Posted tagged ‘Putin’

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

October 12, 2015

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

By Mike Whitney

Source: Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

Russia doesn’t want to fight a war with Turkey, so Russian generals devised a simple, but effective plan to discourage Turkey from taking any action that could lead to a clash between the two nations.

Last week, Russian warplanes intruded into Turkish airspace twice. Both incidents caused consternation in Ankara and send Turkish leaders into a furor.  On both occasions, officials in Moscow politely apologized for the incursions claiming they were unintentional (“navigational errors”) and that they would try to avoid similar intrusions in the future.

Then there was a third incident, a more serious incident, that was not a mistake. It was clearly intended to send a message to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Here’s a short summary of what happened from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

“Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire.” (“US, NATO step up threats to Russia over Syria“, World Socialist Web Site)

This was no mistake. The only time a fighter pilot adopts these protocols is when he plans to take down an enemy plane. This was a message, and while it might have been over-the-heads of the politicians and the media but, I assure you, every general in the Turkish High-Command knows what’s it means. This is a wake-up call.  Moscow is indicating that there’s a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there’s going to be trouble. There’s not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there’s not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria.  The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria’s sovereign borders. That’s the message. Period.

This is a good example of how “preemption” can actually prevent conflicts rather than starting them. By firing a shot over Turkey’s bow, Moscow has dampened Erdogan’s plan to annex part of N. Syria and declare it a “safe zone”. Turkey will have to scrap that plan now realizing that any attempt to seize-and-hold Syrian territory will trigger a swift and powerful Russian retaliation. Seen in this light,  Russia’s incursion looks like an extremely effective way to prevent a broader war by simply telegraphing to potential adversaries what they can and can’t do. Simply put: Putin has rewritten the rules of the game in Syria and Erdogan had better comply or else. Here’s more on Turkey from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent:

“A Turkish ground invasion into Syria, though still a possibility, would now be riskier with Russian aircraft operating in areas where Turkey would be most likely to launch an incursion.

The danger for the Turks is that they now have two Kurdish quasi-states, one in Syria and one in Iraq, immediately to the south. Worse, the Syrian-Kurdish one…is run by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) which is effectively the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984. Any insurgency by the PKK in Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey in future will be strengthened by the fact that the PKK has a de facto state of its own.

It appears that Turkey’s four-year attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has failed. It is unclear what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can do about this since support from Nato is at this stage purely rhetorical. As for Turkey’s relations with Russia, Mr Erdogan says that any attack on Turkey is an attack on Nato and that “if Russia loses a friend like Turkey with whom it has co-operated on many issues, it will lose a lot.” But in Syria, at least, it appears that it is Turkey that is the loser.” (“Russia in Syria: Russian Radar Locks on to Turkish Fighter Jets“, The Unz Review)

Poor Erdogan. He rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. He figured he could expand his would-be Ottoman Empire into Northern Syria, and now his dream is in a shambles. Should he deploy his warplanes to N Syria and openly challenge the Russian airforce?  No, he’s not that foolish. He’s going to stay on his side of the border, stomp his feet, and lash out at “evil Putin”, but at the end of the day, he’ll do nothing.

And Washington’s not going to do anything either. Yes, Hillary and McCain have been calling for a no-fly zone over Syria, but that’s not going to happen. Putin won’t allow it and neither will the Security Council. And, on what pretext anyway? Is Obama really going to request a no-fly zone on the basis that Putin is killing “moderate” terrorists along with the “extreme” terrorists? That’s not a very compelling argument, in fact, even the American people are having a hard time swallowing that one. If Obama wants something from Putin, he’s going to have sit-down at a bargaining table and hash out a deal. So far, he has refused to do that, because he still thinks regime change is within his grasp. There are signs of this everywhere like this article in Turkey’s Today’s Zaman titled “İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel”:

“A tent city within İncirlik has been undergoing reconstruction for modern prefabricated houses, which will host 2,250 US military personnel, the Doğan news agency reported on Friday. During the Gulf War of 1991, a tent city was established to accommodate military personnel serving with Operation Provide Comfort (OPC) and was shut down with the end of the OPC.

On Aug. 20, work began to transform the site of the tent city into a new area named “Patriot Town.” After construction is completed, the İncirlik base will have the largest capacity among the US bases in Europe…

The expansion of the İncirlik base’s capacity comes at a time when Russia has launched the biggest intervention in the Middle East in decades….Moscow’s intervention means the conflict in Syria has been transformed from a proxy war.. into an international conflict in which the world’s main military powers… are directly involved in fighting.” (“İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel“, Today’s Zaman)

This article smacks of US ambitions in the Middle East. As readers can plainly see,  Washington is gearing up for another war just like it did in 1991.  And the US air war is going to be launched from “Patriot Town” at Incirlik just like we’ve been predicting since July when the deal was finalized. Here’s more background from an article at Hurriyet:

“U.S. Air Force Central Command has started deploying search and rescue helicopters and airmen at Turkey’s southeastern Diyarbakır Air Base in order to help with recovery operations in neighboring Iraq and Syria, it has announced….

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command, Gen. Phillip Breedlove, has said the mission will be temporary.

“We will be guests of the government of Turkey at Diyarbakir Air Base. There are no plans for a permanent U.S. presence at this location … This marks yet another successful cooperative effort between the Turkish and U.S. militaries,” Breedlove said.” (“US deploys recovery aircraft in Turkey’s southeast“, Hurriyet)

 

“US Search and rescue helicopters” just a couple miles from Turkey’s southeastern border?

Yep.  In other words,  if an F-16 is shot down somewhere over Syria while trying to impose an illegal no-fly zone, then– Presto– the search and rescue helicopters are just 20 minutes away.

How convenient.

So you can see that– even though Putin has thrown a wrench in the works–  the Obama team is still moving ahead with its “Topple Assad” plan.  Nothing has changed, the Russian intervention just makes the future much more uncertain which is why frustrated geopolitical strategists, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, have begun to pop-up in the op-ed pages of leading newspapers blasting Putin for sabotaging their plans for regional hegemony. It’s worth noting that Brzezinski is the spiritual godfather of Islamic extremism, the man who figured out how religious nutcases could be used to foment hysteria and advance US geopolitical objectives around the world. Thus, it’s only natural that Brzezinski would want to offer his advice now in a desperate effort to avoid a legacy of failure and disgrace. Check out this clip from Politico:

“The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging “strategic boldness,” with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake….And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he said.” (“Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking U.S. assets“, Politico)

The people who Brzezinski breezily refers to as “American assets” in Syria are terrorists. It’s that simple. Putin doesn’t distinguish between the “moderate” terrorists and the “radical” terrorists, the good terrorists and the bad terrorists. It’s a joke. They’re all in the same pool and they’re all going to meet the same fate. They all have to be rooted out, apprehended or killed. End of story.

