Why we need to know ?
This Helps Your Acknowledgemet Grow
Will make you understand the world
What happens when discover?
Get your free analysis
Iraq and Syria Follow Lebanon's Precedent
Middle East - Syria
In the wake of President Barack Obama's change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.
The president's minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow
Lebanon was created out of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement between Britain and France reshaped the collapsed Ottoman Empire south of Turkey into the states we know today -- Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and to some extent the Arabian Peninsula as well. For nearly 100 years, Sykes-Picot defined the region. A strong case can be made that the nation-states Sykes-Picot created are now defunct, and that what is occurring in Syria and Iraq represents the emergence of those post-British/French maps that the United States has been trying to maintain since the collapse of Franco-British power.
Sykes-Picot, named for French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot and his British counterpart Sir Mark Sykes, did two things. First, it created a British-dominated Iraq. Second, it divided the Ottoman province of Syria on a line from the Mediterranean Sea east through Mount Hermon. Everything north of this line was French. Everything south of this line was British. The French, who had been involved in the Levant since the 19th century, had allies among the region's Christians. They carved out part of Syria and created a country for them. Lacking a better name, they called it Lebanon, after the mountain by that name.
The British named the part to the west of the Jordan River after the Ottoman administrative district of Filistina, which turned into Palestine on the English tongue. However, the British had a problem. During World War I, while the British were fighting the Ottoman Turks, they had allied with a number of Arabian tribes seeking to expel the Turks. Two major tribes, hostile to each other, were the major British allies. The British had promised post-war power to both. It gave the victorious Sauds the right to rule Arabia -- hence Saudi Arabia. The other tribe, the Hashemites, had already been given the newly invented Iraqi monarchy and, outside of Arabia, a narrow strip of arable ground to the east of the Jordan River. For lack of a better name, it was called Trans-Jordan, or the other side of the Jordan. In due course the "trans" was dropped and it became Jordan.
And thus, along with Syria, five entities were created between the Mediterranean and Tigris, and between Turkey and the new nation of Saudi Arabia.
Over the past few weeks Islamic State (ISIS) has come under intense pressure from the Iraqi army backed by Iranian-led Shia militias in and around Tikrit. Of late, ISIS has suffered heavy casualties and has seen the territory under its control in Iraq shrink by almost 25%. Despite these setbacks, ISIS has expanded its global footprint over the last year and now has as many as 31 active branches, franchises, affiliates, partner organizations and cells currently operating in: Libya, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, The Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Algeria, and the Indian sub-continent.
This backgrounder will examine ISIS’s key global hubs and affiliates. It will focus on ISIS’s footprint in countries outside its traditional operating theater of Iraq and Syria. It will also explore how ISIS has expanded its global reach through the use of partners/affiliates/supporters and how ISIS is beating out Al-Qaeda to become the ‘premier brand’ in global jihad.
Since June, a great deal of international focus has been on Iraq, where the transnational jihadist movement Islamic State took over large swaths of the country's Sunni-majority areas and declared the re-establishment of the caliphate. Despite the global attention on the country, especially given U.S. military operations against the Islamic State, U.S.-Iranian cooperation against the jihadist group -- a significant dynamic -- has gone largely unnoticed. A convergence of interests, particularly concerning the Iraqi central and Kurdish regional governments, has made it necessary for Washington and Tehran to at least coordinate their actions. However, mistrust and domestic oppo Their 35-year-old mutual enmity notwithstanding, the United States and Iran have cooperated against a common jihadist enemy in the past, such as when they worked together to topple the Taliban regime following the 9/11 attacks. Relations quickly soured again when U.S. President George W. Bush's administration declared the Islamic republic a part of the "axis of evil" and when controversy over Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons program broke out in 2002. However, these tensions did not prevent the two sides from cooperating again in the U.S. move to effect regime change in Iraq in 2003.
For Iran, Washington's decision to topple Iraq's Baathist government was a godsend; it turned Tehran's biggest national security threat into a major geopolitical opportunity.
