Month: October 2020

The killing of Saudi journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul in October 2018 has conjured renewed scrutiny towards the U.S.-Saudi partnership. Since the 1938 discovery of petroleum in Saudi Arabia, the relationship evolved from a business and economic relationship into a mutually beneficial strategic alliance. It has remained as such despite the changing global and regional geopolitical climate over the last half-century. Khashoggi’s killing is the latest development in a slew of events that have placed the United States in the hot seat over its collaboration with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship, while strategically and economically beneficial to both nations, is a complicated one. Saudi Arabia’s championing of religious fundamentalism and the history of human rights abuses is a topic of concern among consciously-minded Americans at home. It is clear that multiple precedents involving the partnership have not died out. The tradition of a strong personal connection between the leaders of the two countries lives on. Media outlets have suggested that President Donald Trump’s unwillingness to resort to outright condemnation of the Saudis over the killing stems from his desire to maintain his personal relationship with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is evident that so long as the United States has interests in the Middle East, this partnership – albeit flawed – will endure.

An important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was the principle of mass conservation. This millennium-old knowledge of the ancient Greeks spat in my head when I was thinking about the regional threats in Iran, Syria, and the Gulf. Each of us learned in school about the principle. Described by many others, a famous scholar, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī put it that way around the 13th century AD:

A body of matter cannot disappear completely. It only changes its form, condition, composition, color, and other properties and turns into a different complex or elementary matter”.^[8]

A morbid example of this would be the journalist Khashoggi, then living in exile in the US, who went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 to pick up papers for his wedding and never came out. But where is the connection between Iran, al-Tusi, and Syria? Other than al-Tusi was Persian himself, it is that simple: 100 years after the creation of the artificial lands in the Middle-East by the British-French Sykes-Picot Agreement,[1] the victory over ISIS just seemed to end one of the darkest periods in human history in December 2017. The focus of conflict is still glowing in other places. Like cancer and the metastases[2].

We remember how through the “spillover effect” from Syria, the Civil Wars in Iraq and Syria were deeply intertwined, and how the elimination of national borders has created a multinational war-theater. The Iraqi Civil War escalated in January 2014 from the Iraqi insurgency. After U.S. troops left the destabilized country in 2011, armed conflicts with the central government and between sectarian groups emerged.

Although I am trying to avoid to quote the president turned French investment banker Emmanuel Macron, according to him Turkey has deployed Syrian militias in the disputed Caucasus territory in Nagorno-Karabakh, supporting Azerbaijan in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Should Syrian jihadists appear in the conflict, the region could become an Islamist nest. As Ford[3] aptly put it in his closing remarks about “The Syrian Civil War “

Forestalling recruitment by extremist elements among dispirited refugee communities will be a related challenge as well.

Exactly that happened and is happening now. According to a report by the German news agency dpa, the financial incentive for mostly Turkmen fighters in Nagorno-Karabakh is about $1500-2000. These fighters, like the Sultan Murad Brigade, which lost fifty members in the fights, are backed by Turkey.  We are not talking about single cases but several thousand, according to the sources up to 2,000 fighters (!). The Guardian[4] is writing about three- and six-month contracts with a monthly salary of 700-1000 British pounds.

Whoever thought the Syrian conflict would be over, should think about the old the principle of mass conservation and al-Tusi just in a modified form:

Conflict changes form, but never disappears.

[1] Scott Anderson, “The Disintegration of the Iraqi State Has Its Roots in World War I”, Smithsonian, June 19, 2014, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/disintegration-iraqi-state-has-its-roots-world-war-i-180951793/#KXgsrOWpUKhdzTCJ.99

[2] Interestingly, at around the same time, the imposed Treaty of Trianon was signed, which created many successor states, of which only Hungary exists today in the same form. The country that was pinned by the treaty. 100 years later in Yugoslavia, the multi-ethnic state also culminated in bloodshed across national boundaries.

[3] Ford, Robert S. “The Syrian Civil War: A New Stage, but Is It the Final One?” Policy Paper 2019-8. Middle East Institute, Apr. 2019. www.mei.edu.