By tweaking the war on terror narrative in a way that supports some, but condemns others, the Obama administration has backed themselves into an ideological cul de sac from which there is no way out. What they are doing is wrong and they know it is wrong. And that’s why it’s going to be so difficult to make the case for war. In a recent “must see” interview, Putin called out Obama on this very point. Here’s what he said:

“President Obama frequently mentions the threat of ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? And who created the political climate that facilitated the current situation?  Who delivered arms to the area? Do you really not know who is fighting in Syria? They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid. We know they fight for awhile and then see that someone else pays a little more, so they go there…..

The US says “We must support the civilized, democratic opposition in Syria”. So they support them, arm them, and then they join ISIS. Is it impossible for the US to think one step ahead?  We do not support this kind of policy at all. We think it’s wrong.” (Putin explains who started ISIS, you tube, 1:38 to 4:03)

See? Everyone knows what’s going on. Barack Obama is not going to initiate a confrontation with Russia to defend a fundamentally immoral CIA program that has gone south.  He will, however, do what the US always does when dealing with an adversary that can actually defend itself.  He’s going to hector, harass, threaten, demean, demonize, ridicule, and bully. He might launch another attack on the ruble, or fiddle with oil prices or impose more economic sanctions. But he’s not going to start a war with Russia,  that’s just not going to happen.

But don’t give up hope just yet, after all, there is a silver lining to this fiasco, and all of the main players know exactly what it is.

It’s called Geneva. Geneva is the endgame.

Geneva is the UN-backed road map for ending the war in Syria. Its provisions allow for the “establishment of a transitional governing body”, the  “participation of all groups… in a meaningful national dialogue,” and “free and fair multi-party elections.”

The treaty is straightforward and uncontroversial. The one sticking point, is whether Assad will be allowed to participate in the transitional government or not.

Putin says “Yes”.  Obama says “No”.

Putin is going to win this battle. Eventually, the administration will cave in and withdraw their demand that Assad step down. Their plans for regime change through the use of jihadi-proxies will have failed, and Putin will have moved the Middle East one step closer to a lasting peace and genuine security.

That’s the silver lining and that’s how the war in Syria will end.

Bravo, Putin.

UK MoD denies tabloid reports RAF ‘ready to shoot down’ Russian planes over Iraq

October 12, 2015

UK MoD denies tabloid reports RAF ‘ready to shoot down’ Russian planes over Iraq

Published time: 12 Oct, 2015 07:27

Edited time: 12 Oct, 2015 08:38

Source: UK MoD denies tabloid reports RAF ‘ready to shoot down’ Russian planes over Iraq — RT News

© Daily Star / The Sunday Times
UK media allegations that RAF pilots in Iraq had been authorized to shoot down Russian fighters in case of imminent threat have prompted a response from Moscow. Britain’s military says there is “no truth” in the reports.

The initial report was published by The Daily Star and The Sunday Times. It claimed that an “unidentified source” in the British military told the media that Royal Air Force’s Tornado GR4 involved in Operation Shader in Iraq against Islamic State from now on are going to be armed with ASRAAM (AIM-132) short range air-to-air heat-seeking missiles to be prepared to “to shoot down Vladimir Putin’s jets,” The Sunday Times reports.

So far, the RAF jets took off armed with “500lb satellite-guided bombs only,” but as the source in British Defense Ministry put it, “in the last week the situation has changed. We need to respond accordingly.”

British pilots have been allegedly instructed to avoid contact with Russian aircraft.

“The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur — you avoid an area if there is Russian activity,” an unnamed source from the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. “But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events.”

“No one knows what the Russians will do next. We don’t know how they will respond if they come into contact with a Western jet,” the source said.

The Russian Air Force is not executing any operations in Iraqi airspace, so in theory any interaction between Russian and British warplanes is out of the question. Yet the very raising of the issue provoked a hardline response from both the Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry.

Sergey Lavrov’s office issued an official request to the British Foreign Office, demanding explanations. The diplomatic note was delivered by Russian Ambassador to the UK Aleksandr Yakovenko.

“We are concerned by media reports as far as they refer to senior members of the Cabinet. We urgently requested the UK Foreign Office’s clarifications. At the same time, the hypothesis itself of a potential conflict between British and Russian aircraft in the skies over Iraq is incomprehensible. As is known, the Russian jets are not involved in attacks on ISIL targets on [Iraqi] territory,” the Russian ambassador told RIA Novosti.

The British military attaché in Moscow has also been summoned to the Russian Defense Ministry, where he was handed a note demanding that he explain whether it is true that British pilots have been given a “shoot to kill” order regarding Russian aircraft.

Although the MoD’s spokesperson said in their official news blog: “There is no truth in this story,” answers to both requests are pending.

British Tornado GR4 fighter jets operating in Iraq were manufactured more than a quarter of a century ago, whereas the Russian Sukhoi Su-30SM fighter jets ensuring air escort for the assault groups in Syria entered service in the 21st century and are a step ahead of their British counterparts in every way, including inventory and radar range.

“All operational flights [in Syria] are being performed with activated defensive onboard [radioelectronic combat] gear,” Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, said on October 3. This means that locking on to a missile on Russian 4++ generation fighter jet would be a tough assignment for a veteran British aircraft.

 

Putin and Saudi defense minister meet in Russia, agree on common goals in Syria

October 11, 2015

Putin and Saudi defense minister meet in Russia, agree on common goals in Syria

Published time: 11 Oct, 2015 23:08

Source: Putin and Saudi defense minister meet in Russia, agree on common goals in Syria — RT News

Russian President Vladimir Putin, 3rd right, and Deputy Crown Prince, Second Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, 4th left, at their meeting in Sochi, October 11, 2015. © Aleksey Nikolskyi
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s defense minister have agreed that Moscow and Riyadh should pursue common goals in Syria, including national reconciliation and combating terrorists, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov said.

