Israel's Security Status in 2014

   On Monday, November 25th, Israel’s top intelligence officials met with members of Netanyahu’s exclusive inner cabinet for a secret briefing at a secure Mossad facility in central Israel. The ministers were presented with an evaluation of various possible developments in the world and the Middle East in 2014 that could have a direct impact on the security of Israel and Israelis.

   Though the details of secret briefings cannot be divulged, knowledgeable sources in Israel reported that the ministers left the briefing with a look of contentment. Apparently the threat assessment for 2014 was for the most part pretty optimistic. 
   It seems that in 2014, despite the overall turmoil in the Middle East, the chance of a major ground war using large armor and infantry formations, between Israel and one or more of the countries in the region, is very low to nil. 
   With Israel at peace with Egypt and Jordan, Syria fighting a bloody civil war and Iraq falling apart, there simply is no country, or potential coalition of countries, that has the military ability, motivation or political will to mount a serious ground campaign against Israel.
   However an air war, with missiles, rockets and aircraft is distinctly possible in 2014, though not very probable. Let’s look at the regional players.

• Syria: Even though Syria possesses thousands of rockets and missiles that can cause devastating damage and casualties to Israel, both the regime and the rebels are too embroiled in a harsh civil war. The last thing either side wants, at least until the dust settles, is to open a front against Israel.
• Hezbollah. Despite having over 100,000 long, medium and short range rockets aimed at Israel, Nasrallah’s status in Lebanon is growing precarious by the day. Heavy troop losses fighting for the Assad regime in Syria, and the inability to provide security at home, have tarnished Hezbollah’s image greatly. Knowing how disproportionately destructive an Israeli retaliation would be to rocket fire from Lebanon, Hezbollah leadership currently prefers to avoid a conflict.
• Hamas (Gaza): Same as Hezbollah. Rapidly losing popularity due to an inability to govern and provide basic services to the population, the Hamas leadership simply can’t afford to be blamed for even more misery after an Israeli retaliation. 

    So according to most analysts, barring an unforeseen circumstance there is very little chance of a full blown war in 2014 on the scope of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, or the 1967 Six Day War.
   That was probably the “good” part of the evaluation briefing.
   The more ominous part may have dealt with the growing security threats posed by various Sunni terrorist groups and their fanatical, religious obsession with the very existence of Israel. While there have been anti-Israel terrorist groups from as far back as the Fedayeen in the 1950s, this latest crop are more numerous, more sophisticated, better trained, better armed and highly motivated.
   Their Muslim Brotherhood inspired goal, be “they” Al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, Jabhat al Nusra, Islamic Jihad or any one of the alphabet-soup Jihadi Islamist groups, is simple and frightening: First, establish Sharia law in all countries with a Muslim population, second, reestablish the Caliphate in Sinai, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria and the whole Middle East. Third, expand worldwide.  Israel is obviously in the way.
   I would be surprised if the briefing did not include the increase in the number of Jihadists in Sinai, and how Egypt is fighting them. It may have also covered the threat to Israelis (though not to the State of Israel) by the growing presence in Jordan and Syria of elements of Hamas and Al-Qaeda affiliates – all highly trained, combat experienced and armed with large quantities of weapons looted from Libya.    
      Iran is a whole different issue. I can’t imagine that the intelligence heads did not remind the cabinet ministers of the fact that Iran is already a “breakout” nuclear state, and that thanks to the unfortunate “Geneva Agreement” a few weeks ago, will remain so in the foreseeable future.
   So without having been a fly on the wall at that secret intelligence evaluation briefing, I would guess that the smiles on the minister’s faces as they left the facility meant that Israel’s security status for 2014 is good. There is no major ground war on the horizon, terrorism is being dealt with…and based on Netanyahu’s speech at the Saban Forum last weekend – we won’t have to worry much longer about Iran’s nuclear break-out capability...   
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

A Murky Middle East Future

        “The future ain’t what it used to be”, quips the great American philosopher Yogi Berra. That seems to be the unanimous verdict of every Middle East analyst today. 

    Those of us born after WW II have lived most of our lives with a pretty clear general perception of the dynamics of the Middle East, which basically went like this:

1. Israel was established in the historical Jewish homeland 1948 following a narrow vote in the UN.
2. All the Arab countries in the neighborhood, themselves created during the prior 25 years by the victors of WW I to secure oil supplies, refused to accept the Jewish state and every ten years or so launched a war to destroy it...which Israel always won.
3. During the Cold War the super powers were deeply involved in the region, with the USSR mostly aligning with the Arabs, and the USA and Europe with Israel.
4. During each war (1948, 1956, 1970-71, 1967 and 1973) the super powers would play “responsible adult” and pressure their respective clients to agree to a cease fire…then re-supply them with more modern and more powerful weapons.
5. The periodic Israeli-Arab wars would continue, at varying degrees of intensity, pretty much forever, with the major powers making sure that they ended in a cease-fire within days.

   But things changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some Arab states aligned with Russia, but most, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and others aligned with the US. 
   Israel remained a major beneficiary of an economic, military and diplomatic partnership with the US, creating a unique situation where both Israel and most of its enemies were now in alliance with the US. This led to the relatively quick signing of peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan, and the establishment of quasi-formal but strong relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
   With Russia being a weak shadow of the former USSR, the United States became the single formidable and dominant super power in the Middle East. It signed official and unofficial economic and defense pacts with most of the Sunni Arab countries, from which Israel also benefitted.
   But a new super power has emerged - Iran. 
   With the imminent threat of a nuclear Shiite Iran that not only threatens to destroy Israel but also to exact a terrible historic “blood revenge”, in revenge for centuries of persecution by Sunni Muslims, and especially those in Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East turned to both the US and Israel for help against what they rightfully see as a clear and present danger to their survival.
  In interviews last week, Israeli, Saudi, Qatari and UAE leaders said that ironclad assurances were given by the US administration at the highest levels that the United States is unwaveringly committed that Iran will never have the capability to acquire nuclear weapons. They claim they were lied to by the US that had been negotiating for months with Iran secretly.
  This commitment was reiterated even as the P5+1 foreign ministers were in Geneva “closing” a deal that assures that Iran can not only keep its current high stockpile of enriched uranium and continue nuclear weapons development, but that evaporates the sanctions and establishes what was a pariah regime just last month as an equal sitting at the big boys table on international issues (Syrian peace talks…). Here is the executive summary:
For the next 6 months while “negotiations” are going on, Iran – already a nuclear “threshold” state according to the IAEA:

• Keeps all its already enriched Uranium
• Does not dismantle any of its 13,000 centrifuges in Natanz and Fordow
• Continues to enrich “certain quantities”
• Continues manufacturing vital parts for the Heavy Water reactor in Arak
• Keeps IAEA inspectors away from its nuclear weapons development and production facilities, as well as its secret nuclear bomb warhead testing facilities.
• Does not have to worry about an American military strike
• Thrives economically as American, Russian and Asian businesses are already drawing up lucrative contracts now that the sanctions are no longer being strictly enforced by the US.

   So even during the six month “negotiations” period Iran can continue to inch along at breakneck speed towards developing nuclear weapons, while enjoying significant economic relief. 
   And by the way, the six month period doesn’t start until January…in the meantime its business as normal in Natanz and Fordow.
  Over the past weekend every top Iranian leader said publically that the “Interim Agreement” is not finalized to their liking so the beginning of the negotiating period may be further delayed.
   It used to be, in the good old days when there were “responsible adult” super powers with vested interests in the region, that all you had to worry about was a short Israeli-Arab war every decade or so. 
   Today…”The future ain’t what it used to be”… and it seems to be changing daily.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

The Geneva Deal- Winners and Losers

   The goal of the international economic sanctions on Iran was to pressure the regime to give up its obsession with developing and producing nuclear weapons.

   The goal of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran last week was to finalize a deal that would end Iran’s race towards having nuclear weapons.
   As I predicted in last week’s column, this “interim deal” neither addresses Israel’s (and the Saudis’) concerns, nor does anything to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It does not dismantle even one of the over 18,000 centrifuges currently installed and operational in Iran’s nuclear facilities, it does not reduce by even one gram the stockpile of some 7 tons of low enriched uranium (3.5-5%) which can be converted within weeks to bomb grade fissile material and it allows Iran to continue unlimited enriching (after 6 months) to that level. As for “enhanced intrusive monitoring” – the only thing “enhanced” that we’ll see over the next six months is the Iranian version of “whack-a-mole”.
   In the “deal” signed on Saturday, Iran agrees to slow construction of the Arak heavy water, plutonium producing nuclear reactor for 6 months (while continuing maintenance on both the nearly completed reactor and the nearby heavy water production facility) and to convert some of its 200 Kg. of 20% enriched uranium to fuel rods.
   In other words, in exchange for significant and immediate sanction relief, Iran essentially maintains its full six week nuclear break-out capability, while resuming trade and commerce with the world. Does anyone really believe that, aside from Canada, any country would have the appetite to renew sanctions in 6 months – if the permanent deal isn’t reached?
   A serious flaw in the Geneva deal is that it does not include an immediate Iranian commitment to uncover the development and construction of the explosive devices and warheads being worked on at secret, well hidden facilities.
   So who are the winners and losers in this “interim deal” signed in Geneva? (note that some appear in both columns)
       Winners:
• Iran – Enhanced Status – Gave nothing, got everything:

• Some sanctions relief and no new ones.
• No degradation of nuclear weapons breakout capabilities
• Keeps full enriched uranium stockpile
• Can continue enrichment after 6 months
• Arak reactor untouched.
• No supervision of weaponization facilities
• No mention of delivery system (Missile) production and stockpiling

• USA:

• Administration hailed as instrumental in reaching the diplomatic deal.
• Military option off the table
• Economic benefits

• P5+1:

• Economic benefits
• Lessens chance of war
• Lessens chance of Iranian sponsored terrorism in Europe

• Israel: - New alliances with Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia
   Losers:
• Israel:

• Major damage to relations with the US administration
• Military action harder (though not impossible)
• Risks worldwide condemnation if it takes military action

• USA:

• Loss of influence and status in Sunni Arab countries
• Loss of trade with Saudi Arabia
• Probable loss of military assets in the Gulf States

   The biggest loser however, is the security of the Middle East and the world. With this capitulation of the West to Iran’s “charm offensive”, and the ill-advised signing of this unfortunate “deal”, the Pandora’s Box of a Middle East’s nuclear arms race has been opened. It looks like only Israel and her new allies may have a small window of opportunity to close it.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Iran Nukes – A Terrible Interim Agreement

Error correction: The current estimated population of Iran is close to 80 million (CIA World Fact Book) and not as stated in last week’s column. Thanks to all those who wrote to bring my attention to the typo.

      
   Now back to the present. As of this writing, all indications point to the possibility that by the time you read this column, the P5+1 (US, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany) will have signed a preliminary agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program.
   If my information is accurate then it is a terrible deal. As you will see below, the formidable and effective sanctions architecture will be breached, while Iran’s ability to enrich Uranium and build nuclear weapons will not be degraded in any significant way.
   As reported in this column last month, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and former UN nuclear Inspector David Albright, founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in D.C., said that with the new, next-generation centrifuges already installed in military enrichment facilities, Iran can now produce sufficient highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium for 3-5 Hiroshima size nuclear devices…every 8 weeks.
   And it can do that from its already huge stockpile of over 7 metric tons of 5% enriched Uranium.
   That’s why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly asked President Obama and the other leaders of the P5+1 not to agree to any deal with the Iranians that didn’t include removing all enriched Uranium from Iran, preventing Iran from enrichment to any level by removing or dismantling all centrifuges and conversion facilities, and halting construction on a new Heavy Water reactor that will produce bomb-grade Plutonium.
   While none of these measures will stop a determined Iran from eventually acquiring nukes in the future, at least they would put their program back 10-15 years, and hopefully prevent a nuclear arms race in a very unstable region.
   According to intelligence sources, Saudi Arabia has already purchased 2-4 nuclear warheads from Pakistan and will take delivery the minute Iran builds its first bomb. Turkey, Egypt and several Gulf States, all Sunni and feeling threatened by a nuclear Shiite Iran, will quickly follow suit, with financing from the Saudis.  
   So any deal with Iran that in any way allows the Islamic Republic to keep its centrifuges (even if temporarily shut down), keep its 7 ton stockpile of 5% enriched Uranium 235, keep its 200kgs of 20% enriched Uranium (only 50kgs less than needed for a bomb!) and finish its Plutonium producing reactor in Arak, is a terrible deal.
   According to several reliable reports, the proposed “Interim Deal”, worked out mainly between the US and Iran over the past 10 days is that in exchange for releasing funds frozen in European banks and “selective” easing of sanctions, Iran agrees to: 

