|
Middle
East
Speculations About "the Military Option" to
"Resolve the Crisis"
The political analyst and journalist Victor Kotsev
speculates in a recent article published by Asia Times Online that an
all-out war
in the Middle East is hardly in anybody's interest, yet it may happen,
either as an escalation of a lower-intensity conflict, or
because one of the sides miscalculates or is pushed into a corner."
His examples of "a lower-intensity conflict" would be "a
more localized outbreak, for example in Gaza or in parts of Syria,
which,
he says, "is considerably more likely, given the incredible build-up of
arms and words in the region; in the mid-term, an
American-backed or led attack on Iran is not inconceivable, as the
wheels of both bureaucracy and rhetoric are clearly rolling in that
direction."
According to the analyst, "Outward 'signs' coming from
the region are clearly not peaceful. Syria is becoming ever less
stable,
Hezbollah is restive, and the Gaza Strip has accumulated more weapons
than ever before (and an all-but-open rivalry has developed
between the ruling Hamas and the more tightly aligned with Iran
second-largest militant organization there, Islamic Jihad)."
Iranian storm the
British embassy in Tehran, November 29, 2011, and dragged down the
British flag. |
The analyst says "Iran is seething -- some of the latest
developments include an attack on the British Embassy, a reported
downing
of an American stealth drone, and a couple of major explosions that
reportedly obliterated a key Iranian missile testing base and
damaged nuclear installations near the city of Isfahan.[1]
"Israel is rapidly expanding its capacity to mitigate
the impact of its enemies' most formidable offensive weapons --
missiles. A
couple of weeks ago, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported,
Israel received additional Patriot anti-missile systems from 'a
friendly country.'[2]
"If confirmed, this acquisition would suggest an
extraordinary step taken by the Israeli government in the face of an
imminent
threat (one memory it brings up is of the Gulf War, when the United
States stationed Patriot missiles in Israel to counter the threat
of Saddam Hussein's Scuds).
"Meanwhile, a third Iron Dome battery (against
short-range missiles) has also reportedly been deployed by the Israeli
Defense Forces
in the past month or so.[3] During
the last significant flare-up in
October, Israel only had two functioning batteries, one of which
failed to deploy immediately."
Kotsev says that the Israelis have turned their
anti-Iran rhetoric up to what seems a maximum in the past weeks. "Given
that past
Israeli military operations relied on surprise, this circumstance
likely suggests that an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program
is not imminent, but also that Israel is building up its case before
the international community, justifying an attack in the
future."
He quotes Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak responding
to American pressure to hold off an attack saying, "We can't wait and
say
-- we'll see if they have a bomb, and then we'll act. What if by then
we will not be able to act?"[4]
In the past few days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu also directed a new round of veiled threats at Iran, Kotsov
points
out.[5]
He says that despite all the threats, Israel is
understandably reluctant to engage in an operation on its own -
especially right
now, while it is still taking delivery of new anti-missile technology.
"A fourth Iron Dome battery, critical against the formidable
short-range missile arsenal of pro-Iranian militants in Lebanon and
Gaza, is expected early next year, to be followed several months
later by a fifth (Israel needs around 15 for near-complete protection
on all fronts, so every installation counts)."
"Some time in 2012, moreover, the new Arrow 3
exo-atmospheric anti-ballistic missile system, one of the most advanced
in the world,
is scheduled to be unveiled. It is as good an answer to Iran's
ballistic missile threat as any, and if that is forthcoming, it may be
worth waiting for."