Putin met with Sheikh Mohammed bin Salman for talks on the sidelines of a Formula 1 race in Sochi on Sunday. The meeting was also attended by the foreign ministers of both states.

“The sides confirmed that Saudi Arabia and Russia have similar goals concerning Syria,” said Russian FM Sergey Lavrov following the talks. “First of all, they are to prevent a terrorist caliphate from getting the upper hand in Syria.”

The second goal that we share with Riyadh is “ensuring the triumph of national reconciliation in Syria so that all Syrians, regardless of their nationality or religion, will feel masters of their land,” he said.

Saudi Arabia’s FM, Adel al-Jubeir, expressed Riyadh’s concerns about the targets of Russia’s military operations in Syria. In turn, Putin said Moscow understands the Saudi’s concern and expressed readiness to cooperate and share intelligence, according to Lavrov.

READ MORE:Putin: Russia has no intention of mounting Syria ground operation, wants to see political compromise

“On our part, we expressed readiness, which was met with a positive response from the successor to the Crown Prince, to begin close cooperation between our militaries, and security services in order to eliminate any doubts that the targets of the Russian Air Force are ISIS militants, al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations,” he said.

During the talks, Saudi Arabia expressed readiness to intensify its efforts to cooperate with Russia with regard to anti-terrorist operations, al-Jubeir said.
Though sharing views on reaching a speedy political resolution in Syria, Russia and Saudi Arabia have different stances with regard to President Bashar Assad’s future as president. Russia has reiterated that Assad should remain in power, Lavrov said, adding that this does not prevent launching a process for resolving political differences. Riyadh believes that Assad must step down for there to be a political transition in Syria, al-Jubeir said.

Lavrov said that Russia calls on “all external players who can influence political processes in Syria to promote the soonest launch of a nationwide dialogue in Syria.”

He added that, after the talks between the two sides in Sochi, “we have a much clearer vision of how to move along the path of political settlement.”

Moscow and Riyadh also confirmed that there were a number of opportunities for bilateral cooperation in different areas, including the military-technical sphere, Lavrov said. “The parties stated the existence of very good opportunities in various fields, including economic investment, and military-technical cooperation. Corresponding plans will be implemented.”

World view: Politics may force Obama to ‘over-react’ militarily in Syria

October 11, 2015

World view: Politics may force Obama to ‘over-react’ militarily in Syria, BreitbartJohn J. Xenakis, October 11, 2015

(Fine. But what advice will he take from whom before he does something? Perhaps his favorite military political adviser?

PJ boy and Obama

— DM)

 

obamaz-640x480

Palestinian-Israeli violence continues in Gaza and West Bank

g151009bPalestinian protesters in Gaza on Friday (AP)

Six Palestinians were killed and hundreds of Palestinians and Israeli were wounded on Friday as several weeks of violence continued. ( “9-Oct-15 World View — Israeli-Palestinian violence spreads across West Bank as anger grows”)

Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, which governs Gaza, applauded the recent Palestinian knife attacks on Israelis, and called for a “third intifada.” By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “strongly condemned the harming of innocent Arabs.” Both Israeli and Palestinian security forces are on high alert, with more violence expected. Fox News/AP

Obama administration announces an abrupt change of policy in Syria

The Obama administration’s widely ridiculed $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) was “paused” on Friday as a publicly admitted failure. The program was supposed to train thousands of rebels, but the public was shocked several weeks ago when the administration admitted that only “four or five” had been trained, despite the program’s huge price tag.

As Foreign Policy magazine put it: “On Capitol Hill, it’s been called “a joke,” a “total failure,” and “a bigger disaster than I could have ever imagined.” And now we have another name for it: dead.”

A new program has been announced. The new program will provide air support and basic equipment and training to vetted opposition group leaders who are already fighting ISIS and who are committed to fighting ONLY ISIS, and not the regime of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad.

Brett McGurk, whose title is “White House deputy envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter Islamic State,” described the new program as follows:

“Is it best to take those guys out and put them through training programs for many weeks, or to keep them on the line fighting and to give them additional enablers and support? I think the latter is the right answer, and that’s what we’re going to be doing.”

According to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter: “I remain convinced that a lasting defeat of ISIL in Syria will depend in part on the success of local, motivated and capable ground forces. I believe the changes we are instituting today will, over time, increase the combat power of counter-ISIL forces in Syria and ultimately help our campaign achieve a lasting defeat of ISIL.”

The old policy was criticized and mocked from the day it was announced last year. The new policy is receiving similar treatment. A NY Times editorial titled “An Incoherent Syria War Strategy” points out that the strategy of finding and arming rebel groups that want to fight ISIS but who are going to be forbidden from fighting the al-Assad regime makes no sense:

“The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces.

There is no reason to believe that the United States will suddenly be successful in finding rebel groups that share its narrow goal of weakening the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, but not joining the effort to topple Mr. Assad. Washington’s experience in Syria and other recent wars shows that proxy fighters are usually fickle and that weapons thrust into a war with no real oversight often end up having disastrous effects.”

This harsh criticism from a newspaper that regularly slobbers over President Obama symbolizes how much even the left-wing mainstream media, not to mention foreign media throughout the Mideast, now views the Obama administration as weak and rudderless, lurching from one policy to the next. (As another example, it had been widely expected that Secretary of State John Kerry would win this year’s Nobel Peace Prize for the Iran nuclear deal, but even the loony Norwegians have lost faith.) VOA and NY Times

Obama administration may be forced into greater military role

I’ve written many times about the Harry Truman’s Truman Doctrine of 1947, which made America policeman of the world. The justification is that it’s better to have a small military action to stop an ongoing crime than to let it slide and end up having an enormous conflict like World War II. Every president since WW II has followed the Truman Doctrine, up to and including George Bush. Barack Obama is the first president to repudiate the Truman Doctrine, essentially leaving the world without a policeman.

Call it Kismet or Karma or God’s Will (or call it an unstoppable generational trend), but America does have an exceptional role in the world, and repudiating that role does not end it. Obama’s policy of apologizing for America has held sway for over six years, but now powerful political pressures are growing to force a change. Those forces are being driven by massive shifts in public attitudes towards Obama, both in the US and abroad, as reflected in worldwide criticism of him in the media as a weak president.