ISIS
In Iraq, the United States and Iran Align Against the Islamic State
Who Will Lead in a World on Fire?
November 21, 2016
The state of global affairs hasn’t been this poor in over seven decades. Russia blatantly affected US presidential credibility in many ways by overtly and covertly meddling in the process. And they still keep amassing troops in Belarus and the border with Ukraine. Putin, for good reason, seems to believe the Europeans will do nothing to stop him from causing utter disarray on Europe’s eastern flank. Meanwhile, President Obama continues an apology tour in Europe by encouraging anti-Trump protesters. Putin has wagered correctly that the West is weak and vulnerable.
Iran continues breaking the so-called peace deal they made with the P5 + 1. Not only have they recently hijacked an American boat and buzzed US warships, but have made frequent promises to destroy Israel and America. Was this the peace deal western powers had in mind when they supposedly reigned in Iran’s nuclear weapons program?
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency signaled recently the Iranians again broke the spirit of the agreement, by creating excess heavy water; a material used to cool reactors that produce plutonium. Anyone who actually believes this agreement did anything to stop the Iranian hegemonic march in the Middle East and other parts of the world is delusional at best, and dangerously naïve at worst.
North Korea is delusional, but as long as China has their proxy’s back in manufacturing chaos to allay the world’s interest away from them grabbing the South China Sea then Kim Jong-un may actually believe he could win a war with Japan, South Korea and the U.S. North Korea is testing ballistic missiles that could reach the western U.S. Imagine California seceding from the U.S., striking a peace deal to avoid imminent nuclear destruction. They already moved politically away from the U.S. as a reaction to Trump’s election by unanimously electing liberal Democrats over Republicans.
Political correctness has Western leaders not able to articulate the threats taking place with Russia and China while still bellowing the hollow assertion that if it weren’t for Guantanamo Bay, all the world’s problems with radical Islamists would abate. Then striking at non-elite citizenry who dare attempt uttering the words, “Islam,” and “terror” in the same sentence. Tongue-lashing and finger pointing ensues while ruining lives with the claim of Islamaphobia, sexism, or racism yet never looking their own hollow cowardice in the mirror.
Returning to the Middle East, a region never known for tranquility has certainly not been this bad. US leadership has left the world stage after leading from behind, and a giant void has been left in its place. Civil wars simmer and are raging in Iraq (which the U.S. should have never left) Libya (which the US, NATO, and the Europeans caused), Syria (in which the U.S. didn’t back up its threats), and Yemen (which the Iranians felt emboldened to invade via their proxy the Houthi’s after the nuclear agreement).
Simmering fights are brewing in Egypt (which the US abandoned for the Muslim Brotherhood), South Sudan, Turkey, and these could easily spill over to Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the one country to come out democratically from the so-called Arab Spring, Tunisia. Higher levels of tension are noted between Iran and Saudi Arabia; the two are in the early stages of a full-fledged religious fight not seen in centuries between Sunni and Shia Muslims. For once, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has taken a break from violent levels not seen since WWII.
A few countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman and Qatar have sailed through the storm, but have they really when oil prices continue below $50 a barrel? Shots may not be fired in these countries, but how long will their citizenry, which expect largesse based upon government handouts through oil receipts, stay tranquil under autocratic benign dictatorships? Kenneth Pollack of Brookings states, “not since the Mongol invasions of the 13th century has the Middle East seen so much chaos.”
Drug violence and instability racks Central America, and South America still has drug-lord instability and the Columbian peace process with FARC is in shambles after the electorate pulled a Brexit-Donald Trump election surprise by voting no to peace. Mexico continues their almost decade long uprising against former Mexican Special Forces now turned drug terrorists that have the US border in constant flux.
The Congolese civil war is in its 22nd year, Peru’s at 36 years, and the perpetually unstable Afghanistan enters year 37 of its civil war. What makes each of the above conflicts, wars, and tensions so malicious are the spillover effect. Without intervention that could last decades in the case of US troop presence still active in Germany, Japan and South Korea none of the problems will go away. Instead they only feed upon themselves, and metastasize into something far more insidious and ravaging.