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/syrian-rebel-fighters-prepare-to-deploy-to-azerbaijan-in-sign-of-turkeys-ambition

When I was 2 weeks old, Operation Desert Shield began. The largest coalition of nations formed the largest military alliance since World War II in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Thirty five nations stepped up to assist in this U.S. led operation with George H.W Bush as the Commander-in-Chief. Within 6 months the coalition showed up, asserted their vast military power, and expelled the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Ten years later, it seemed like George W. Bush was ready for round 2.

Since I was a child of 11 years old, all I have known is a country at war. This war however has been vastly different from the swift resounding victory of the Gulf War. Now here we are in 2020, 19 years later and no resounding victory has been had. Instead we have a generation of Americans so numb to the thought of war in a region many Americans presumably couldn’t properly identify on a map. President Trump has vowed to conclude what he calls the United States’ “endless wars” across the Middle East, and tweeting that all American troops stationed in Afghanistan may be home for Christmas. Trump’s 2016 campaign appealed to many because these were the same promises made. We have been told for nearly 2 decades that it’s “Mission Accomplished,” yet many observers are still unsure of what the mission is and was in the first place. While there is hope for those in Afghanistan, Trump has deployed thousands of additional soldiers to the Persian Gulf in response to growing tensions with Iran.

Philip H. Gordon, the coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf region in the Obama administration and the author of a new book about failed American efforts to achieve “regime change” in the Middle East, said that the president’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran was unlikely to topple the country’s government or force it to abandon its nuclear program. So while his strategy according to Twitter has the U.S. on the path to clean exits from all of their conflicts in the Persian Gulf, his actual strategy has put us in a position where the response to Iranian aggressions may have to be a lethal response. With Iran on the verge of being a nuclear power, an aggressive U.S. response in the region could lead to a world altering disaster. As Mr. Gordon puts it, “And that would be the end of the end of the ‘forever wars.’”

Crowley, M. (2020, October 11). Trump’s Campaign Talk of Troop Withdrawals Doesn’t Match Military Reality. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/trump-troop-withdrawals-war.html

The Syrian conflict started 10 years ago and so far, it has led to more than 500,000 deaths and displaced an estimated 13 million (over half of Syria’s pre-war population). Over 6.2 million Syrians are internally displaced, and 5.6 million are refugees, predominantly in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.

As the pandemic poses extraordinary challenges for the whole world, the situation is far worse in Syria -one of the world’s most complex conflict zones. After nearly a decade of war, Syria’s health care system is in a complete mess. With less supplies and trained personnel, medical providers have struggled to meet the needs of millions of displaced Syrians. To make things worse, and despite international condemnation, medical workers have not been spared from the violence.  health care facilities have been targeted by military strikes over 500 times since 2011.

As the United Nations arms embargo on Iran expired today pursuant to the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States will impose sanctions on “any individual or entity that materially contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer of conventional arms to or from Iran, as well as those who provide technical training, financial support and services, and other assistance related to these arms.”

Pompeo and the State Department continue to insist that “virtually all previously terminated UN sanctions” re-entered effect on September 20th after triggering the snapback provision of the JCPOA. The rest of the world disagrees. Our European allies argue that since the US is not a participant, it has no right or authority to impose snapback sanctions on an agreement it is no longer a party to. It is unclear how the United States will unilaterally enforce multilateral sanctions the rest of the world is determined to ignore, but Pompeo has stated he expects all UN member states to comply with the sanctions.

Though Pompeo’s official statement declares the embargo is still in effect, he lacks the power to turn his wishes into reality. The embargo has expired and Iran is free to purchase conventional weapons. It will be interesting to see who dares to risk Pompeo’s wrath and US sanctions. A possible outcome of this decree would be Iran moving closer to Russia and China as Western companies may not want to risk doing business with Iran and losing business with the United States. The US Presidential election is less than three weeks away, however, and in the short term, it is more likely that potential suppliers will wait to see the outcome before making a decision. Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, told Al Jazeera he expects China to wait and see: “Beijing would want to reboot the US-China relationship with a new US administration.”

Russia also has reason to wait and see. Putin called Friday for a one-year extension of START, which is set to expire in February. The Trump administration immediately rejected Putin’s proposal. A long-term extension or new agreement would certainly be negotiated differently in a Biden administration, as Biden was one of the original negotiators.