According to the left-leaning Washington Post:

“Russia’s military moves in Syria are fundamentally changing the face of the country’s civil war, putting President Bashar al-Assad back on his feet, and may complicate the Obama administration’s plans to expand its air operations against the Islamic State. …

But others within the administration, and many outside experts, are increasingly worried that if President Obama does not take decisive action — such as quickly moving to claim the airspace over northwestern Syria and the Turkish border, where Russian jets are already operating — it is the United States that will suffer significant damage to both its reputation and its foreign policy and counterterrorism goals. …

The current internal administration debate is largely the same one that has kept the administration out of significant intervention in Syria’s civil war for the past four years. On one side, Russia’s involvement has strengthened the winning argument that the United States should avoid direct involvement in yet another Middle East conflict and should continue directing its resources toward countering forces such as the Islamic State that pose a direct threat to U.S. national security.

On the other side, the argument is that it makes no strategic sense for the United States to concede Russian dominance of the situation: If Russia succeeds in keeping Assad in power, the problems in the West caused by both the Syrian war and militant expansion will only get worse.”

The article describes two sides of the debate whether to intervene in Syria, but does not draw the obvious conclusion that the weight of political opinion is moving sharply towards the side of some kind of intervention — although those that say that “it makes no strategic sense … to concede Russian dominance” do not agree on what steps should be taken to avoid conceding.

The left-leaning Brookings Institution makes the claim that intervention in Syria is costing Russia enormously, and so “For the United States, avoiding the temptation to over-react is still the key guideline.”

But the article then goes on to describe problems with doing nothing, and even conclude:

“Finally, the United States and its allies could deliver a series of airstrikes on the Hezbollah bands around Damascus. That would be less confrontational vis-à-vis Russia than hitting Assad’s forces. Hezbollah has already suffered losses in the Syrian war and is not particularly motivated to stand with Assad to the bitter end, away from own home-ground in Lebanon. (Israel would appreciate such punishment, too.)”

I almost can’t believe my eyes reading this recommendation. American warplanes around Damascus would almost certainly come into contact with Russian warplanes, and even if they didn’t, bombing al-Assad’s close ally Hezbollah could be the trigger that sets off a wider war in this generational Crisis era.

Policy can sometimes act like a rubber band that be stretched in one direction so far that when it’s released, it snaps back in the other direction violently. After six years of constantly apologizing for America, the pressure is on President Obama to do something different. Brookings advises Obama about “avoiding the temptation to over-react,” but Obama may be politically forced to decide that with his previous policies so widely criticized and mocked, he has to take some step to prove to the world that he’s a tough leader after all, and he may have to over-react, because no half-measure will provide the proof he needs. Washington Post and Brookings Institution.

Is Russia Plotting To Bring Down OPEC?

October 11, 2015

Is Russia Plotting To Bring Down OPEC?

By
Posted on Sun, 04 October 2015 00:00

Source: Is Russia Plotting To Bring Down OPEC? | OilPrice.com

President Putin’s recent moves in the Middle East—to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria through deployment of combat aircraft, equipment, and manpower and build-out of air-, naval-, and ground-force bases, and the agreement in the last week with Iran, Iraq, and Syria on intelligence and security cooperation—could contribute to Russian efforts to combat the myriad negative pressures on Russia’s vital energy industry.

Live by Energy…

Energy is the foundation of Russia, its economy, its government, and its political system. Putin has highlighted on various occasions the contribution Russia’s mineral wealth, in particular oil and natural gas, must make for Russia to be able to sustain economic growth, promote industrial development, catch up with the developed economies, and modernize Russia’s military and military industry.

Even a casual glance at the IMF’s World Economic Outlook statistics for Russia shows the tight correlation since 1992 between GDP growth on the one hand and oil and gas output, exports, and prices on the other (economic series available here). According to the IMF’s 2015 Article Iv Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report, published August 3, oil and natural gas exports comprised 65 percent of exports, 52 percent of the Federal government budget, and 14.5 percent of GDP in 2014. Including their domestic contribution, hydrocarbons represent ~30 percent of GDP.

While oil and natural gas are crucial to Russia, Russia’s crude and natural gas are crucial to its neighbors on the Eurasian landmass. Russia supplied about 30 percent (146.6 bcm) of Europe’s natural gas in 2014, and about 25 percent of its crude (3.5 mmbbl/day) in 2013. Russia’s oil and natural gas are also important to its Asian and Central Asian neighbors.

It is not only the commodities that make Russia crucial, but its massive land-based infrastructure for their distribution throughout the Eurasian landmass. As Tatiana Mitrova, head of the oil and gas department, Energy Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, pointed out regarding natural gas in The Geopolitics of Russian Natural Gas:

“Russia has a unique transcontinental infrastructure in the heart of Eurasia (150,000 km of trunk pipelines), which also makes it a backbone of the evolving, huge Eurasian gas market (which could include Europe, North Africa, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Caspian Sea region, and Northeast Asia). Control over the transportation assets in this region together with vast gas reserves make Russia the key element of this new market.”

The land-based oil distribution network is smaller, but also important. The 4,000 km Druzhba pipeline delivers about 1 mmbbl/day of crude to Europe—about 30 percent of total shipments to Europe. In the Far East, Rosneft shipped 22.6 million tons of crude to China in 2014 through the East Siberian Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline.

The Russian government continues to seek to extend and expand the natural gas distribution infrastructure—into Europe, with various proposed pipeline projects (Nord Stream 2, Turkish Stream 2, 3, and 4, South European Pipeline), and into China, with two large pipeline projects, Power of Siberia Pipeline (to supply China from East Siberia), and the proposed Altai pipeline (to supply China from West Siberia).

…Death by Energy

In the last few years, the threats to Russia’s energy industry have multiplied and intensified. They pose an existential threat to the industry and therefore to the Russian economy:

– The revenues Russia can earn from its crude and natural gas exports face intense pressure. The Saudi decision to let the market set prices and to pursue market share, has led to steep declines in crude and petroleum product prices. The decision also has impacted natural gas export prices negatively, since, for Russia’s long-term supply agreements, they wholly or partially are indexed to oil prices. The transition in Europe to hybrid natural gas pricing models (which take European spot hub prices into account) also has pressured natural gas pricing. (Natural gas data from Gazprom).

Adding to the revenue pain, natural gas export volumes have been falling, according to Gazprom (which has a monopoly on pipeline exports), as have domestic volumes within Russia:

It is therefore not surprising that the aforementioned IMF Article Iv Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report projected sharp declines in 2015 and 2016 from 2014 levels for oil export revenues ($109.8 billion and $96 billion respectively) and natural gas export revenues ($12 billion and $14.3 billion respectively).

