WarSclerotic

Putin controls Middle East – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: As US stalls in regaining Sunni trust, Israel may grow closer to Saudis to prevent bomb

Dr. Yaron Friedman

The entire world was surprised by the outbreak of the Arab revolutions: The Arab Spring in 2011, the Islamic Winter in 2012, and the reaction of the Arab regimes in 2013. Now comes the “Russians are back” era ahead of 2014.

Despite the Sunni world’s great frustration over the American dialogue with Iran, Arab countries’ courtship of Russia is still surprising, in light of its consistent support for Bashar Assad‘s regime since the start of the revolution in Syria. Russia has provided consistent support for a regime responsible for the death of 120,000 Arab Syrians.

Russia, which was the most hated country in the Sunni world at the start of the revolution in Syria, is gaining growing popularity in the Arab world. A series of mistakes by the American government led to the Russians’ return to the Middle East. How serious will the results of the Russian comeback be?

The negotiations between the United States and Iran have yet to yield a thing, but their sub-scores in the meantime are disastrous for America and its democratic vision in the Middle East. The series of mistakes by the US included its agreement not to attack the Syrian regime in return for its (alleged) complete elimination of chemical weapons, its willingness to negotiate with the Iranian regime on the nuclear issue, and cutting aid to the Egyptian regime while it fights the Muslim Brotherhood. The consequences could generate a strategic upheaval in the region.

Up until now, the Middle East was divided as follows: The Shiite world, led by Iran, was supported by Russia; and the Sunni world, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was supported by the US. But the latest American steps are seen as a serious betrayal by the Sunni axis.

As opposed to America, Russia was revealed during the Syrian crisis as a loyal friend of the Assad regime. The Saudi kingdom invested billions in the Syrian opposition and suffered a major disappointment with the cancelation of the American strike. Saudi Arabia’s refusal to be represented in the United Nations Security Council in October signaled its change in policy towards the US.

Saudi Arabia is more concerned than all of the region’s countries that Iran will achieve nuclear abilities. As opposed to the Iranian-Israeli conflict which only began in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian-Saudi conflict has a background of some 1,300 years of struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. If Iran attains a nuclear bomb, the Shiites will gain an advantage over the Sunni world for the first time in the history of Islam. The head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, declared in the past that if Iran obtained nuclear abilities, Saudi Arabia would do the same.

And so, from the moment the Americans began considering easing sanctions against Iran, Saudi Arabia began talks with Pakistan, the only Muslim (and Sunni) country with a nuclear weapon. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stated recently that he would also consider accepting Russian aid. The Russians, on their part, rushed to express their consent to help develop the Saudi reactors. At the same time, discussions began at the Gulf Cooperation Council on the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The Russians are expected to be involved in that project too.

Filling the American void

The Russians are taking very good advantage of the void created by the American policy. The arrival of the Russian foreign and defense ministers in Egypt for talks last week was an unprecedented historical event since the countries severed ties in 1979. In the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat broke off relations with the Soviet Union, turned to the US for help and signed the peace treaty with Israel.

President Hosni Mubarak considered opening a civilian nuclear reactor with Russia’s help, but shelved the idea after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. According to a recent report in the Arab press, a significant part of the aid Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates gave Egypt, which was supposed to help the country’s economy, will be used to purchase modern weapons from Russia, including submarines and MiG-29 fighter aircraft.

Russia and Egypt are expected to sign long-term military agreements soon, which will open a new chapter in the relations between the two countries. A report in one of the Russian newspapers even stated that the future agreements include the establishment of a Russian civilian nuclear reactor in Egypt off the Mediterranean Sea.

The appetite for nukes has not skipped over Jordan, which officially declared about two weeks ago that it is building a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. This reactor, which will be utilizable in 2021, was acquired from a Russian company at the approval of the Russian government. The declared goal is to produce energy and reduce the price of electricity. The Russian funding of the project, which amounts to 49%, proves just how important it is for the Russians to build the reactor.