1. Freeze construction of the Heavy Water reactor (according to some versions dismantle or mothball it).
2. Temporarily suspend enrichment operations at Natanz and Fordow for 6 months.
3. Convert part of its 20% enriched Uranium to reduce the inventory to below 125kgs.
4. Continue negotiating with the P5+1 for 6 months (!) over a “final resolution”.

   Since, according to these reports, during the interim 6 months Iran keeps its 7 ton inventory of 5% enriched Uranium, keeps the centrifuges capable of converting that inventory into bomb-grade fissile material within weeks, keeps its weaponization and weapons production facilities intact and can either extend or simply walk away from the talks at any time – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Since any breach in the architecture of the current sanctions on Iran will open the floodgates and effectively render the sanctions toothless – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Since it virtually guarantees no American military action for at least 6 months (an eternity in the Middle East), and makes an Israeli strike much more difficult (though not impossible) – this is a terrible interim deal.
   Israel says it’s terrible and t The Arab countries say it’s terrible. When Israel and the Arab countries are fully coordinated on something this important – it would behoove world leaders to pay attention.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

The Geneva Talks and new Jerusalem-Washington friction

   This was not the first time Iranian delegates met with representatives of the P5+1 (USA, Russia, France, Great Britain, China and Germany) to negotiate a deal that would end the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. But this time was different:

1. All the participants were high level officials: Foreign Ministers or Secretary of State.
2. The talks were held after heavy, ongoing sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy.
3. Recent reports confirm that Iran is already at, or very near “break-out” stage in its nuclear weapons program, and therefor close to both the US and Israeli “red lines” for military action.
4. Iran is rushing to complete a heavy-water nuclear reactor, capable of producing weapons-grade Plutonium.

   But while eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat is a top priority of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states, this is not the case with the rest of the world. Most industrial countries, including the US, are eager to see the sanctions lifted so that they can resume profitable commercial ties with the Islamic republic.
   And the Iranians are playing directly to that gallery with promises, “as soon as the sanctions are lifted”, of lucrative energy, construction and trade contracts, of opening Iranian oil fields to foreign exploration and extraction, and of a population of 17 million mostly middle class consumers. No wonder powerful multi-national corporations are pressuring world leaders to come to an agreement that will lift the sanctions – even if it means that Iran has a few nukes.
   “What’s the big deal?” they ask cynically, “If worse comes to worse Israel has great ‘second strike’ capabilities. On the other hand, in the current world financial downturn, opening this huge and eager market will raise the economic strength and prosperity of our countries!” It’s hard to argue against that.
   Fortunately one country, France, refused to go along with the proposed deal that would have let Iran not only keep the low-enriched Uranium they already have stockpiled, but continue enrichment for 6 months and complete the heavy-water reactor (which once activated cannot be destroyed with explosives or bombs).
  The Geneva talks ended with no agreement, and are scheduled to resume on November 20. In the meantime the centrifuges will continue to spin as Iran races towards its nuclear objective.
   Who won this round? The Iranians came to Geneva with two goals:

1. To buy time to continue Uranium enrichment as well as completion of their heavy-water, Plutonium reactor.
2. To open a crack in the punishing sanction regime, hoping to render it ineffective.

 They achieved the first, at least until November 20. They failed the second (though there are reports that the US has granted sanction wavers over the past few months…).
   The P5+1 came with only one goal: To get Iran to agree to an immediate 6 month halt of enrichment, in exchange for a partial release of Iranian oil funds frozen in European banks. Score…1:0 Iran.
   In the meantime, there is a new and ominous growing rift between the US and Israel. Last Friday, on his way to Geneva, John Kerry stopped briefly in Israel, met Netanyahu at the airport, and showed him a document that he said was the P5+1 proposal that would be presented to the Iranian Foreign Minister. 
   Netanyahu warned the Secretary of State that he was offering Iran "the deal of the century." "This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said, vowing that Israel would not be bound by any agreement. Netanyahu reminded Kerry of his own words that “no deal is better than a bad one”. 
   Netanyahu found out on Saturday that the actual proposal presented to the Iranians in Geneva was much more lenient than the one Kerry showed him. Bibi, according to several reports, went ballistic, saying again that Israel is not obligated to this agreement and will take any measures needed to defend itself. 
   According to Ynet, a source close to the prime minister said: "Some three days ago we received an update – both from the Americans and from other sources – about an overall deal with Iran. Israel was against it. Then, over the weekend, we learnt that the deal is even worse than we had been told, simply a massive mistake, and we lost it. Kerry left with a lot of food for thought after a very difficult conversation with Bibi.”
   Attila Somfalvi reported on Sunday in Ynet: “The tension between Israel and the US signals a tough road ahead for the twin American goals of finding a diplomatic solution for Iran's nuclear program and forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It also raises the specter of a return to the uncomfortable relationship that has often characterized dealings between Obama and Netanyahu.”
   However with or without US blessings, I believe that Israel will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon…and I know that Israel is fully capable of it. 
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Are US-Saudi Relations Beyond Repair?

As of this writing, Secretary of State John Kerry is in Riad to try to rescue the disintegrating relations between the US and Saudi Arabia. This is more than just a temporary falling out between friends. The now very public rupture between the US and the House of Saud, has probably reached the point of no return. 