– The U.S. and European Union’s decisions to impose—and maintain—sanctions on Russia after its invasion and annexation of Crimea and invasion and informal annexation eastern Ukraine will pile more pressure on the Russian energy industry. They include bans on financing for and the supply of critical equipment and technology to important Russian energy projects. Novatek and its partners Total and Chinese National Petroleum Company still lack $15 billion of the $27 billion needed to finance the Yamal LNG plant. Denis Khramov, Russia’s deputy Minister of Natural Resources, said September 28 at a conference in Russia’s Far East that Rosneft and Gazprom are delaying some offshore drilling by two to three years because of sanctions and low oil prices. The sanctions are also impeding Gazprom’s ability to develop the Chayandinskoye and Kovyktinskoye fields in eastern Siberia, from which it plans to supply natural gas to China under the bilateral $400 billion, thirty year deal signed in 2014.

– Following the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, The European Union is now even more determined to reduce its dependence on Russia for natural gas and to force Gazprom submit to EU competition rules. Europe has sought and continues to seek alternatives Russian natural gas (among them, U.S. LNG and Iranian pipeline and/or LNG). The European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, has refused to bless Gazprom’s proposed 55 bcm/year Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project, citing existing surplus Gazprom pipeline capacity into Europe and insufficient future demand for Russian natural gas. Also, the EU Commission in April charged Gazprom with violating the EU’s anti-trust laws for anti-competitive practices and unfair pricing in Central and Eastern Europe. If found guilty, Gazprom could face substantial fines of around $1 billion. Even if Gazprom avoids fines and manages to reach a settlement with the EU, as it hopes to do, its European market share and pricing will remain under pressure into the future.

– The emergence of the U.S., along with Canada, as powerful crude, NGL, and natural gas producers is also a major concern for the Russian economy. This has transformed the U.S. from a market for Russian crude and natural gas (via LNG) to a global competitor. If, as seems increasingly likely, the ban on crude exports is lifted, U.S. crude will compete with Russian crude in several key markets. It would also force foreign suppliers to seek other markets for all or part of the exports they previously sent to the U.S. This in turn would intensify competition among these crude exporting countries for share in those markets. In regard to natural gas, its explosive output growth in the U.S. undercut Gazprom’s rationale for its Baltic LNG project (10 mtpa), turned the U.S. into a major (potential) LNG competitor in global LNG import markets, and, via the U.S. toll- and Henry Hub- pricing model, weakened Gazprom’s ability to insist on oil-indexed, long-term contracts.

Saving Russian Energy (and Russia) through the Middle East?

Putin’s moves in the Middle East could help Russia address the impact of these threats to the Russian energy industry. They potentially enhance the attractiveness of Russian crude and natural gas supplies compared to those from Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies.

In the selection of crude and natural gas suppliers, security is a key consideration for importers. Wary of U.S. naval power, the Chinese, for example, prefer pipeline natural gas supplies over seaborne LNG supplies. Importers therefore must take into consideration the potential threats to transport. In this critical area, Russia enjoys a decided advantage over Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab producers, which depend on sea transport through the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea to ship their oil and LNG.

Each of the three routes from these two bodies of water passes through a “choke point” (from the Red Sea, through the Suez Canal to Europe and through the Mandeb Strait to Asia, from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz). By adding an airbase to their military presence in Syria, the Russians—coordinating with Iran, Syrian President Assad, and eventually possibly Iraq—would have the capability to disrupt shipments from Persian Gulf and Red Sea terminals.

Russia’s export channels are less susceptible to disruption. With the exception of LNG exports to Asia from Sakhalin, Russia sends natural gas to its customers via pipeline. About 70 percent of Russia’s seaborne oil exports are susceptible to choke points (shipments from two ports on the Gulf of Finland through the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic and one port on the Black Sea through the Turkish Strait/Bosporus to the Mediterranean), while 30 percent are not (pipeline shipments to Europe and ESPO pipeline shipments to the port of Primorsk near Vladivostok).

Putin’s moves also are strengthening Russia’s influence with OPEC. Russia already has extensive and close ties with Iran and Venezuela, and is now laying the basis for such ties with Iraq. Putin has aligned Russia with OPEC’s have nots–the members lacking financial resources to withstand low crude prices for an extended period and that have objected to Saudi policies (Iran, Iraq, Angola, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Ecuador, and Venezuela)—against the haves (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar). He has continually supported Venezuelan President Maduro’s calls for an emergency OPEC meeting on prices and his efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia to reverse its policy. Most recently, in the beginning of September, Putin told Maduro that the two countries “must team up to shore up oil prices”.

In addition, Russia’s deputy prime minister in charge of energy policy, Arkady Dvorkovich, in the beginning of September made comments that, in tone and substance, mocked Saudi policy, saying that “OPEC producers are suffering the ricochet effects of their attempt to flush out rivals by flooding the world with excess output,” expressing doubt that OPEC members “really want to live with low oil prices for a long time,” and implying that Saudi policy is irrational.

Indeed, Russia can be seen as maneuvering to split OPEC into two blocs, with Russia, although not a member, persuading the “Russian bloc” to isolate Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab OPEC members within OPEC. This might persuade the Saudis to seek a compromise with the have nots.

A strategic alliance with Iran and Iraq offers Putin two more potential avenues to pressure the Saudis. They can test Saudi determination to defend their market share at any price and its wherewithal financially to do so. Iran claims it can raise crude output by one million barrels within six or so months of the lifting of sanctions. The Saudis may be calculating that Iran must first rehabilitate its oil fields and that Iran, cash poor, cannot do so quickly. If this is the case, Russia could step in, offer Iran financing, and force the Saudis to contemplate prices staying lower longer than they anticipated and therefore continuing pressure on their economy.

Russia also could cooperate with Iran and Iraq to take market share from Saudi Arabia in the vital Chinese market. As a recent Bloomberg article pointed out, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Iraq and other countries are vying intensely for sales to China, the second largest import market and the major source of demand growth in coming years. Coordinating their pricing and consistently offering the Chinese prices below the Saudi price, they could seek to win market share. Such a price war would pressure the competitors’ currencies.