The reactors are allegedly meant to solve the energy problem in the Middle East, especially in countries in distress like Egypt and Jordan. The nuclear energy is supposed to prepare rich countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates to an era in which they will run out of oil reserves. But the nuclear race, both for peaceful purposes and for purposes of war, will eventually lead to the nuclearization of the Middle East.

There is no limit to the dangers this new situation could create in the future. The Jordanian reactor will be built too close to the Great Rift Valley, and its maintenance will be problematic for the poor kingdom. The reactor built in the south of the kingdom, which will need the Red Sea water to cool the centrifuges, will serve as a constant threat on the entire area. The reactors expected to pop up like mushrooms in Saudi Arabia and perhaps in Egypt too later on, could violate Israel‘s strategic advantage over the Arab world.

In the Middle Eastern game of chess between the US and Russia, the former enjoyed a longer advantage of several decades. But one wrong move of sacrificing safe pieces in order to reach vague achievements, changed the situation on the board.

The US is facing a new and unexpected challenge: It must get the Sunni axis back on its side and regain its trust. The more the US takes its time in doing so, the more Russia will deepen its ties in the region.

The crisis created should have brought two old enemies closer, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as they are both frustrated by the US policy and both want to prevent the Iranian bomb at any cost. If the leaders of the two countries are wise enough to realize the power concealed in cooperating with each other, it will be “the start of a beautiful friendship.”

Dr. Yaron Friedman, Ynet’s commentator on the Arab world, is a graduate of the Sorbonne. He teaches Arabic and lectures about Islam at the Technion, at Beit Hagefen and at the Galilee Academic College. His book, “The Nusayri Alawis: An Introduction to the Religion, History and Identity of the Leading Minority in Syria,” was published in 2010 by Brill-Leiden

Hezbollah Wants Iran Deal Almost as Much as Obama | FrontPage Magazine.

November 15, 2013 By Ari Lieberman

On Wednesday, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah announced (from a secret location) that the P5 + 1 group’s failure to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic on sanctions will result in a regional war. Clearly, Nasrallah wants and, in fact, needs a deal. Sanctions have already cost Iran 130 billion dollars. That amount not only puts a serious dent into Iran’s economy, sowing discontent among the masses, it adversely affects Iran’s ability to wage war via its proxies, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas. A cash infusion, the byproduct of sanctions relief, will enable Iran and Hezbollah to carry on with their pillaging.

Strangely, Nasrallah’s “anti-war,” pro-deal stance puts him in the same corner as the Obama administration. Administration officials have even adopted Nasrallah’s rhetoric, claiming that the imposition of stiffer sanctions on Iran, as contemplated by congress, would lead to war.

Reeling from record low favorability ratings, the healthcare fiasco and various foreign policy failures, the administration is desperate for a deal, any deal. According to published reports, however, the French nixed a prospective deal on sanctions for not being tough enough, placing the current state of world affairs clearly within the depths of Twilight Zone territory.

France is not a nation well known for its backbone and its history is replete with examples of French perfidy and spinelessness. From its collaborationist Vichy past to its fiascos in Indochina and Algeria, the French have a rich history of cutting and running. Now, however, the French have suddenly turned into saviors, preventing a deal that would have allowed the mullahs to continue enriching uranium without dismantling any nuclear infrastructure or reducing existing stockpiles of enriched uranium.

So we are now confronted with a bizarre situation where Hezbollah and the United States are advocating the same cause and using the same panicky language, while the French, the traditional authority figures on appeasement, are showing some backbone. If that isn’t strange enough, the leadership void created by the administration’s vacillation and appeasement has generated a peculiar realignment of realpolitik whereby the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris and other Gulf nations are looking to their traditional enemy, the Israelis, to protect their security interests.

