moon that this was a condition for their support,” said another source, who added that the same negotiations took place when Mr Annan became Secretary-General.
Source

So Britain wants to have a key role in the political affairs of the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. Well, that's not so surprising. It is interesting however in the light of this:

We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.
The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to the Battle for Oil.
The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.
The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022
These war plans must be taken very seriously.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, a long war, which threatens the future of humanity.
In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called Homeland Security agenda which has already defined the contours of a police State.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
Source

The above quote is the editor's note at the head of a long, detailed and well-sourced article by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya of Global Research entitled The March to War: Naval Build-Up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean (via Truthout which has put in other links to the relevant articles). The article and the long list of links at the end point to a very disturbing pattern which makes a bigger Middle Eastern war look all but inevitable. It's worth reading the whole piece. There has been plenty of speculation in recent months about the possibility of an attack on Iran and/or Syria, so much so that I decided to comment further on it only when there was evidence of the necessary troop build-up. This looks like evidence of a such a build-up, much more secretive than the blatent military massing prior to the Iraq war. It might explain why Britain is so eager to muscle in on top UN positions.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, UN, Britain