Since the Russians allow the Ruble to float, Iran maintains an informal and unofficial peg for its Rial to the US$, and Iraq has indicated it is willing to adjust its peg if necessary, while the Saudis are committed to the Riyal’s peg to the US$, Russia, Iran, and Iraq would have any advantage over Saudi Arabia. To the extent that Iran and Iraq allowed their currencies to adjust, Russian, Iranian, and Iraqi revenues in local currency terms would not decline as much as Saudi revenues fixed in US$ (and might even increase) as their currencies depreciated.

Results

Each of these opportunities offers the possibility to address the pressures on the Russian energy industry. However, Putin will have to play his cards carefully. Played heavy-handedly, he could intensify fears in Europe of excessive dependence on Russian energy supplies and awaken such fears in China. This could lead the Europeans and Chinese to search for other suppliers. In addition, mismanaged confrontation with the U.S. and Europe in and over Syria could lead to broadening and strengthening of economic and financial sanctions. Moreover, neither Iran nor Iraq will want to become overly dependent on Russia, which lacks the resources they need develop their energy industries.

Finally, the opportunities assume Putin’s gambits in Syria and with Syria, Iran, and Iraq in intelligence and security cooperation will succeed. And this, given the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and Putin’s experience in eastern Ukraine, is far from certain.

Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East

October 10, 2015

Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East, Washington Times, Ken Allard, October 8, 2015

(Oh well,

 

Not on our side

— DM)

 

Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.

Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region.

*****************************

The Russians are rapidly reinforcing their bridgehead in Syria, adding ground troops to their air, marine and naval forces. It is a classic air, land and sea intervention by a military establishment that understands how combined arms build synergies and broaden capabilities. As Jed Babbin pointed out in these pages on Wednesday, the broad-shouldered Russian intervention is the direct counterpoint to the “inaction, indecision and dithering” that have long characterized President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Mr. Obama’s bluff. He has also deployed a Russian expeditionary force bristling with robust anti-aircraft and ground-attack weapons, even firing cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea. Such a deployment is precisely what Mr. Putin believes necessary to insure that Russian jets and helicopters dominate the skies over Syria. Fox News reports that Russian jets have already shadowed U.S. Predator drones on three occasions, a quiet but unsubtle message that the unmanned aircraft are flying only because of Russian forbearance.

Depending solely on Mr. Putin’s strategic objectives, that prevailing restraint can vanish in an instant. Union and Confederate commanders, for example, routinely practiced counter-reconnaissance throughout the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. When planning a surprise attack or defending a vulnerable position, their first objective was to prevent enemy cavalry from having an unobstructed view of one’s own dispositions. What cavalry did back then, air forces and satellites do today.

Updating an ancient principle for the digital age, Norman Schwarzkopf destroyed Saddam Hussein’s radars, reconnaissance systems and intelligence assets before American airpower launched the opening salvos of Operation Desert Storm. Today’s Russian generals grew up practicing the basic principles of Soviet electronic warfare: Intercept the enemy’s communications, jam him or destroy him. Above all: Use the electromagnetic spectrum and state-of-the-art Russian air defenses to offset hi-tech American airpower. In Syria, that campaign has already begun.

Pandering to an American public that is militarily and strategically illiterate, some presidential candidates have reflexively called for “no-fly zones” to be set up in Syria. Predictably, Donald Trump has even expressed enthusiasm for Mr. Putin’s alleged intent to combat ISIS. But seriously, folks, why would Vladimir Putin go to the considerable trouble of staging the largest foreign deployment of Russian forces since the Cold War only to cater to western conceits about no-fly zones? Even if he did, who would set up and enforce them? Having made a power play to control Syria (and therefore a major chunk of the Middle East) why on earth would Mr. Putin content himself solely with attacking ISIS? (If you are having trouble following this logic, then you probably are a member of the White House staff “perplexed” by Russian objectives.

As a highly trained KGB apparatchik, Syria is not Mr. Putin’s first rodeo. While it has become obligatory in Washington policy salons to deplore Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Egypt’s recent history offers a better clue to Russia’s long-range goals.

Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.

Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region. Because it is a tough and unforgiving neighborhood, where would you place your bets if you lived there? Do you ally yourself with the rising regional power or the one seemingly intent only on defeat and retreat? As a friend points out, “Obama only attacks oilmen, Wall Street, the police, pro-lifers, the NRA, Christians, conservative Republicans, and traditional U.S. allies. Remember when they were the good guys?”

In this confusing world, it is important to remember that things can get worse, particularly given the fog of war with lots of heavily armed aircraft moving at high speeds over surprisingly small operating areas. War is justly famed for confounding the best intentions, for proving that the only assumption which holds true is the one you were certain could never happen.

How ironic that the place where three of the world’s great religions were born might yet spark a global confrontation where no holds are barred.

“Early signs of Russian intent”

October 10, 2015

“Early signs of Russian intent” Power LinePaul Mirengoff, October 10, 2015

That’s the front page headline of today’s Washington Post (paper edition). The story is about signs in August that Putin was mobilizing for a military offensive in Syria. Despite these signs, the Obama administration was “caught flat-footed” when the Russian offensive materialized two months later.

In a larger sense, “Russian intent” has long been clear. Putin has said he consider the fall of Soviet power a geopolitical catastrophe. He wants to restore Russian influence to the maximum extent feasible.

With Obama’s ascent to the White House, the “maximum extent feasible” increased dramatically. Putin figured this out in 2009 when Obama visited Russia. As I wrote at the time, his visit left the Russians giddy with the realization that they could steal the American president’s pants.

Russia isn’t the only American adversary whose “intent” Obama has failed to grasp. Iran is an equally dramatic case. Obama somehow came to believe that reaching a nuclear deal favorable to Iran would lead to improved relations with the mullahs and to arrangements to help “stabilize” the region.

But this week, as Scott has discussed, Iran’s “Supreme Leader” banned any further negotiations with the United States. What’s left to negotiate? They already have Obama’s pants.

Let’s return, though, to the Post’s story about signs in August that Russia was preparing to take military action in Syria. According to Post reporters Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung:

Among the first clues that Russia was mobilizing for a military offensive in Syria were requests Moscow began making in ­mid-August for permission to cross other countries’ territory with more and larger aircraft.

“We were getting the word the Russians were asking for inordinate overflights,” a senior Obama administration official said, referring to reports from U.S. allies receiving the requests. Russia was seeking clearance for not only cargo planes but also “fighter aircraft and bombers” that Syrian pilots had never been trained to fly, the official said. “It was clear that something pretty big was up.”