    When Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, Director General of the Saudi Intelligence Agency (equal to the CIA), questions the US reliability and urges the kingdom to look elsewhere for a strategic ally, you know that the situation is very, very serious.
   Bandar, a powerful insider and possible future king, served for 32 years as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US.
During his tenure he dealt with five U.S. presidents, ten secretaries of state, eleven national security advisers and sixteen sessions of Congress. He had extensive influence in the US administrations and Congress. According to many analysts, during his career he was frequently referred to as both the King's exclusive messenger…and the White House's errand boy. President George W. Bush affectionately called him “Bandar Bush”.
   Bandar is a master at negotiating complicated international deals and smoothing ruffled feathers, often times with large donations to “favorite charities” from what seems to be a bottomless purse. 
  For over three decades, he was the face of Saudi Arabia both in the US and around the world. Adored by the media and admired by the public, Bandar was a frequent speaker at major fundraising events, including in the Jewish community. 
   Until last week he always advocated for strong US-Saudi relations and good Saudi-Israeli relations – that he claimed have existed since January 3, 1910, when then Emir (later King) Feisal signed a peace and cooperation accord with then World Zionist Congress president Chaim Weitzman, regarding the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
   If Bandar Bin Sultan, a moderate, pro-Western, anti-Islamist, high-ranking Saudi leader is leveling derogatory accusations against the US, with full encouragement of the ailing King, you know that the relationship is on the rocks.
   It’s important to understand that for the last 70 or so years, the sometimes wobbly US-Saudi alliance was based on the simple premise that in exchange for America providing military protection for the family run dictatorship, the Saudis will keep the global price of oil down and, during the Cold War, provide the US with military facilities and use its incredible wealth to help keep the USSR out of the region.
   But today there is a new worldwide threat: The very real probability of a nuclear armed Iran that threatens the Sunni Arab countries in general and Saudi Arabia in particular. 
   So what is the Saudi beef with the US?  According to Simon Henderson’s article, published on Nov 1 by the Washington Institute: “Saudi Arabia has a litany of complaints about U.S. policy in the Middle East. It faults Washington for pursuing a rapprochement with Iran, for not pushing Israel harder in peace talks with the Palestinians, and for not more forcefully backing efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Saudi royals are also angry that the United States did not stand behind Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government uprising in 2011, and that Washington has criticized the new Egyptian government, another Saudi ally, for its crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protesters.”
   Any weakening of the US-Saudi alliance will have far reaching ramifications. America’s influence in the region would weaken even more, while Russia and China would certainly step in. US arms sales would decline and the price of oil could increase – both impacting American jobs and the economy.
   By the time you read this column, Secretary of State Kerry will have completed his talks in the region. Tasked with putting out major diplomatic fires in Riad, Cairo (US relations with Egypt) and Israel (the recent negativity over the peace talks and reported resignations of senior members of the Palestinian team)…all in less than a week, I seriously doubt that we will see anything more than a few polite and non-committal statements to the press following each short visit.
   The only thing that can alter America’s deteriorating status in the Middle East today is a US lead military action against Iran.      
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Turkey’s Despicable Betrayal – But Who Leaked the Story?

 In the murky world of international espionage and covert operations, there are certain rules that are “carved in stone”. 

The cardinal rule is that you do not betray confidential and sensitive information to your ally’s enemy. 
   In 2011 Turkey broke that rule in a way that caused serious damage to Israeli and American intelligence operations in the Middle East, cost the lives of at least ten Mossad agents in Iran and badly damaged Turkey’s worldwide reputation as a reliable ally.
   Background: In 1949, Secular Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. Strong military, strategic, and economic relations developed over the next six decades. 
   By 1999, trade and tourism were booming, the Israeli Air Force trained in Turkish airspace, joint military exercises were the norm, Turkey purchased drones from Israel and the Israelis upgraded Turkish combat jets and tanks. There was high-tech cooperation on numerous projects, as well as plans for regional water sharing.
   A unique intelligence alliance started with a secret meeting in Ankara in 1958 between Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and Turkish PM Adnan Menderes. “The concrete result was a formal but top-secret agreement for comprehensive cooperation” between the Mossad and Turkish intelligence, wrote Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman in their 2012 book, “Spies Against Armageddon.”
   As noted in a well-researched expose by David Ignatius published on October 16 in the Washington Post [1]: “The groundwork had been laid secretly by Reuven Shiloah, the founding director of the Mossad, as part of what he called a ‘peripheral alliance strategy’. Through that partnership, Israel provided training in espionage to the Turks...” and Turkey facilitated Israeli intelligence and military operations in Syria, Iraq and, after 1979 – Iran.
   Relations cooled after Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister in 2003. Though Erdogan paid an official visit to Israel in 2005, his strong anti-Israeli rhetoric and close relations with the Moslem Brotherhood (MB) indicated an intentional shift of Turkish alignment from a secular, Israel-oriented position to an Islamist, pro-MB one. 
   While relations got worse after the 2010 flotilla incident, military and intelligence cooperation continued quietly, with crucial, actionable information on Iran being shared with the US and NATO.  
   With the revelation last week by David Ignatius of Turkey’s responsibility for the capture of the Israeli spies in Iran, relations have hit a new low.
   In his article, Ignatius says: “The Turkish-Israeli relationship became so poisonous early last year that the Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have disclosed to Iranian intelligence the identities of up to ten Iranians who had been meeting inside Turkey with their Mossad case officers.” 
   According to Iranian sources these suspects, all Iranian Kurds, were arrested, “interrogated” until they confessed, tried in secret and executed. Sources in the US describe the Turkish action as a “significant” loss of intelligence. The Israelis call it a despicable, wicked betrayal.
   The intriguing question is: Why did this story come out only now…and who leaked it?  
   Four countries know exactly what happened: Iran, Turkey, Israel and the US. Does one of them have a motive to ruin Turkey’s standing in the world of international diplomacy and espionage, at this delicate time?

• Iran? – No. Why “burn” a highly prolific “fifth column” in NATO.
• Turkey? – No. The exposure caused huge embarrassment and loss of face and trust throughout the world.
• Israel? – No. Maintains a good relation with the Turkish army (though NOT with Turkey’s equivalent of the CIA).
• The US? No. Why disgrace a US ally, NATO member and close friend of the administration? 

