Policy Speeches vs Policy: Caroline B. Glick, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 14, 2017— President Donald Trump is scheduled to release a new US national security strategy on Monday.
Where Russian and Iranian Aircraft Carriers Clash: Amir Taheri, Asharq Al Awsat, Dec. 17, 2017 — Last week, the Tehran daily Kayhan, believed to reflect the views of "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei offered its readers a front-page treat.
Is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict the “Middle East Conflict”?: Prof. Hillel Frisch, BESA, Dec. 15, 2017— “Can Trump Solve the Middle East Conflict?” ran the headlines in al-Jazeera in July 2017.
Jerusalem, Israel’s Capital: Watch the Masks Fall: Najat AlSaied, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 17, 2017 — Many analysts say that US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a campaign promise to evangelical Christian and right-wing Jewish voters…
United States Policy in the Middle East: The Need for a Grand Strategy: Moshe Ya'alon, INSS, Nov. 28, 2017
Syria, Security, Migration, and Eurabia: An Interview: Daniel Pipes, Alpha Institute, Dec. 7, 2017
US Must Bolster Its Presence In MidEast As ISIS Falls: Michael Makovsky, Eric Edelman and Charles Wald, Breaking Defense, Dec. 06, 2017
Why the International Community Should Follow Trump’s Lead on Jerusalem: Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, BESA, Dec. 17, 2017
Caroline B. Glick
Jerusalem Post, Dec. 14, 2017
President Donald Trump is scheduled to release a new US national security strategy on Monday. This past Tuesday Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster gave a speech laying out some of its components in a speech in Washington. McMaster’s speech was notable because in it he laid out a host of policies that McMaster himself has reportedly opposed since he was appointed to his position in February.
McMaster for instance has been open in his opposition to linking terrorism with Islam. He has also reportedly insisted on limiting US actions in Syria and Iraq to defeating Islamic State. McMaster reportedly fired his deputy for Middle East policy Derek Harvey last summer due to Harvey’s advocacy of combating Iran’s consolidation of control over Syria through its proxies President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah.
In his speech on Tuesday, McMaster embraced the policies he has reportedly opposed. He discussed at length the threat of what he referred to as “radical Islamist ideology.” That ideology, which the US had previously interpreted “myopically,” constitutes “a grave threat to all civilized people,” he said. McMaster regretted US myopia noting, “We didn’t pay enough attention to how it’s being advanced through charities, madrassas and other social organizations.” McMaster fingered Turkey and Qatar, two ostensible US allies, as the main sponsors and sources of funding for Islamist ideology that targets Western interests. He noted that in the past Saudi Arabia had served as a major sponsor of radical Islam. But Riyadh has been replaced by Qatar and by Turkey, he said.
Trump’s electoral victory raised hopes of his supporters and some of his advisers that the US would designate the Muslim Brotherhood has a terrorist organization. The Brotherhood has spawned multiple jihadist terrorist groups including al-Qaida and Hamas. President Recep Erdogan’s AK Party is a Turkish version of the Muslim Brotherhood. Whereas McMaster reportedly opposed those calls, and his opposition played a role in Trump’s avoidance of the designation to date, McMaster took a significant step on Tuesday toward designating the Brotherhood a terrorist group.
While stipulating that not all Muslim Brotherhood groups are alike, McMaster said there is a “big problem when Islamist radical ideology bridges into political Islam.” He criticized the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt and singled out Qatar for its support of “the Morsi model.” He also noted that Turkey’s ruling AK Party operated through civil society to “consolidate power through one party.” He then said that the AKP’s consolidation of power “is a problem contributing to Turkey’s drift from the West.”
McMaster referred to Iran as a “rouge regime and a revisionist regional power.” He said the US must “counter destabilizing [Iranian] activity, especially in Syria.” Among other things, he said this includes blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and blocking support for Iran’s proxies. The problem with McMaster’s speech and the policy paper it set the stage for is that it is hard to know if they reflect an actual change in policy. Certainly his position and general drift haven’t been reflected in US actions in several key countries this week.
The day after McMaster’s speech the US Embassy in Beirut announced delivery of another $120 million in military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces. As Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has repeatedly stated, the LAF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps controlled directly by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy army. The Hezbollah-controlled LAF is the fifth-largest recipient of US military assistance worldwide. According to Ambassador Elizabeth Richard, the LAF has received in excess of $1.5 billion in military aid over the past decade. The newest arms shipment will include six MD 530G light attack helicopters, six Scan Eagle drones, and communications and night vision equipment.