According to Kotsev, "This timeline seems consistent
[...] with the time frame for an Israeli attack by the second half of
next year
circulated by Israeli media and critics of such an attack, such as the
influential former Mossad (Israeli spy service) director Meir
Dagan, and attributed to Barak.[6]
"In the meantime, while arming itself (and basking in
the warmth of American generosity), Israel can sit back and allow a
kind of
war of attrition to go on. Sanctions wear down the Iranian economy,
civil unrest wears down the Iranian allies in the region
(specifically Syria, and indirectly Hezbollah), and sabotage and
missteps wear down the Iranian nuclear and missile program. The
much-rumoured Israeli cyber-warfare program may yet offer new
surprises, and set the Iranian military programs further back.[7]
"A war in Gaza, however, is considerably more likely in
the next months. It could be provoked (like several other recent
violent
episodes near Gaza) by Islamic Jihad, a militant organization
considered Iran's pawn and the major rival of Hamas in the Strip. There
are increasing recent reports of tensions between Iran and Hamas, with
the latter reportedly planning to pull out of Syria.[8]
"As Israeli journalist Amir Oren suggests, Israel may
also have a motivation to expedite a war in Gaza that it may see as
inevitable, in light of the Egyptian elections and the likelihood that
the next Egyptian government would be hostile to any Israeli
military operation in the Strip.[9]
"The United States, on the other hand, is coming under
ever greater pressure to do something about the Iranian nuclear
program. Its
diplomatic initiatives are in disarray, new rounds of sanctions at the
United Nations Security Council were rejected by Russia and
China, and the American allies in the Middle East are showing
increasing signs of impatience.
"The military option is increasingly looking like the
only way to resolve the crisis while maintaining a measure of control
over the
situation. A number of top American officials now publicly acknowledge
that they are not sure if Israel will not surprise them with an
air strike that could bring disastrous consequences. Saudi Arabia,
moreover, is now all but publicly threatening to join the nuclear
arms race if nothing is done against Iran.[10]"
Notes
1. Report: Blast at Isfahan
damaged nuclear facility, Ynet,
November
30,
2011.
2. Iran's Khamenei presents war
scenarios, Ynet,
November 25, 2011.
3. US may buy Iron Dome to defend ME
bases, Jerusalem
Post, December 1, 2011.
4. Barak: We can't wait until Iran has
nuclear bomb, Ha'aretz,
December
3,2011.
5. Netanyahu's history lesson hints at
Israeli strike on
Iran, Ha'aretz, December 4,
2011.
6. Former Mossad chief briefed
comptroller about Iran
strike plans, Ha'aretz,
December 2, 2011.
7. Insight: Did Conficker help sabotage
Iran's nuke
program?, Reuters, December 2, 2011.
8. Iran threatening to cut Hamas funds,
arms supply if
it flees Syria, Ha'aretz,
December 5 2011.
9. Egypt turmoil may prompt Israel to
strike Gaza, Ha'aretz,
December
27, 2011.
10. 'Saudi Arabia may join nuclear arms
race', Ynet,
December 5 2011.
U.S. Provocations Against Iran
 In the
latest U.S. provocation against Iran as well as against international
diplomacy, on December 6, the United States, which broke off
diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980, officially launched a
so-called web-based embassy which Iran immediately blocked, the
Fars news agency reported on December 7.
In October, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the U.S.
was planning to open this " virtual embassy" by the end of this
year, with the alleged aim of providing Iranians with online access to
U.S. visa and education information. It said the embassy was
designed to promote" people-to-people contacts. "I am delighted to
announce the online opening of the Virtual U. S. Embassy Tehran as a
new and exciting engagement opportunity between the peoples of Iran and
the United States," State Department spokeswoman Victoria
Nuland said in a statement.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said that the U.S.
virtual embassy for Iran will not send the U.S. message to
Iranian people, the semi- official Mehr news agency reported Thursday.
The launch of the virtual embassy for Iran is an indication of U.S.
confession to the wrong decision to sever ties with Iran three
decades ago, Mehmanparast was quoted as saying.
Iranian lawmaker Hassan Ghafourifard said the launch of the U.S.
virtual embassy aims to create a rift between the Iranian people and
their government, the state IRIB TV website reported. Iranians are not
interested in having anything to do with the virtual embassy,
Ghafourifard was quoted as saying. Referring to the launch of the U.S.
virtual embassy as a "plot" against Iran, he said that "The
Iranian nation knows and recognizes the U.S. plots in any forms,"
according to IRIB.
 Another Iranian
lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh told Mehr on Wednesday that the
launch of the U.S. virtual embassy is "a kind of public
announcement to attract spies (from Iranians) to the U.S." The
objective behind the establishment of the U.S. virtual embassy is to
put
political pressures on Iran, said Falahatpisheh who heads the Foreign
Relations Committee of Iranian parliament.