But maybe that’s just the point…:  
   According to Israeli analysts, the leak about Turkey’s “betrayal” and the fingering of Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s all powerful spy chief and close confidant of Erdogan, as the person who has been passing highly sensitive information to Iran for years, actually came from high level US sources, but not from the White House.
   These analysts argue that in the US government there are those who are uncomfortable with the current Middle East Policies. By leaking facts to discredit Turkey and its spy-chief, they hope to throw a proverbial monkey-wrench into a key component of that policy, thus forcing the administration to rethink what’s best for America, Egypt…and Israel.  As of now, and in the absence of more details, I find it hard to dispute their logic.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-turkey-blows-israels-cover-for-iranian-spy-ring/2013/10/16/7d9c1eb2-3686-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html

Egypt – America’s Ill-advised policy

   A popular axiom of Mid-East experts is: “As Egypt goes – so goes the Arab World.”  Modern history bears that out. 

   When Egypt attacked Israel in 1948, so did Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. When Egypt aligned with the Soviet Union in the 50’s and 60’s, so did many other Arab countries. 
   And when Egypt signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1979, so did Jordan, and within a short time Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other Arab states established informal ties with the Jewish State.
   Egypt, with over 80 million citizens and the strongest Arab military, is the natural leader of the Sunni Arab countries. The Egyptian military is the most respected organization in the Arab world.
   Egypt also owns, secures and operates the Suez Canal – one of the major strategic and commercial waterways in the world and where the US currently enjoys special privileges no other country has.
   The American brokered peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a cornerstone of US Middle East policy. 
   Since 9/11 Egypt, has been a staunch ally of the US in the war against Islamist terrorism. For months the Egyptian army has been fighting a war in Sinai to eradicate a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) inspired base of jihadist terrorist groups, including those with American blood on their hands. 
   So it’s ill-advised that, with the Egyptian military playing an important role in fighting America’s enemies, the US announced that it was suspending military and economic aid. The justification was that: a. the military overthrew a democratically elected president, and b. the military used “excessive force.” against demonstrations by MB supporters. 
   Both arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny:

1. While Muhammad Morsi, ranked #3 in the MB hierarchy, may have been elected democratically, he immediately took the undemocratic (and illegal) steps of nullifying the Egyptian Constitution and writing a strictly Sharia based one, gave himself the power to legislate, and issued very undemocratic orders that he and his edicts were above the law and the courts. 
2. With the majority of Egyptians fed up with Morsi’s extreme Islamism, the deteriorating economy, and the fact that he allowed the establishment of an MB controlled terrorist base in Sinai, millions took to the streets throughout Egypt to peacefully demand Morsi’s resignation and new elections.
3. When the army refused Morsi’s order to use force against the demonstrators, he and the MB leadership sent in their armed thugs, resulting in many casualties.
4. After Morsi and the rest of the MB leadership were arrested on charges of incitement to violence and murder, the Chief of Staff immediately appointed a civilian acting president, who set up a civilian government that is writing a new constitution. Elections for the presidency and parliament are planned for early spring. So much for the “military coup” argument.
5. Last month’s pro Morsi demonstrations were violent. Government buildings were attacked with firebombs and live ammunition. Though 54 demonstrators were killed, the army used reasonable force in defending itself. Many of the pro-MB demonstrators wore green headbands proclaiming their intended martyrdom for Islam.  

   While conflicting US statements about the arms freeze were nuanced, the reaction in the Arab world was anything but.
   Anti-American sentiments in Egypt and other countries were whipped up by the usually pro-Western media claiming that the arms freeze was accompanied by a demand to release Morsi and the other MB leaders, and that the MB be included in the interim government (it was invited but refused to join). There are now calls to revoke America’s special privileges in the Suez Canal.
   Saudi Arabia, angered by the American move, immediately transferred another $2 billion to the Egyptian interim government, and promised to finance or supply any military equipment needed.
   Justified or not, the perception today is that America supports the anti-west Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most undemocratic and oppressive organizations in the world. And in the Middle East – perception is everything. 
   Sometimes you have to be smart…in addition to being right. Remember the axiom…
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Then Bibi Arrived

   Last week, this column discussed the “charm offensive” launched in the US by Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. As pointed out, anyone who just scratches the smiling front Rouhani presents will find beneath it a smart, ruthless, calculating, extreme Islamist cleric who has spent the last thirty five years faithfully serving the Ayatollah regimes in Iran and their obsessive quest for nuclear weapons.

   Let me make this as clear as I can – The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, understood that with  sanctions taking a punishing toll on Iran’s economy while the US and Israel threaten military action against his precious nuclear bomb program…it was not in his interest to have another divisive “Ahmadinejad” type as president. Nor, he suspected, would the people elect one.
   So he hand-picked his trusted smiling minion, Rouhani, and marketed him (especially through social media) as a “moderate” and “reformer” compared to the other five scowling candidates. 
   Khamenei made sure to hide inconvenient fly-specs in Rouhani’s past, like the fact that he oversaw Iran’s nuclear weapons project for sixteen years (“he was just a negotiator”), or the fact that his son committed suicide in protest and disgust over his father’s blind obedience to the Supreme Leader (left an unambiguous suicide note). Few in Iran were surprised that Rouhani won by a landslide.      In NY, war weary delegates at the UN, as well as star struck media personalities and politicians hung on to his every word.
   "Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," he said to a gullible world.
  He said that he listened carefully to president Obama's speech, and hoped that the United States "will refrain from following the short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups" so that the two nations "can arrive at a framework to manage our differences." 
       Back in Iran Rouhani boasted that the Americans had literally begged his people five different times to arrange a handshake or short meeting with President Obama – and that he refused because “it would not have been appropriate”.
   Only after lengthy negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (and at what price?) did he reluctantly agree to accept a short phone call.
    Much of the media and a few politicians fell right into the Iranian honey-pot trap. After all, he said in front of every camera that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. He’s the President of Iran and a devout cleric – surely he must be telling the truth. Just look at that smile...
   