Though the embargo has been lifted, continuing uncertainty and potential changes in US leadership are unlikely to create a rush to sell to Iran. Most nations are hesitant to upset the balance of power in the region and want to reserve the option to reset relationships under a future Biden administration.

 

In his article “Hard Truths in Syria: America Can’t Do More with Less and It Shouldn’t Try”, Brett McGurk, who served as the Special Presidential Envoy to the Coalition to Defeat Isis laments the decision of the Trump administration to wind down the presence of US servicemen in Syria. McGurk also describes the decisions that he believes the United States should take in order to prevent further damaging American interests in the region and to make sure that the main goals of the Coalition remain achieved which McGurk states are to “prevent Isis from coming back” and “from stopping Iran from establishing a fortified military presence that might threaten Israel.”

When discussing the potential steps that he would recommend the United States take in regards to the region, he does establishing some deal with the Assad regime in Damascus as a way of ensuring that the interests of the United States in the region are protected. I would imagine that this is because the Assad regime is responsible for plunging Syria in the country in the first place with their brutal repression of protests and their previous use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians. The ideal solution (in my opinion) would be the removal of the Assad regime and the establishment of a secular liberal democracy in Syria that is allied with the United States and maintains good relations with Israel. However, this is not possible without committing to a long-term occupation and more likely than not a possible conflict with Russia considering that they are the ones who are protecting Assad in the first place. While an ideal and perfect solution is now out of reach of American policymakers and diplomats, we could still achieve a settlement that is good enough and in my opinion, the best way of doing this would be to strike a deal with Damascus.

A potential deal with Damascus could entail partial repeal of the sanctions being placed on the regime in return for certain concessions. As McGurk explains in his article, as a result of the civil war, Syria has faced a total economic collapse that has not been seen since the Second World War. I believe that the possibility of repealing certain sanctions on the Damascus regime would incentivize them to move away from Iran and to try and reach a settlement with the western powers in terms of deescalating the situation with Israel and giving certain protections to members of the SDF.

Since 2014 when Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, won elections in Egypt, human rights have been undermined beneath his government, Egypt has fallen into the most oppressive Sisi’ regime yet, who has tossed journalists into the jail, has executed civilians through military courts. Moreover, in economic issues Sisi has increased prices of the food and gas to insane and unsustainable rates, therefore Egypt’s’ people has fall into severe poverty. Several protests came about the country that Sisi’ government has curbed with violence against the protesters shooting rubber bullets and tear gas in an attempt to quell the protesters, even arresting bunch of them including children. Furthermore, Government officials went into protesters’ private information such as phones and social media searching for anything it could use as evidence against them, rights groups have disowned Government’s behavior called these actions as unconstitutional.

Egypt current relationship with the United States is based first at all  in economic interest; Egypt’s geographical positioning gives a unique influence in the region, inviting more than $40 billion in military and $30 billion in economic assistance from the US since 1980, Egypt’s transportation routes are beneficial for the US, with two-way trade between the two countries totaling $7.5 billion in 2018. On the other hand, these countries have common interests in limiting Iran’s influence in the Middle East as well as curtailing the spread of radical movements in volatile states like Iraq and Syria. Besides, in the same way The U.S. support to Egypt is addressing to foreign policy objectives of counteracting terrorism.

Relationship between The U.S. and Egypt has been bringing huge benefits for both countries, the Egyptian military is heavily dependent on weapons and contractors from the United States. Washington could use this to leverage pressure against Cairo on its human rights record. “If the US continues to permit a cruel dictator to tyrannize his citizens under an oppressive regime, it is sending a strong message to other nations both in the region and the world that attempts to undermine and subvert democratic principles may be ignored for economic and political control.” Definitively Sisi’s dictator ship is not a good example to leading any country and The U.S. shouldn’t support this kind of governments based in economic and political affairs.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/hannah-zhou-us-egypt-relations-human-rights-abdel-fattah-el-sisi-donald-trump-news. By Hannah Zhou • Oct 07, 2020

I found this article quite appealing because under normal circumstances, one will expect a different outcome. But the reality is that, these two countries are prone to be at logger head than any other neighboring countries. The article pointed out that the Trump administration has been pressuring Saudi Arabia to normalize its relations with Israel. But the recent statements of the Saudi king are reminiscent of the status quo.