The White House responded by condemning Iran. "We condemn the Iranian
government's efforts to deny their people the freedom to access
America's recently launched Virtual Embassy Tehran," White House
spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement.
In related news, on December 8, Iran called on the United Nations to
condemn a U.S. unmanned drone's violation of its air space and
sought "clear and effective measures" to end such "dangerous and
unlawful acts" against the country.
Mohammad Khazaee, the Iranian permanent representative to the United
Nations, made the appeal in his letter to UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon.
The letter was also copied to Vitaly Churkin, the Russian UN ambassador
who holds the rotating UN Security Council presidency for
December, and Nasser A. Al-Nasser, president of the 66th session of the
UN General Assembly.
"Upon instructions from my government, I have the honor to draw your
kind attention to the provocative and covert operations against
the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States government, which
have increased and intensified in recent months," the Iranian
ambassador said in the letter.
"In the continuation of such trend, recently, an American RQ-170
unmanned spy plane, bearing a specific serial number, violated Iran's
air space," he said.
"This plane flew 250 kilometres deep into Iranian territory up to the
northern region of the city of Tabas, where it faced prompt and
forceful action by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Iranian media reported Sunday that the Iranian military downed a RQ-170
U.S. reconnaissance drone in eastern Iran after it had
transgressed Iranian borders. U.S. officials denied the drone was
brought down by Iran, insisting it crashed due to mechanical
difficulties.
The RQ-170 drone is an unmanned aircraft that has been used for
reconnaissance and surveillance by the United States in Afghanistan,
Xinhua reports.
Concerns of Imperialist Powers over
Egyptian Election Results
Prelimentary results of the first round of voting in
Egypt's general
election show the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), a party with close
affiliations to the Muslim Brotherhood, leading with about 37 per cent
of the votes. The Islamic Nur Party was second, with 24.5 per
cent, while the liberal Egyptian
Alliance (Egyptian Bloc) placed third with 13 per cent. The first round
vote was held in nine provinces and will determine roughly 30 per cent
of the 498 seats in the People's Assembly, the Egyptian parliament's
lower house. The second and third rounds of the elections will be held
December 14 and January 3 and
will cover Egypt's other 18 provinces. Presidential elections are
scheduled to be held before June.
A report by german-foreign-policy.com, quoting an
article in Internationale Politik explains how the German
foreign policy establishment views the rise of the Muslim brotherhood.
It states:
"The rise of the Brotherhood means that the new Egyptian
government
will be less cooperative with Europe," speculates 'Internationale
Politik, the most influential establishment magazine which deals with
foreign affairs. Egypt, under Islamist influence, according to the
article, could possibly seek to draw closer
to those countries -- for example Iran -- wanting to thwart the West."
It will also be less cooperative with Israel, while cooperation with
Hamas will increase. To already prevent the looming loss of influence,
the EU must "unambiguously make it clear, which behavior is acceptable
and which is not."[1]
The EU must "insure that the rise of the Muslim
Brotherhood remains
merely a temporary phenomenon and that [...] damage to European
interests not be tolerated," demands one expert in Internationale
Politik. According to this report, "The West is mainly worried
that the Muslim Brotherhood, as
the strongest political force in Cairo, could force a reorientation of
foreign policy."
The German Foreign Minister recently declared that, in
Berlin's
view, there are "red lines" that Cairo must explicitly respect:
"rejection of violence, acknowledgment of democracy, rule of law,
pluralism, as well as domestic and international peace."
This source reports that for some time, the German
government has
been holding "working level" talks with Muslim Brotherhood activists,
"of whom we believe that they respect these red lines."[2]
Liberalism as a Weapon
"At the same time,
possibilities for strategically weakening the Muslim Brotherhood and
reinforcing the influence of liberal pro-western forces are being
explored in Berlin," german-foreign-policy.com continues.
"The PR-effective appearances of German
political
VIPs at Tahrir Square and in the 'Tahrir Lounge,'
opened as a meeting point for liberal circles in the subsidiary of
Cairo's Goethe Institute, are serving this objective," it writes.