All the regional players are acutely cognizant of Iran’s pernicious objectives. They are keenly aware that Iran lied about its enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. That it lied about its heavy water plutonium facility at Arak. That it kept its uranium enrichment activities underground away from prying eyes and that it conducted nuclear implosion experiments and attempted to conceal this from International Atomic Energy Inspectors. The Gulf nations are nervous and with good justification but lacking credible military strength, they are helpless. Abandoned by the administration, they naturally turned to Israel, something that would have been unheard of in times past.

U.S. foreign policy is turning the world on its head in other theaters as well. On August 21, Syria’s serial killer head of state and chief warlord, Bashar Assad, emboldened by a sheepish U.S. president, used chemical weapons against his own people killing at least 1,300, many of them children. The Obama administration hooted and hollered but in the end, it was Russia’s ex-KGB strongman, Vladimir Putin, who came to the rescue and defused the situation in a manner that suited the interests of the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah axis. In the age of Obama, an ex-KGB thug is suddenly transformed into a peacemaker.

The administration claims to seek regional stability but they’re doing their damnedest to create regional conflagration. Administration officials deliberately leaked information that implicated Israel in an October 31 strike against advanced Russian made Syrian anti-aircraft missiles and related equipment near Latakia. The disclosures threatened to back Assad into a corner leaving him no recourse but avenge “Arab honor” and offer some form of military response.

Israeli officials were furious and called the leaks “scandalous.” Israeli protests to the White House were met with muted response and the Israelis were at a loss to describe the administration’s inexplicable behavior, which at best amounted to gross negligence and endangered the security interests of its closest Mideast ally.

This isn’t the first occasion where administration officials leaked damaging information about Israel’s strategic and tactical initiatives. In March 2012 administration officials disclosed damaging information concerning the burgeoning alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan. The disclosure served no purpose except to damage the close relationship carefully cultivated between the two nations and jeopardize Israel’s strategic initiatives. Allies don’t treat each other that way but this administration has a knack for upsetting allies; Honduras, Columbia, Poland and the Czech Republic just to name a few.

Perhaps the most inexplicable behavior of all is the manner in which Secretary of State John Kerry torpedoed any chance of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its duplicitous “peace partner,” The Palestinian Authority. In a scathing commentary last week, one marked by vitriol characteristic of the radical left, Kerry launched into a diatribe blaming Israel exclusively for stalled talks while giving the Palestinian Authority a free pass and even gave implicit recognition to terrorism as a legitimate means to obtain concessions. The net result of his malevolent screed was to harden already implausible and unrealistic Arab demands, diminishing any hope for a peaceful resolution. For an administration besotted by establishing Judenrein in Judea and Samaria, Kerry’s nonsensical talk likely had the opposite effect.

So there you have it. John Kerry and Hassan Nasrallah have teamed up to urge capitulation to the Islamic Republic while the French, historically known as the jellyfish of Europe, are suddenly developing a skeletal structure. The Saudis and the Gulf countries are looking to the Jews for protection and an ex-KGB man has been transformed into a peculiar combination of rainmaker and peacemaker. To top it off the administration is treating its closest regional ally like an adversary and is systematically sabotaging its security interests while providing political cover to its sworn enemies.

We are indeed living in strange times, a product of the leadership void created by the Obama administration. Rod Serling in his finest hour couldn’t conjure up a more convoluted scenario.

In other news, North Korea recently executed 80 people for possessing bibles and watching South Korean films with no protest from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Oh well. It’s good to know that some things will always remain predictable.

Hollande and Netanyahu to consider forming a joint French-Israeli-Arab front against Iran.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 16, 2013, 4:10 PM (IDT)

French President Francois Hollande’s first visit to Israel.

French President Francois Holland and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius arrive in Jerusalem Sunday, Nov. 17. Their talks with Israel’s leaders are likely to determine how France, Israel and Saudi Arabia respond to the Obama administration’s current Middle East moves, with critical effect on the next round of nuclear talks taking place in Geneva Wednesday, Nov. 20 between six world powers and Iran.