Earlier shipments this year included Hellfire missiles, M1A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, rocket-propelled grenades, carbines and ammunition as well as helicopters, fighter jets, drones, advanced night vision and communications equipment. Recently, Iran has become brazen in asserting its military control over Lebanon. A YouTube video posted this week portrayed Kais al-Ghazali, an Iranian- controlled Iraqi militia commander, standing 200 meters from Lebanon’s border with Israel. He and his colleagues were all wearing military uniforms. Ghazali declared, “I am here with my brothers from Hezbollah. We announce that we are fully prepared and ready to stand as one with the Lebanese people with the Palestinian cause.”…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
WHERE RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIERS CLASH
Amir Taheri
Asharq Al Awsat, Dec. 17, 2017
Last week, the Tehran daily Kayhan, believed to reflect the views of "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei offered its readers a front-page treat. It claimed that Arabs "are clamoring for statues of General Qassem Suleimani to be installed in Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, cities that he has saved from ISIS." The claim came hot on the heels of the Sochi meeting in which Russian President Vladimir Putin officially asserted his control over the Syrian dossier, at least as far as one side of that tragedy is concerned.
Did the mullahs want to contest Putin's role as "savior of Syria" by advancing an even bigger claim on behalf of Soleimani, known in Tehran as "The Selfie General"? It is almost certain that regardless of what happens next in Syria, the mullahs of Tehran are unlikely to grab the leading role in shaping that nation's future. Besides Russia there are several other major players in Syria who won't welcome the take-over bid from Tehran. So, there is no chance of a Soleimani statue in Damascus anytime soon.
The same thing could be said about Baghdad, the Iraqi capital where Tehran is suffering from the loss of even some of the staunchest of its allies. Large chunks of Iraqi Shi'ites are beginning to feel self-confident enough to reject tutelage from Tehran. As for Iraqi Kurds, only the remnants of the Talabani faction, liked to Tehran through juicy business deals, still look to Tehran for guidance and support. Iran's bizarre decision to join Turkey in threatening the use of force over the abortive secession referendum has torn the mask of "friendship for the Kurds" that the mullahs had worn for decades.
That leaves Beirut where Gen. Soleimani's "Hezbollah" gunmen may still look able to plant his statue. But even that is now open to question as dark clouds gather on the horizon. Having illegally extended its term, the parliament is still tempted with the idea of prolonging its own life yet again. And that would mean the continuation of a presidency and a premiership on the basis of decisions by a parliament which lost its legitimacy years ago. Elected on the basis of quotas for the country's 18 religious communities the self-perpetuating parliament is split down the middle and unable to decide anything one way or another.
One half of the parliament is controlled by a coterie of politicians who spend more time abroad than Beirut. To them, Lebanon is more of a milking cow than a country. A former President retired with $200 million, most of it immediately invested in Parisian property. Another top leader has spent more time building a Crusaders' style chateau than mingling with his constituents. Because top posts and juicy contracts are distributed according to sectarian quotas, the sect leaders wield immense powers of patronage in pork-barrel politics. One half of the Parliament wants Lebanon to reassert its "Arab identity" and join the front against Iran's hegemonic ambitions.
The other half controlled by a coalition led by "Hezbollah" sees Lebanon as "Iran's aircraft carrier on the Mediterranean", as the Tehran daily Kayhan put it. For "Hezbollah" what matters is the interest of the sectarian Khomeinist movement led by the mullahs in Tehran. In that context, Iran has sent thousands of "Hezbollah" fighters to Syria, helping Bashar al-Assad kill Syrians. According to estimates by Iranian media, "Hezbollah" sustains heavy losses so that Iran avoids sending its own fighters to Syria.
With a heavily armed militia of 30,000, "Hezbollah" is better equipped than the Lebanese National Army. It is also the public face of over 400 companies, banks and Shi'ite associations financed and controlled by Iran, often acting as a state within the state. With a mixture of bribes and threats of assassination, Iran also runs a network of political clients in other communities. Its generosity includes some Christians, Druze and even Sunni Muslim personalities and groups.
Iran's priority in Lebanon is to ensure the territorial contiguity of Shi'ite- areas from the Syrian border to the ceasefire line with Israel. This means annexing Christian, Druze and other minority villages that resemble an archipelago in a sea of Shiism. To achieve that, according to local reports, Iran is paying generous prices to buy those villages. Where money doesn't work, the shadow of the gun does the trick. By some estimates, Iran might achieve its aim within a year or two.
So far, the two halves of Lebanon have managed not to come to blows because neither side is sure of winning. An important reason is that right now only one camp is armed and the other exposed. However, the fragile balance is in danger for two reasons. The first is that the Assad regime may not be able to hang on much longer. Despite Russia's diplomatic gesticulations that included a brief seaside encounter between President Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad, when it comes to Syria's future regime, Moscow and Tehran do not sing from the same hymn sheet. Tehran still pursues the dream of restoring Syria's unity under Assad even if that means many more years of war…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
IS THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT THE “MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT”?