And then Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in the US…and the honey (hopefully) turned to vinegar. 
   With no cartoon gimmicks and no flashy presentations this time, Bibi gave a simple and laser-sharp message to President Obama, the UN General Assembly and as many TV cameras and radio microphones he could get in front of.    
   He said that he did not believe Iran's claims that its nuclear program was intended for research purposes; That Rouhani is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’; That only the Supreme leader decides regarding Iran’s nuclear program and that "The world mustn’t fall for the Iranian ploy and alleviate the sanctions as long as the Iranians do not dismantle their nuclear program."
   Bibi made it clear that any lifting of sanctions as part of negotiations must come AFTER, not before:

1. A total and verified cessation of all Uranium enrichment
2. Dismantling the unfinished Heavy Water nuclear reactor at Arak (which could produce Plutonium) 
3. Removal from Iran of all enriched Uranium.
4. Removal from Iran of enrichment equipment including centrifuges and conversion facilities. 

 Speaking to the Iranians directly on BBC’s Persian station, Netanyahu warned them that Israel was dead serious about using the military option if sanctions and real negotiations do not succeed, and in a short time.
   In his meetings and interviews last week, Bibi made it clear that Israel can, and will, stop Iran from reaching nuclear break-out, even if it has to it alone.
  Was Bibi more convincing than Rouhani? I hope so, because for the US, the Iranian nuclear issue is part of a multi-player global chess game.  For Israel, it’s a question of national survival. And I mean that in the broadest Jewish perspective.

Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

President Rouhani’s Honeypot Trap

   Last week Iran launched an assault on the United States. Not a military attack, but a full scale, all-out, charm attack. 

The assaulting force was President Hassan Rouhani. He gave media interviews in Farsi (despite the fact that he’s fluent in English); joked with UN delegates; met world leaders while shunning President Obama; gave a long speech at the General Assembly; tweeted; texted; updated his facebook page, published an op-ed in the Washington Post, etc.
   
   Rouhani was laser-focused on the two messages he wanted to get across to the American voters:
1. Iran has “no interest in nuclear weapons”; therefore there is no justification for the economic sanctions, which are “only hurting the innocent civilians and not the leadership”.
2. Iran has every legal and moral right to enrich Uranium for ‘peaceful’ purposes, though he didn’t specify  to what level.
3. Iran is ready to take “confidence building measures” to convince the West of its peaceful intentions.

   Since Rouhani can only parrot the policies of Iranian Supreme Leader Aly Khamenei, there are two possible reasons for this sudden apparent about-face by the latter:
1. The sanctions are, in fact, crippling Iran’s economy and potentially endangering the regime.
2. Iran is now within weeks of building one or more nuclear weapons, or has already done so.

   Though Rouhani could not find time to meet with President Obama, one of his behind-closed-doors meetings last week was with a group of top US and European business leaders and investors. The opportunities he offered were tantalizing and highly profitable…providing the sanctions are lifted.
  
   In the meantime Secretary of State John Kerry and G5 +1 team, which has been negotiating for years with Iran on stopping its nuclear weapons program, met with the Iranian foreign minister in what was described as a constructive and positive meeting. They reportedly, agreed to continue negotiations “over the next year”, though there was no mention of Iran stopping enrichment or handing over existing stockpiles in the interim. 

   It looks like the US is preparing to stand down the F-16s and B-2s; close the cruise-missile hatches and send the carriers, assault ships and destroyers home. It looks like US military action against Iran is all but off the table for at least a year.  And all because a smiling, amicable, highly sophisticated Shiite cleric lied through his teeth and set a honeypot trap that worked! The Israelis are very concerned.

Just who is Hassan Rouhani?  
   Defined as the “ultimate insider” Rouhani, 64, has been part of the Islamist Revolution in Iran from the start.
• He joined Grand Ayatollah Khomeini in exile in Paris, and returned with him to Iran in 1979.
• Upon Khomeini’s death in 1989, Rouhani swore allegiance to the new and current Supreme Leader.
• He is a high ranking Shiite cleric (Mujtahid) and lawyer, with a PhD. from Caledonian University in Glasgow
• Some of his positions over the past 30 years:

• 5 Term member of the Iranian parliament. Chair of the powerful Defense Committee.
• Deputy Commander of the War during the Iran-Iraq conflict.
• Commander of the Air Defense Forces.
• National Security Advisor to two presidents
• Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for 16 years – responsible for overseeing development and expansion of the nuclear weapons program.
• Head of the Center for Strategic Research

   Rouhani is a brilliant negotiator who brags that he succeeded in dragging out talks with the G5+1 over years while Iran continued to build nuclear enrichment and weaponization facilities. 

   Deeply involved in the Iranian nuclear weapons program at the highest levels for almost 20 years, Rouhani will not compromise Iran and the Shiite world’s best chance, after 700 years of persecution and humiliation, at respect, honor and regional dominance. Besides, Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders won’t let him. 
   
And yet the honeypot trap worked…for the time being.
   
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Syria, Egypt, and the UN General Assembly

While we celebrated the holidays, the Middle East continued to generate news and speculation. 
Syria:
According to the Russian “deal” Assad had until Sept 21 to provide the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) a full disclosure of all his chemical weapons, as well as all research and production facilities. As of the deadline the Syrians have delivered only a partial list. The OPCW is busy translating the report while still waiting for the rest.
2. The US and Russia have not yet agreed on the wording of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution, due to be voted on next week. The US insists on a binding non-compliance consequence clause, Russia disagrees. Russia wants the military threat completely removed, the US disagrees.
3. There are difficulties in recruiting the international inspectors. So far only Germany has agreed to send a handful.
4. Vladimir Putin said last week that he “could not be sure” that Bashar al-Assad would fulfill the requirement to identify and destroy his chemical weapons stocks. 
5. In the meantime, the Syrian civil war has evolved into a three way conflict. Last week saw intense fighting within the rebel forces – mainly between jihadist al-Qaeda affiliates and the supposedly pro-west Free Syrian Army (FSA). 
6. In the past few weeks several large units of the FSA have switched sides and joined the jihadists. 
Egypt:
1. Defense minister General Assisi continues with an all-out campaign to weaken and destabilize the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), whose leadership, together with thousands of its members and supporters are in jail awaiting trial. Street demonstrations have all but ceased following the military’s harsh policy for dealing with any unrest.
2. In the meantime a new, secular Constitution is almost complete, and is expected to be put to a national referendum within 4-6 weeks, followed by general elections.
3. The military campaign in Sinai against the jihadist fighters is gaining momentum. Both sides are keeping up the pressure, while suffering heavy casualties. Egyptian helicopter gunships and artillery pound jihadist forces daily, while the latter use car bombs with devastating effect against the military.
4. The army has now closed all tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, preventing jihadist reinforcements, weapons and money from getting through.
5. At Egypt’s request, Israel has extended the hours at the crossing points into Gaza, and is allowing construction material through for private projects.
New York 
   The UN General Assembly opens this week in New York.  Without Ahmadinejad, it will be interesting to see who, among the participating kings, princes, presidents, prime ministers, etc. will be this year’s clown. Whose speech will inspire the delegates? Who will be totally forgettable…or worse?
  Regarding the Middle East this year, tantalizing “promos” and “teasers” have simultaneously raised high expectations and deep concerns, not to mention some serious questions:

1. Will the scheduled September 30 meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu in DC be warm, cordial or chilly? What will they really discuss?
2. Will there be an Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas summit…or is Abbas planning another bid for UN recognition of “Palestine”?
3. Will there be a linkage between a UNSC resolution on Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s rumored nuclear arsenal?
4. Will President Obama meet with Iranian President Rowhani of Iran? And which Rowhani will show up at the UN – the aggressive long-time Iranian nuke champion, or the disarmingly likable “let’s-lie-through-our-teeth-until-we-have-the-bomb” negotiator? 

   As we know from past UN General Assemblies, the real news is generated during behind closed doors meetings in NY and DC, as well as with ongoing developments in the region.

   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Syria and the "Russian Deal"

   Last week President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. He gave a compelling argument for an American missile strike in response to the Sarin gas killing of over 1,400 civilians in Damascus, leaving no doubt that the Assad regime had committed this atrocity. He was convincing as to why Congress should vote to support the attack. But then the president said that he had asked Congress to delay voting because “…the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.” 

   Russian president Vladimir Putin had come up with a “deal”. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, agreed on the framework of the deal.
   
   With the threat of a US missile attack hanging over, Putin apparently convinced Assad to give up a massive arsenal of over 1,000 metric tons (about 2.3 million lbs.) of weapon-grade chemical agents, together with some 30,000 warheads, at various stages of operational readiness, and numerous delivery systems. All had been accumulated over thirty years, and earmarked to deter Israel’s perceived nuclear capability in a future war.
   
   The agreed outline of the “deal” is:
1. By Sept 21 Assad must provide a full disclosure of all his chemical weapons (CW) including names, types, quantities, warheads and locations, as well as all research and production facilities.
2. In November, inspectors from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), arrive for preliminary confirmation of the report. Assad must provide them immediate and unrestricted access to every location, at any time.
3. By June 2014 all CW, precursors, warheads and related equipment must be destroyed or removed from Syria.
  
    But as always – the devil is in the details. Here are just some of the problems:

• Assad recently moved much of his CW to over 40 sites around the country, including residential areas, locations of ongoing fighting and the formidable Southeastern mountain and desert region.
• He has also reportedly moved CW to Lebanon and Iraq.
• The inventory provided this week will also be suspicious as analysts believe that Syria’s elite 4th Division, commanded by Assad’s brother Maher, has had plenty of time to squirrel away CW and equipment for future use. These troops are highly trained in CW and have used them at least 13 times in the past two years, including in last month’s attack in Damascus. 
• The international inspectors will be under constant danger from both rebel and regime forces as they visit the numerous sites, especially in the combat zones.
• Once sites have been inspected and confirmed they will have to be monitored and secured by an international force of about 75,000 to prevent the CW from falling in the hands of the rebels, regime forces or unscrupulous Bedouin smugglers. However both the US and Russia have declared “no boots on the ground” policies.
• Destruction of CW is very complex, dangerous and time consuming. The eight month time frame is unrealistic.

   In my opinion, even with thousands (from where?) of foreign or contract security personnel on the ground, this “deal” will take years to reach completion, if at all. There are too many political, diplomatic and technical obstacles along the way, including (despite the smiles in Geneva), the cooling US-Russia relations. 

   So regardless of guarded optimism here and in Israel, it is way premature to determine if the “deal” has a chance of success or, as we say in Texas “that dog won’t hunt”. Let’s see how the next few weeks play out.    
   
   Agree or disagree – that’s my opinion.

Is it really just about Syria?

Last week we celebrated the new Jewish year, 5774. In Israel it was almost surrealistic. Faced with the distinct specter of yet another war of “annihilation-by-missiles”, this time promised by Iran and Syria in retaliation to an expected US attack, the Israelis called up a few reserve units, beefed up anti-missile defenses in the North and  then did what they do best on “Rosh Hashana” – New Year’s day – they thronged, en masse, to the beaches and parks, set up tables and chairs and broke out the grills. By noon highways were jammed, beaches were packed, parks were crowded (including in the Upper Galilee and the Golan Heights) and the smell of grilled lamb chops, steaks, hamburgers and hot dogs drifted over the country.

I’m sure that the warring factions in Syria paused to get a whiff, wishing at that moment that they too were picnicking in the cool Tal Forest Park, where the only smoke was from the “Mangal” (grill) and the only concern was if there is enough Hummus and Pitas, not when and where the US attack will come.

As of this writing the administration is trying to get Congress to support a limited US attack on Syria. Limited in scope – yet painful enough to send a clear message to Assad not to dare use chemical weapons again. The question right now is if Congress will go along.

Also, President Obama is currently in Russia at the G-20 meeting, trying to get other countries to join, or at least support the US position on Syria. Britain is out and France is wavering. Italy sent a frigate to the Eastern Mediterranean, but most countries, at this stage, prefer to take a wait and see position. Russia and Iran support Assad, both diplomatically and militarily.

Both the US and Russia have significantly increased their naval forces in the area, and more missile, assault, electronic warfare and support ships are on their way. 