Since the U.S. has morphed into an angry bastion of electoral infantile behavior, and the Europeans continue their march toward self-inflicted destruction, who will lead? Jordan and Tunisia are somewhat stabilized but now with the vituperative Philippines marching towards the Chinese that adds further Pacific instability to the world’s problems. What issue then should be tackled first?
The short answer is every issue needs to be confronted with the U.S., NATO and Pacific-based democracies leading the way. The U.S. should immediately rescind sequestration, and begin building their blue-water navy to Cold War levels, which peaked at 594 vessels in 1987 through a combination of new construction and keeping older ships afloat longer.
Incoming president-elect Trump should also allow the Japanese to build a larger navy and troop presence along with South Korea to deter the North Koreans and Chinese. But the real issue is the instability of the Middle East, and the aggressive nature of the Iranian regime’s hardliners. Not only should the U.S. confront them with new sanctions and scrapping the nuclear deal, but also NATO, led by the Europeans, should triple the size of the NATO Response Force. With Libya teetering on the edge of collapse a plan to confront armed factions at Europe’s doorstep needs to be in place along with securing their borders against an influx of displaced refugees and armed terrorists.
Further, Western allies can work with sympathetic Middle Eastern regimes whose “tipping points” for societal breakdown aren’t just going away. Jordan, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Egypt are a few examples where the U.S., NATO, and Pacific democracies reliant on economic stability can provide logistics, military command and control structure, intelligence and combat-advisors.
Every at-risk country mentioned needs Western economic assistance, cheap energy provided by coal and natural gas, stable infrastructure, political reform without democracy being the end-goal, and trade benefits for political reforms to possibly take hold. Transparency, rule of law, respect for private property and the elimination of graft in the public sector are the goals, while seeking a fair distribution of goods and services to all citizens regardless of religious affiliation, gender, and sexual orientation.
Good governance is the aim toward nation-state stability otherwise the spillover affect will plague the Middle East, South America, North Africa and eventually the Pacific rim.
Unfortunately paralyzed Western democracies aren’t given to provide military assistance – meaning boots on the ground – because problems the military could solve in the past no longer work in an era of a 24-hour news cycle to shape the message in a way that looks disadvantageous to Western political leaders. War and civil war in particular are messy affairs where millions can be killed and displaced. Disengagement from regions across the world have only emboldened the Chinese, Russians and Iranians to make the world in their image, instead of the post-WWII order that is now crumbling.
Disengagement has been disastrous in Iraq, and has pulled that country into a vicious civil war where security apparatchiks litter the region. Unless security is the first goal then eradicating the illness with pinprick assistance will only prolong the inevitable. Larger blue-water navies to confront the Iranians in the Middle East, Russia in the Mediterranean and the Chinese in the South China Sea are a beginning.
Over the past fifteen years the U.S. and other allies have killed scores of Salafist jihadists, but the problem only grows larger. The scorched-earth policy of President George W. Bush in Iraq provided a road-map to what peace in the Middle East looks like: unleashing militaries to kill, stabilize and bring all political parties to the table. Not the model Western democracies currently follow that have grown factions of self-important educated media elite, London School of Economics grandees, climate change billionaires, financial plutocrats and coastal corridor snobs from California to Lake Cuomo who talk leftism inequality, but live better than the French Monarchy ever dreamed.
This governing elite is now losing their grip on power, and will confront a world that doesn’t care about climate change, renewable energy or eating organically. Instead this new world under men such as Duterte, Trump, Putin, the Iranian Quds Force, and Premier Xi understand strength through military power. Will the U.S., Europeans, NATO and Pacific elites understand this new equation? If they don’t, then World War III is a distinct possibility. Spillovers and tipping points for squashing civil wars and vicious hegemon growth aren’t contained with the crumbs of good intentions, but more than likely at the end of a soldier’s gun. Let’s sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this.
KHAZER, Iraq - Iraqi and Kurdish forces have launched a new offensive on a town near Mosul as part of a massive operation aimed at retaking the country’s second largest city from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS.)