Prof. Hillel Frisch
BESA, Dec. 15, 2017
“Can Trump Solve the Middle East Conflict?” ran the headlines in al-Jazeera in July 2017. A year earlier, The New York Times ran an article on students and the Middle East conflict that referred exclusively to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The media are hardly alone in conflating the Israeli-Palestinian standoff with the Middle East conflict. They take their cue from UN officials and institutions and other international bodies. In a statement similar to those of many of his predecessors, in August 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres “reiterated his call for a political solution to the Middle East conflict.” The UN’s official news site on the Middle East deals exclusively with news related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Quartet, the political forum comprised of the US, Russia, the EU, and the UN, which came into existence in 2002 in Madrid to bring peace to the area, is officially known as the Middle East Quartet.
Does the conflation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the Middle East conflict reflect reality? Not at all. Not only is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one of many conflicts in the Middle East (true even when it was a conflict principally between Israel and Arab states), but it is not nearly one of the deadliest or most explosive. In fact, relatively speaking, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not very violent, which may be one of the reasons it has persisted so long.
A cursory comparison with contemporary conflicts in the Middle East brings this point home. During the first intifada, the second intifada, the three rounds of violence between Hamas and Israel in the past decade, and the intermittent waves of low intensity violence, 2,000 Israeli civilians and security personnel and 11,000 Palestinians have been killed (the majority in the second intifada). To this one might add about fifty foreigners killed in acts of terrorism against Israelis. All told, the total casualty figures, including both sides, do not exceed 14,000 over the past twenty years, or 700 annually.
Compare this with the 200,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, a conflict that is only six years old. True, the Syrian population is more than double that of the combined Israeli and Palestinian populations in the Holy Land. Nevertheless, the death rate proportionately has been fifteen times higher. Despite the Syrian government’s success against the rebels (achieved with considerable help from Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi and Afghani Shiite fighters, and Russian airpower), the end of the civil war is nowhere in sight. Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really the Middle East conflict?
Why isn’t the internecine Iraqi conflict the Middle East conflict? According to Iraq Watch, over 100,000 Iraqis were killed during the eight years of massive US military presence in the country. To those one might add the 4,000 US troops and civilians who met their death there. On a proportionate basis, the Iraqi conflict is (and persists in being) at least five times more lethal than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And again, despite the gains made by the Iraqi Federal Army and the Iranian-controlled Shiite militias in the war against ISIS, an end to the internecine war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is nowhere in sight. The brutality of the Shiite militias in the “occupied” Sunni areas of Iraq increases the likelihood that variations on ISIS will rise once again.
The same is probably true of the conflicts in Libya and Yemen, where few bother to churn the terrible numbers. In these arenas, too, the end of violence is nowhere in sight. This is not to mention the “persistent, enduring and explosive” (all adjectives used to conflate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the Middle East) wars of Sudan, the duration of which is almost as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But perhaps body count is not the only metric to be used when judging the centrality of a conflict. Perhaps foreign involvement ought to be considered.
It’s certainly true that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict commands foreign attention, but it does not command foreign involvement. Whereas the conflict between Israel and the Arab states during the superpower rivalry ran the risk of igniting World War III, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict long ago became parochial. The last time any Arab state or foreign organization became involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was 35 years ago, when the Syrian army tried to stop the Israeli advance into Lebanon in 1982. In 2006, Hezbollah conducted the longest military campaign to have been conducted against Israel since Israel’s War of Independence – and the Palestinians stood on the sidelines. Hezbollah returned the favor during the rounds of clashes between Israel and Hamas in 2008, 2012, and 2014. Its soldiers remained in the barracks.
As the Israeli-Palestinian trajectory has become increasingly parochial, the trajectories of the other regional conflicts have gone in the opposite direction: They began as local civil wars but evolved into regional and international conflagrations. The Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni conflicts have become three-tiered conflicts – civil or sectarian wars at their base, proxy wars between regional rivals (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, to a lesser extent, Turkey), and arenas of international contest among world powers. The same Hezbollah that stayed home during the high points of violence between Israel and the Palestinians took to the battlefields of Syria on Iran’s behalf to prop up the Assad regime. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Middle East conflict? Give me a break!
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL’S CAPITAL: WATCH THE MASKS FALL
Najat AlSaied
Gatestone Institute, Dec. 17, 2017
Many analysts say that US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a campaign promise to evangelical Christian and right-wing Jewish voters, but there is another way of looking at it. Trump’s recognition might be a golden opportunity for two-faced opportunists to be unmasked — a shot of reality that might eventually help the peace process and solve this long-lasting conflict.