But is this really about the Sarin gas attack last week that killed over 1,400 civilians or is there a bigger picture involved?  In my opinion, based on current activity in Israel and the disproportionate deployment of US and Russian assets, it’s the latter.

Here’s a possible scenario: American missiles are launched against targets in Syria. True to their word, the Iranians order their forces in Lebanon to fire missiles at Israel and attack American ships and interests in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

Israel reacts with massive force to destroy Iran’s and Hezbollah’s missile capabilities and military infrastructures in Lebanon. The US, having been attacked by Iran or its proxies, does not now need Congressional approval to retaliate…and at the same time, since “new intelligence” will show that Iran has crossed not only Israel’s but America’s nuclear “red line”, destroy Iran’s nuclear program sites…which many analysts believe is what this is really all about.

Why would the Iranians launch such a suicidal attack on Israel and the US, knowing exactly what the results would be? For the same reason President Obama now feels compelled to attack Syria – because they said they would. And in the Middle East a word is a word, a promise is a promise, and honor is sacred. 

I may be wrong, or things may not go as expected. But if they do then the year 5774 May turn out to be the beginning of a whole new, hopefully peaceful, era for Israel, The US, and the Middle East.

Agree or disagree – that’s my opinion.
G’mar Chatima Tova. 

The Syrian Conundrum

The Syrian Conundrum

At his Aug. 20, 2012, news conference, president Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be an American “red line” that if crossed, would draw “consequences”

On August 30, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that Assad’s troops, under the command of his brother Maher, have recently killed over 1,400 Syrian civilians with weaponised Sarin nerve gas. There is also evidence that on August 29, Napalm was fired by Assad’s forces into a schoolyard causing several deaths and numerous horrific injuries, mainly to children. All the casualties in both attacks were Sunni Muslims.

Since there is no question that the president’s “red line” has been trampled by Assad, everyone in the Middle East is waiting to see what the promised “consequences” will be.

And that’s there’s conundrum:
• Bombing the chemical weapon stockpiles, which are located in or near highly populated areas, is not a viable option. 
• Launching a robust military operation against Assad and his forces will be seen, on the one hand, as a clear message that American “red lines” are serious (attention Iran!). On the other hand it will be perceived as US support of the rebel groups, some of whom are anti-American jihadists, or directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
• Doing nothing, or just a mild slap-on-the-wrist, will be seen as US support for Iran’s puppets Assad and Hezbollah, not to mention the shredding of the last remnants of American prestige and credibility in the Middle East.

But is there another option? Actually…yes:  In my opinion the swift removal, either by capture and trial, or “extreme prejudice” measures, of Basher al-Assad and his brother Maher, would eventually create an environment for a negotiated settlement to partition Syria into four autonomous states: Sunni, Alawite/Christian, Kurd and Druze. 

US Special Forces are more than capable of executing this type of surgical military operation. 

And most important - it would send a clear message to Iran about the seriousness of American “red lines”.

Agree or disagree – that’s my opinion.

Five Root Causes of Current Conflict in Middle East

After chemical attacks by the Assad regime against Syrian Sunni Moslems, there is talk of the US intervening militarily in Syria.

The Middle East effects the US and Israel. This column will give TJP readers a weekly analysis of current events in that region.

In my opinion, there are five root causes of the current conflicts in the region.

1. The Sunni-Shiite Split:  (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon) After Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. There was a dispute whether the next leader (Caliph) should be a blood relative (his cousin Ali) or a non-related “companion”. This conflict led to a permanent split in Islam between the “Ali Faction” (“Shiiat Ali”) and the “Sunnah” (“Pathway” of Muhammad). They have been fighting bitterly ever since. Today 80-90% of the world’s Moslems are Sunni, with 10-20% Shiite. The Shiites, persecuted for 1400 years, believe that when Iran has nuclear weapons, they will dominate.
2. The radicalization of Sunnis: (Egypt, Bahrain, Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.). With the establishment of Wahhabism in Arabia in the 18th century and the founding of the fundamentalist Moslem Brotherhood (MB) in 1928, many in the Sunni denomination became entrenched in an “Islam is the solution” ideology that rejects Western values and cultures as anti-Islamic satanic temptations to be opposed and defeated. The MB rejects the very concept of statehood, having two declared goals:
a. That the world follows strict Sharia (Islamic) law.
b. The reestablishment of a worldwide Caliphate, replacing today’s states, countries and political systems.
3. The creation of artificial countries after WW1: 90% of the countries in the Middle East today did not exist before 1920. The victors carved the defeated Ottoman Empire into political states, without consideration of the ethnic, religious, tribal, language, cultural or historic relations between different peoples, tribes and clans caught within the new boundaries. The created states include: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Sudan and Algeria.  Military dictators ruled these countries, maintaining stability, relations with the West, growing economies and security. They persecuted opposition, mainly from the MB and Islamist groups that opposed their ties to the US as abhorrent to Islam.  But then came…
4. The “Arab Spring”:  Lauded throughout the world the, wide-spread demonstrations toppled the pro-West dictators and brought democratic elections. Unfortunately in virtually every country the party that was elected represented the best organized religious organization: The MB.  Today in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan and Morocco we see the backlash to those elections.
5. “Desert Culture”: For millennia the peoples of the Middle East have lived under an accepted social and legal code that evolved from living in the desert.   Concepts of “honor”, “dignity”, “respect”, “trust”, “credibility” and especially “blood revenge” are integral parts of life. The Ottoman Turks conducted their empire accordingly. The Israelis respect the “law of the desert”.

With the US and Europe getting involved in Syria, they would be wise to remember these root causes of the conflicts.

Agree or disagree – that’s my opinion.

Welcome to SWJC Blog

Southwest Jewish Congress was formed in 2009 with the vision and leadership of Founding Chair, Harry Ploss, and a group of committed board members who believed that understanding the complex challenges facing the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East today, will enable us to preserve our Constitutional rights and freedoms tomorrow.  It was determined that the way to accomplish this was to provide the community unique briefings on Israel and the Middle East, to initiate programming on threats to the U.S. Constitution and to celebrate diversity in our community.