As the noose gets tightened around the terrorists’ largest occupied Iraqi city, the presence of Turkish troops assisting in the battle has angered many in Iraq.
Fall of Mosul Risks More Sectarian and State Conflict
November 3, 2016
Summary
With the fall of Mosul looking increasingly imminent as Iraqi government forces reach the city’s limits, an important moment in Baghdad’s struggle with Daesh (Islamic State) has been reached. Mosul is the last major urban stronghold of Daesh in Iraq and the city’s fall will drive the group’s surviving members across a restored national border entirely into Syria, where the organization also faces a host of hostile actors.
It is too soon yet to declare Iraq free from the threat of Daesh’s violence – it has numerous sympathizers and sleeper cells scattered across the country – but the group’s state-building project is in ruins and its status as the vanguard of Sunni revivalism in Iraq has taken a pounding. However, even the defeat of Daesh in Iraq is unlikely to end Iraq’s involvement in the region’s conflicts, with both the Syrian civil war and the militarization of tensions between Arabs, Turks, and Kurds having a high probability of drawing Iraqi armed factions into future conflicts.
Iraqi special forces advancing on ISIS-held city
The Iraqis say they never gave Turkish troops permission to enter the country and has called on them to withdraw. Turkey has refused the demand, insisting that it play a role in retaking Mosul from ISIS.
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has visited both countries in recent days, and arrived in the Kurdish regional capital Irbil on Sunday, where he was expected to discuss the issue with Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani.
After meeting with Turkey’s leaders, Carter had announced an “agreement in principle” for Turkey to have a role in the operation.
But Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi appeared to bat that idea down when he met with Carter on Saturday, insisting that Mosul was an “Iraqi battle.”
“I know that the Turks want to participate, we tell them thank you, this is something the Iraqis will handle and the Iraqis will liberate Mosul and the rest of the territories,” he said.
Turkish forces have made several previous ground forays into Iraq in recent years, raising tensions between the neighbors. Until the Mosul operation, Turkey primarily had been sending ground troops into the country to go after Kurdish rebels Ankara calls terrorists.
The forces taking part in the Mosul offensive include Iraqi troops, the peshmerga, Sunni tribal fighters and state-sanctioned Shiite militias. Many fear the operation could heighten tensions between Iraq’s different communities, which are allied against ISIS but divided over a host of other issues, including the fate of territories near mostly Sunni Mosul that are claimed by the largely autonomous Kurdish region and the central government.
The Kurdish forces, known as peshmerga, said they launched a dawn offensive Sunday on two fronts to the northeast of Mosul, near the town of Bashiqa.
The battle to retake Mosul
Maj. Gen. Haider Fadhil, of Iraq’s special forces, said they had also launched an assault on Bashiqa, surrounding it and seizing parts of the town. He said the Kurds had captured two villages near Bashiqa and a small Shiite shrine in the area.
Over the last week, Iraqi and Kurdish forces have been battling ISIS in a belt of mostly uninhabited towns and villages around Mosul, contending with roadside bombs, snipers and suicide truck bombs.
The Mosul offensive involves more than 25,000 Iraqi ground forces as well as U.S.-led coalition aircraft and advisers. It is expected to take weeks, if not months, to drive ISIS from Mosul, which is home to more than a million civilians.
Bashiqa is close to a military base of the same name where some 500 Turkish troops are training Sunni and Kurdish fighters for the Mosul offensive.
The Battle of Mosul Has Begun
October 18, 2016
Summary
After a long build-up, the noose is finally tightening on ISIS-held Mosul.
A force of approx. 35,000 government troops, Sunni tribal fighters, Kurdish troops, and Shia paramilitaries are slowly encircling the city, which is estimated to hold around 5,000 Islamic State militants.
This is a potential turning point in the Iraqi civil war, and it has been preceded by slow, painstaking preparations on the part of all stakeholders, including the humanitarian agencies that will grapple with the human fallout of the city’s liberation. The stakes are obviously high here – not just for the government in Baghdad, but for Washington as well.
But will these preparations be enough?