Something big was, in fact, up. By October, the Russians were pounding Syria rebels with air strikes.

Among those pounded were rebels trained and armed by the U.S. According to the Post, these rebels — our proxies — “appeared to get no warning” from the U.S. “that they were in the Russian jets’ cross hairs.”

This is how the U.S. treats its friends and allies in the Age of Obama.

Here’s perhaps the most shocking passage in the the Post’s depressing account:

Hesitation to take stronger action against the Russian move, [some White House official] said, stemmed in part from the administration’s belief, based on an interpretation of signs earlier in the year, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was moving toward withdrawing support from Assad and supporting talks that would lead to his departure.

They have got to be kidding. Putin is a bully. He has repeatedly demonstrated that, in the absence of serious resistance, he doesn’t withdraw, he advances.

So jarring is Obama’s naivety (or willful blindness) that his former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called him on it in a Washington Post op-ed this week (co-written by Condollezza Rice). Among the zingers were these:

President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry say that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. That is true, but Moscow understands that diplomacy follows the facts on the ground, not the other way around.

and, even more pointedly:

Putin’s move into Syria is old-fashioned great-power politics. (Yes, people do that in the 21st century.)

Meanwhile, according to the Post, the Pentagon says it is “sharply scaling back its effort to build a force to battle the Islamic State.” And our regional partners in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS) have deepening (and well-founded) doubts about the “coalition” Obama purports to lead.

The Post reports that CIA director John Brennan has gone to the Middle East “amid concerns that the coalition might be fraying, worries that intensified after allies including the Saudi defense minister and Jordan’s King Abdullah II made summer visits to Moscow.” (Emphasis added)

I wonder whether Brennan will even be able to look Saudi and Jordanian officials in the eye. I’m almost sure he wouldn’t be able to do so with the rebels his agency trained, the Russians pummeled, and Obama apparently now is turning his back on.

‘Russia’s Success in Syria Pushes Europe From US Stance Into Kremlin Line’

October 10, 2015

Russia’s Success in Syria Pushes Europe From US Stance Into Kremlin Line’

15:57 06.10.2015 (updated 16:02 06.10.2015)

Source: ‘Russia’s Success in Syria Pushes Europe From US Stance Into Kremlin Line’

A DC think tank has proposed another narrative regarding Russia’s involvement in Syria; having failed to sell the idea of Moscow’s anti-ISIL campaign being a ruse for bombing ‘friendly’ militants, it now claims that “Putin aims to drive a wedge between the US and Europe”, coaxing the latter to embrace closer ties with the Kremlin.

Two research fellows from the Hudson Institute, a conservative DC-based think tank, have laid out their vision of what Russia is up to in the skies above Syria.

The real reason for Russia’s presence, they claim, is not to assist in the fight against the Islamic State, but rather to “drive a wedge between Europeans and Americans”.In their article, which was published on the institute’s website and in Foreign Policy, the authors insist that Europe certainly can’t manage on its own and should be shepherded, if not by the US, then by Russia.

“Should Russia’s narrative on Syria carry the day, the consequences will test the reliability of US leadership,” they say.

The authors reiterate that the true purpose of the US-led coalition in Syria is to oust its legitimate president rather than to merely fight a terrorist group, and lament that the fight against the Islamic State has now taken precedence.

“European governments that have spent political capital supporting Washington’s position from the start of the Syrian crisis, now pressured to prioritize the fight against the Islamic State instead of ousting Assad, are left to ponder if Putin has been right all along.”

“Is he a more reliable ally than Washington? In any case, Russia’s move is less of an enigma to European policymakers than it is to the White House. “If I [were] Russia and Iran, I would act exactly the same way,” they quote a senior European diplomat as telling Foreign Policy.

“Even more worrisome for the future of European liberal polities, Putin’s moves in Syria will only embolden the voices that turn to Moscow as an alternative to Washington and Brussels.”

The authors then get down to the real business of worrying that if President Putin hasn’t been wrong all along, then perhaps the anti-Russian sanctions should be called into question: “more dangerously, this goes beyond Syria. Russian involvement in Syria is inextricably linked to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.”

“Should the Ukrainian situation remain calm, European leaders will have a hard time explaining why they must maintain sanctions on the very country they’re counting on to solve the Syrian problem.”

“Sanctions don’t come cheap for European economies. The European Commission projects that Ukraine-related sanctions cost European economies 0.3 GDP points in 2014 and 2015 — a non-negligible cut, when eurozone GDP is only expected to grow by 1.5 percent in 2015. In short, the sanctions regime is expensive, divisive, and European leaders are beginning to make noise about their desire to rebuild trade relations with Russia. Their business communities demand it, and Europe’s attention span for the conflict in Ukraine is waning.”

With these ‘grim’ prognostications, the authors conclude that “after his recent move, Vladimir Putin seems like a more coherent, reliable player than Washington,” warning that the “cost of American restraint may damage European and transatlantic unity for many years to come.”

Israel is braced for Russian aerial intrusions over its Golan border

October 9, 2015

Israel is braced for Russian aerial intrusions over its Golan border, DEBKAfile, October 9, 2015

Su-25_Frogfoot_ground-attack_planes_B-Syria_10.15_1Russian Su-25 Frogfoot fighter-bombers in Syria

Uncertainty still hangs over Moscow’s precise intentions regarding its air force flights over the Golan close to Israel’s border – even after two days of discussions on coordination ended in Tel Aviv Thursday, Oct. 8 between the Russian Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Nikolay Bogdanovsky and his Israeli counterpart Maj. Gen. Yair Golan. A coordination mechanism between the two air forces was left as unfinished business for further discussion, DEBKAfile’s military sources report. So it is still not clear to Israel what is supposed to happen if Russian fighters and bombers enter the Syrian-Israeli border district and slip over into Israeli air space.

The bilateral talks left Israel with the impression that this was a distinct possibility.

Israeli and Western aviation and intelligence experts don’t see how Israel can prevent Russia providing air cover for Syrian and Hizballah forces when the war moves close to the Israeli and Jordanian borders of southern Syria.

Last week, Russian SU-30 and Su-24 warplanes twice violated Turkish air space in the southern province of Hatay (called Alexandretta on Syrian maps). Although after the Russian defense ministry apologized for the first intrusion as accidental and lasting just a few seconds, our military sources are certain that the Russians were in fact deliberately testing Turkish air defenses.