France will be given the option of aligning with the Middle East powers – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt – which challenge President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry’s race for détente with Tehran.
If he accepts this option, the next decision facing President Hollande will be whether, how and when this grouping is willing to consider resorting to military action to preempt a nuclear-armed Iran. This option has been abandoned by Washington, a decision succinctly articulated Tuesday, Nov. 12, by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

“The American people do not want a march to war,” he told reporters. Therefore: “…spoiling diplomatic talks with Iran would be a march to war.”

Ergo, opponents of a US-Iranian deal – Carney omitted mention of Iran’s military nuclear program to leave US negotiators a free hand for easy terms – are pushing for war.

Hollande and Netanyahu will have to decide between them whether to create a joint French-Arab-Israeli military option to fill the gap left by Washington’s abdication from the war choice and, if so, whether, how and when to exercise it.
Foreign Minister Fabius, whose vote torpedoed the original US proposal for Iran at the first Geneva conference, analyzed the implications of Obama’s policy in a lecture this week marking the 40th anniversary of the French Policy Planning Staff, which largely shapes Paris government foreign and defense policies.
He said: “The United States seems no longer to wish to become absorbed by crises that do not align with its new vision of its national interest. Because nobody can take the place of the United States, this disengagement could create major crises left to themselves. A strategic void could be created in the Middle East, with widespread perception of Western indecision.”
The self-evident corollary to this diagnosis is that by foregoing resistance to the US-Iranian understanding, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel would share America’s responsibility for the major crises erupting in the region, which none of them would be able to control.
debkafile sees another dimension to this argument: Paris, Riyadh and Jerusalem do not feel guilty of wantonly attacking the Obama outreach to Iran; they rather feel they were driven into a corner by a policy inimical to their interests and from which they were forced to step aside.

Although confronted at home with anger over soaring prices and rated one of the most unpopular French presidents in recent times, Hollande instructed his foreign minister at the six-power negotiations in Geneva on Oct. 9 to stick France’s neck out and challenge the American proposal for a deal with Iran

The French president also chose to visit Israel at a moment of high vocal discord between the Obama administration and Binyamin Netanyahu, with Washington acting to isolate the Israeli leader for his stand-up fight against what he calls “a very bad deal” with Tehran.
However, the French president felt the need to talk to Netanyahu at this stage, before deciding whether or not to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by his foreign minister and continue to pursue an independent French path against the Obama administration – possibly, hand in hand with likeminded Middle East governments.

Hollande’s decision is also of high significance for Netanyahu when he meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next Wednesday, Nov. 20.
It will determine whether he stands alone on the key issues or is backed by France and Saudi Arabia. In any case, the prime minister will try and sound Putin out on how far Russia is willing to go to fill the “strategic void” left by America in the Middle East. He will ask whether Moscow is willing to work ad hoc with Israel, France, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to defeat Obama’s Middle East moves – even though each has its own individual interests to look after.

The decisions reached by the French president and Israeli prime minister are therefore of critical import to the next round of nuclear negotiations with Iran next Wednesday.

Vive la France! | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST EDITORIAL

11/17/2013 04:58

Thanks to the French, the Islamic Republic will not, for the time being, get relief from the sanctions regime as it marches – nearly unhindered – toward nuclear capability.

‘Sucker’s deal” is how French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius referred to the agreement that began to materialize in negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 a week ago.

Thanks to the French, the Islamic Republic will not, for the time being, get relief from the sanctions regime as it marches – nearly unhindered – toward nuclear capability. A historic security blunder was avoided.

The French are to be praised for demonstrating leadership. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s harsh criticism of the purported deal turned out not to be a lone voice. A warmer-than-usual welcome awaits France’s President Francois Hollande when he arrives this week accompanied by Fabius.

Fabius’s decision to break with the consensus, break the P5+1’s informal rules and go public with his reservations regarding the interim deal, is a sign of the times. Not too many years ago – particularly under the administration of president George W. Bush – it was a decidedly hawkish and interventionist US that led international coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, US President Barack Obama, in part out of deference to a war-weary America, has scaled back his country’s dominant role in the region.