Since the declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, many Arab observers, intellectuals and academics have started to question the veracity of those jihadists who claim they are sacrificing themselves to defend Jerusalem, because when the actual announcement came — nothing happened. Those who were exploiting sensitivities related to Jerusalem — especially political Islamists, such as Hamas and Hezbollah — come mainly from the axis of resistance, led by Iran. Other opportunists are the two-faced countries in the region, such as Qatar and Turkey. While publicly hostile towards Israel, behind closed doors they support it. Further opportunists are the Western and Arab media, who for decades have been promoting the idea that the problem is the Israeli occupation, but never mention the Palestinian Authority corruption.
Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has also revealed the shortcomings of the US Department of State. It has not played any role in clarifying the above-mentioned points and, by this negativity and bureaucracy, only generated further hatred towards the US. Trump’s recognition has exposed the hypocrisy of the armed militia Hezbollah which always claims it will never disarm because of its fight against Israel. Now after the recognition of Jerusalem, many Arabs are questioning Hezbollah’s motivations regarding Israel. Lebanese and other Arabs are questioning why Hezbollah has not sent its armed militia to fight in Israel as it did in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Dr. Hadi El Amine, a Lebanese researcher in political science and governmental studies, tweeted, “The axis of resistance’s words are aimed against Israel, but their missiles are pointed at the Arabs.”
Adhwan Alahmari, a Saudi journalist based in London for Asharq al-Awsat also tweeted: “The soldiers, rockets and suicide bombers of Hezbollah are at Israel’s borders yet they did not support Jerusalem after Trump’s declaration, instead supporting the Wilayat al-Faqih [Iranian Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist] to fight in Syria to displace and annihilate its people to protect the shrine.”
Yet another opportunist is Hamas and its supporters who have succeeded in turning Arabs against the Palestinians. This time, the Palestinians’ anger was not turned only towards Israel and the US, but mainly at Saudi Arabia. Hamas and its followers attacked the Saudi flag and insulted King Salman of Saudi Arabia. These Palestinians seem to think that Trump did not make this announcement without a wink of approval from Saudi Arabia. Their reaction has angered countless Saudis, who consider this attack a demonstration of ingratitude from the unappreciative Palestinians, to whom they have given billions of dollars.
In response, the Saudis started several hashtags on Twitter such as #hellwithyouand your issue, and #Saudis are angry for their king. Many Saudis behind these hashtags regret every penny that has been given to defend the Palestinians, especially after they saw these Palestinian traitors, as they put it, insulting Saudi Arabia, which has enriched them and channeled exorbitant financing into Palestinian development projects. Salman Al-Ansari, a Saudi writer and political commentator based in Washington DC, tweeted: “We want to make everyone aware that the salaries of Palestinian diplomats around the world come from Riyadh-Saudi Arabia; salaries which are 30% higher than that of Saudi diplomats. What did Doha and Ankara do for them other than offer empty slogans and stab Jerusalem in the back?”
If you now ask the Saudis, the one of their main supporters and funders, about this conflict, the majority will say, “It is none of our business”. The Saudis would rather, it seems, focus on their own internal affairs and save their money rather than pay ungrateful Palestinians. A large numbers of Saudis additionally seem surprised by the attitude of Palestinians, who support Qatar and Turkey, countries which have diplomatic relationships with Israel. As a result, many Saudis think the Palestinians are not serious about defending their cause…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
United States Policy in the Middle East: The Need for a Grand Strategy: Moshe Ya'alon, INSS, Nov. 28, 2017—The first year of the Trump administration has been characterized by the lack of clear policy guidelines vis-à-vis the Middle East.
Syria, Security, Migration, and Eurabia: An Interview: Daniel Pipes, Alpha Institute, Dec. 7, 2017—With the fall of Raqqa, what is the future of Syria? ISIS has been a minor factor in Syria for over a year; the real battle is between the many powerful states active in the country, both regional (Iran, Turkey, Israel) and international (Russia, the United States). The fate of Syria depends on their kaleidoscopic relations.
US Must Bolster Its Presence In MidEast As ISIS Falls: Michael Makovsky, Eric Edelman and Charles Wald, Breaking Defense, Dec. 06, 2017—As ISIS goes down to military defeat, the United States requires a longer-range plan and an enduring force presence to deny Iran total victory in Syria. Otherwise, the United States risks losing influence as a new Middle Eastern order is being forged.
Why the International Community Should Follow Trump’s Lead on Jerusalem: Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, BESA, Dec. 17, 2017—Now that US President Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announced plans to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem, Arab and Muslim leaders and spokespersons have been trying to frighten other nations out of following his lead. To counter that effort, the world should consider a few salient points.