This scenario may well repeat itself over the Golan in the very near future.

Gen. Bogdanovsky made no secret of Moscow’s intention to use its air power against rebel targets in battles taking place near the Israeli border. According to our exclusive military sources, Israel braced for this eventually Wednesday night, Oct. 7. Syrian, Hizballah and pro-Iranian Shiite forces then launched a ground offensive with Russian air cover against Syrian rebel forces in the Hama region. This was their first ground operation since the start of the Russian military buildup in late August. Intelligence was received that a second Syrian-Hizballah offensive, covered by Russian fighters and bombers, was scheduled to start at the same time in the Quneitra area, directly opposite the Israeli Golan.

For some reason, it was not launched when expected, but it is unlikely to be deferred for long. After firing Kalibr-NK-SS-27 Sizzler cruise missiles last week to soften rebel resistance to the Syrian government offensive in the Hama area, the Russians may well aim them at the Quneitra arena too in support of another Syrian operation.

What’s Obama’s Next Move on Israel?

October 9, 2015

What’s Obama’s Next Move on Israel? Commentary Magazine, October 9, 2015

(On the other hand, Obama may concentrate on global smarming and bypassing Congress on gun control. — DM)

new-obama

The reasoning behind America’s supine reaction to Russian intervention in Syria is no mystery. It is a clear reflection of President Obama’s longstanding desire to withdraw from the Middle East, as well as his commitment to détente with Iran. Since the Iranians are hoping the Russian forces can do what Hezbollah and Iranian volunteers failed to accomplish in the last few years — destroy Bashar Assad’s opposition — it is hardly surprising that the U.S. would decide to shrug at this nightmarish reversal of fortune for American interests. But that doesn’t mean the president likes being upstaged by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The question for the White House now is how to seize back the initiative on the world stage in a manner better suited to President Obama’s sensibilities. The recent surge of Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis may provide the answer. Though the administration has its hands full with foreign crises right now, it may be that Obama’s answer to Russian adventurism will be a return to the dead in the water peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead of stronger efforts to make good on his promise to destroy ISIS, he may prefer another go at hammering Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

As late as only a couple of weeks ago, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians didn’t seem to be on the White House’s front burner. To judge by his recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama was done with the Israel-Palestinian peace process. For the first time since he became president, Obama didn’t mention the topic once in his annual UN address. With Russia waging war in Syria, the U.S. is unable to do much about ISIS and the region in chaos. The notion that the carnage and suffering that had spread across the Middle East has anything to with Israel or the Palestinians is ludicrous. So it was little surprise that the president preferred to use his address to boast of the dubious virtues of his nuclear deal with Iran than to spout his standard lines about Israel needing to take risks for the sake of a peace process that wasn’t going anywhere.

Indeed, the scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu next month was seen as an opportunity to repair the alliance that was damaged by the debate over Iran rather than another chance for Obama to renew his longstanding feud with the Israeli leader. Though Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’s farcical declaration at the UN that the Oslo Accords no longer bound him fell flat, the outbreak of a wave of Palestinian terror directed at Israelis has put that issue back in the news. The administration’s studious neutrality about the recent violence in spite of the incitement from the Palestinian Authority that has stoked the bloodshed has helped to further isolate Israel. The intractable nature of the conflict and the Palestinians’ obvious lack of interest in peace would deter a wiser man than Obama. But the need to do something to assert American influence, or at least get some attention, could prompt the president to use what may be the start of a third intifada to unleash Secretary of State John Kerry and begin a new round of pointless negotiations.

Why would the administration expend what is left of its diminishing political capital for another round of Netanyahu-bashing that would almost certainly do nothing to advance the cause of peace?

The first thing to remember about this president is never to underestimate either the strength of his obsessions or his willingness to hold onto grudges.

President Obama is a man who has learned nothing in his seven years in office. He arrived at the White House determined to foster engagement with Iran and create more daylight between the U.S. and Israel, and convinced that Netanyahu’s Likud was not to his taste. Nothing that has happened in the intervening years has altered his opinion about any of this.

Part of it is rooted in a genuine belief that the only way to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict is to put sufficient pressure on the Israelis to make concessions. That fits in nicely with his equally sincere conviction that the United States must concentrate its efforts on reaching out to the Muslim and Arab worlds rather than reinforcing the alliance with Israel, which he and advisors like Susan Rice see as an impediment to U.S. interests.

The failure of every previous attempt to foster peace has not influenced the president’s opinion. No matter how many times the Palestinian leadership says no to Israeli offers of peace or incites their people to religious-based violence — as Abbas is currently doing — Obama still thinks that the key to success will be more Israel-bashing.

However, just as important as his faith in pressure on Israel is his animus for Netanyahu. The president’s defining characteristic in office is his arrogant belief in his own superior intellect and Netanyahu’s stubborn refusal to bow to Obama’s demands irritates him in a way that can only be described as disproportionate. As State Department veteran and former Obama staffer Dennis Ross describes in his new book that was excerpted yesterday in Politico, Obama and Susan Rice were so offended by possible Israeli opposition to the Iran deal that they kept Netanyahu in the dark about the talks with Tehran and then spread canards about his dissent being rooted in racism.

It would make political sense for Obama and the Democratic Party for the president to forget about his feud with Netanyahu,  but that isn’t likely to happen. That’s especially true since the prime minister used his own UN speech to reiterate his criticisms of the Iran deal, something that was likely to drive Obama straight up the White House walls even though that’s a fight he’s already won.

Lastly, a new peace process push would let Obama preen on the international stage in a way that he likes. The president disdains and even mocks Putin’s muscular approach to international affairs, even though Russia’s advances come at America’s expense. But he really thinks that moves like appeasing Iran or putting Israel in its place enhance his prestige. That this is dangerous nonsense that only undermines American credibility seems never to occur to him.

The ultimate outcome of any new push for peace with the Palestinians is a foreordained conclusion. Neither Abbas nor his Hamas rivals are willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn. Moreover, the violence that Abbas has incited in order to compete with Hamas may not be so easily kept in check. American neutrality about Abbas’ double game in which he stokes hatred with one hand and seeks to restrain it with the other may serve to only make the situation even more dangerous. Instead of allowing the president to claim that the U.S. is a force for peace, more pressure on Israel will just add to the toll of suffering in Iraq and Syria, that Obama’s misguided policies have created.