The report continues:
Some find it more important to cut the ground out from
under the
Islamists' feet outside of the urban areas. "The Brotherhood has a
quasi monopoly of power in many rural regions," according to Internationale
Politik.
"Europe and the Egyptian progressive groups can only combat this
influence, if
they propagate libertarian ideas and teach the people how to
politically organize themselves." This should be accomplished with the
help of "NGOs." Because the Muslim Brotherhood primarily consolidates
its influence through charity, the needs of the rural population must
be cared for. European "economic aid"
to Egypt could serve this purpose. The EU must "insure that the
government uses at least part of this aid to develop services in those
regions where the educational, social and medical installations serve
those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
In reference to western concern for the rural
population, it is
explicitly stated, "the [Muslim Brotherhood] organization's 'parallel
state' must be dismantled, to reduce support for the Brotherhood."[3]
The Military -- A Power
Factor
In its attempts to
isolate the Islamist forces, the West is definitely banking on the
generals. According to a U.S. analysis, "of the three Egyptian power
factors -- the military, the Islamists and the secular democrats -- the
latter prove to be the weakest". On the other
hand, the military remains "unified and powerful." It is "clear that
the party favored by western governments and media" -- the liberals --
"will either accept the Islamic agenda, support the military or must
fade into irrelevance."[4]
Also in the German press, commentators consider that the
military
can be counted upon to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood. They write, for
example, "the realists among the Muslim Brothers know that the military
is still a decisive power factor in Egypt," it is "very unlikely that
the generals, who have close ties
to the West, particularly to the USA, will consent to a
quasi-theocratic orientation of Egyptian policy."[5]
Holy War
Current tensions between the West and the
Muslim Brotherhood obscure the fact that both sides had, in the past,
been closely cooperating. This was the case in the 1950s, when a
propaganda specialist of the administration of U.S. President Dwight D.
Eisenhower demanded that an alliance
be established with pious Muslims in the global struggle of the systems
-- particularly with those tendencies that included the Muslim
Brotherhood, which was growing stronger at the time and was reliably
anti-communist. During his second term of office, Eisenhower was even
in favor of "stressing [...] everything,
that provides the aspect of a 'holy war'" against the socialist forces
in those countries characterized as Islamic, where Washington stood in
rivalry with Moscow.[6] He praised
Saudi King Ibn Saud, who, following
a visit to the USA, "called on all Arabs to oppose communism." A
government task force in Washington
concluded in 1957 that, for cooperation against socialism, in case of
doubt, Islamists should be chosen over moderate Islamic forces. The
West's cooperation with Islamists lost its utility, only there, where
socialist or Moscow-oriented forces became insignificant, which by 1990
was the case nearly everywhere. And
yet this shows that the western animosity toward the Muslim Brotherhood
is not based on principle but is rather dependent on the given
situation and under the right conditions could even again lead to
cooperation.[7]
Notes
1. Eric Trager:
Unverwüstliche Muslimbruderschaft. Düstere
Aussichten für ein freies Ägypten und einen friedlichen
Nahen Osten, Internationale Politik,
November/Dezember
2011
2. Deutschland hält Kontakte zur
Muslimbruderschaft; www.ftd.de
24.11.2011
3. Eric Trager: Unverwüstliche
Muslimbruderschaft. Düstere
Aussichten für ein freies Ägypten und einen friedlichen
Nahen Osten, Internationale Politik,
November/Dezember
2011
4. Egypt and the Idealist-Realist Debate
in U.S. Foreign Policy;
www.stratfor.com 06.12.2011
5. Ägyptischer Herbst; www.faz.net
04.12.2011
6. Ian Johnson: A Mosque in Munich. Nazis, the CIA, and
the Muslim
Brotherhood in the West, Boston/New York 2010. See also Der
religiöse Faktor and Doppelrezension: Der politische Islam im
Westen
7. An example can be found in the
collaboration of the West with
islamist militias against Muammar al Gaddafi.
December 10, 2011 Bulletin • Return to Index • Write to:
editor@cpcml.ca
|