The US refrained from taking the leading role in the military intervention in Libya, preferring instead to build a broad coalition. Though the Syrians crossed his redline with regard to the use of chemical weapons, Obama refrained from ordering an air attack and then failed to receive congressional support to do so. And the US has cut its aid to Egypt.

America seems to be less than willing to maintain pressure on Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry has asked US lawmakers not to increase sanctions against Islamic Republic. And the US has failed to maintain a credible military threat against Iran at least since the Islamic Republic’s new president Hassan Rouhani launched his charm offensive.

Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin of the Institute for National Security Studies noted recently that Jerusalem is concerned acceptance of a nuclear Iran – also referred to using the euphemistic Cold War-era term “containment” – is taking hold in Washington.

It is in this geopolitical context that Paris has stepped in to ensure that a serious deal is offered the Iranians. A number of motivations might be behind the French decision. France, as one of the few nations with nuclear weapons, wants to retain its exclusive status and tactical advantage via anti-proliferation policies. France, after all, has long taken a hard line on Iran’s program, going back to the government of president Jacques Chirac. As part of a larger strategy to increase its influence at a time when the US is wavering, the French might be interested in strengthening relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations in the Persian Gulf that face big security threats if Iran goes nuclear.

Standing up to the Americans might win Hollande points among the French people. French pride was stoked by the thought that for the first time in a while – perhaps since Charles de Gaulle’s era – instead of the Americans it was the French who were doing the leading.

Whatever the motivation, the French were right on target.

The semi-official Fars news agency in Iran criticized the “destructive roles of France and Israel” for the failure of negotiations and ran a caricature of France as a frog firing a gun. “By shooting a gun he feels important,” said the commentary.

US Sen. John McCain tweeted that Paris “had the courage to prevent a bad nuclear agreement with Iran. Vive la France!”

Israel said to be working with Saudi Arabia on Iran strike plan | The Times of Israel.

Riyadh reported to give Jerusalem okay to use Saudi airspace on cooperate on other tactical support, according to Sunday Times

By Times of Israel staff November 17, 2013, 3:41 am

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (photo credit: AP/Hassan Ammar/File)

Israel is working on coordinating plans for a possible military strike with Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh prepared to provide tactical support to Jerusalem, a British newspaper reported early Sunday.

The two countries have both united in worry that the West may come to terms with Iran, easing sanctions and allowing the Islamic Republic to continue its nuclear program.

According to the Sunday Times, Riyadh has agreed to let Israel use its airspace in a military strike on Iran and cooperate over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker planes and drones.

“The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” an unnamed diplomatic source told the paper.

The report comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a blitz to lobby against a deal and cobble together an international alliance opposed to an agreement that allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.

On Sunday, Israel will welcome French president Francois Hollande, who a week earlier put the kibosh on a deal between six world powers and Iran that would ease sanctions in return for initial steps toward curbing enrichment.

Netanyahu on Friday urged France to remain firm in its pressure on Iran ahead of a new round of talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in Geneva, kicking off Wednesday.

After meeting Hollande, Netanyahu will head to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with President Vladimir Putin and lobby against the deal.

Iran’s bid for the bomb “threatens directly the future of the Jewish state,” Netanyahu told CNN recently, in a short preview clip of an interview broadcast on Saturday. As the prime minister of Israel, he stressed, he had to care for “the survival of my country.”

CNN reported that Netanyahu also said in the interview that he would do whatever it was necessary to do in order to protect Israel. The full interview will air Sunday morning.

Should a deal be reached, according to the diplomatic source, a military option would be back on the table. Saudi tactical support, in lieu of backup from the Pentagon, would be vital for a long-range mission targeting Iran’s nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim country across the Persian Gulf from Iran has long been at odds with Tehran, and fears a nuclear weapon would threaten Riyadh and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.