It is said that normalizing relations between these two countries will help them achieve a number of strategic and military goals. However, the outcomes may not work in their favor and here is why: first of all, normalization will not promote peace and stability in the middle Ea’st because protests against oppressive and corrupt governance have led to violence and civil wars and sometimes foreign interventions. And given the long-standing inequities that drive these protests have never been addressed, even normalization will not help either.

Second, normalization would not always advance US interests in the middle East, neither would it boost moderation or liberalization within Saudi Arabia. It came out that even if the monarchy wanted a peace treaty, its citizens would be against such a policy. So, decisions against popular demand will inevitably lead to a chaos. Therefore, peace will not be warm, not to even mention that Washington already got much trouble dealing with Saudi Arabia.

So,basically, the author tried to demonstrate that, a US-led diplomatic relations between Saudis and Israelis may not be effective, and that “the three countries’ current policies risk depriving Saudi Arabia of the exceptional leverage over the Islamic world that comes with such status.” Bottom line, relations with Israel will always be hostile, and so peace would not be envisaged.

 

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/15/what-would-happen-if-israel-and-saudi-arabia-established-official-relations-pub-82964

As the Syrian Civil War is still ongoing as much as its not in today’s headlines these days as recurring as they were at the beginning and climax of the conflict, it is still definitely worth noting and perhaps never forgetting about the stories of the atrocities and spilled blood on innocents on Syrian soil by the hands of the Assad Regime. It seems now that the horrors of the war crimes of Assad’s Regime are coming to light finally, as we see that a trial in Koblenz, Germany that is on day 3o of the trial, exposes the war crimes and the atrocities against two Assad regime officials, Anwar Raslan and Eyad al-Gharib. As witnesses began telling stories about how these killings have become essentially a day in the life of living in a war torn Syria under a bloodthirsty regime, that accounts get really intriguing and interesting as some unique witnesses testify.

One witness was in fact a Syrian undertaker, who is identified as Witness Z, testifies how corpses were brought from all over the place, including  multiple departments in Syrian intelligence services, military included, between 2011 and 2017 alone. Witness Z recalls how the there was “rivers of blood and maggots” as well as how the corpses have not only were unidentifiable but the stench of the corpses was really disturbing to the point it was in his nose while he took showers. Witness Z also recalled how he would drive these trucks that had refrigerated bodies of about 200 to 700 bodies to the cemeteries, citing how these cemeteries’ looked like military camps, and the bodies were dumped in 6ft deep and 16o to 330 ft long trenches in perhaps the most carless way ever seen. One may as why Witness Z was doing this despite knowing what he was seeing was wrong, simply put, he had no other choice but to do what he has been instructed to do.

The testimony of Witness Z a clear and present indication that there is not evidence of these mass atrocities coming to a halt. In addition, this is in no way any random acts of murder too as we clearly know this time around. For the Syrian refugees in Germany and Europe, this case proves why returning the refugees back to Syria may be a bit premature, despite calls for it. However the main issue and problem I see in this, is it is clearly evident that the Assad Regime has blood all over their hands and he has yet to be brought to justice, given the fact that China and Russia both back the regime, which makes it difficult for Rebel Forces and forces backing the Syrian Rebels to construct a plan to overthrow Assad and bring him to justice. As long as Assad has Russia and China backing him, it may be a while until we see him brought to justice, who knows when that will be. Only time will tell.

I’ve always thought “maximum pressure” was inappropriate branding for a foreign policy campaign that isolates the United States from its allies. Wouldn’t maximum pressure look like the international community firmly united in its approach to preventing a nuclear Iran?  Maximum pressure, so-called, has rendered very little in the way of meaningful results. Economic sanctions have been devastating to the average Iranian but haven’t changed the behavior of the regime. Iran has continued to stockpile enriched uranium and repress its citizens while the U.S. has been left isolated at the UN and other international fora.

This WaPo article is an interesting look at U.S. sanctions toward Iran through a historical lens. It cites numerous examples of the United States imposing economic sanctions in the Middle East to limited effect. It recalls economic sanctions on Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gaddafi that succeeded in constraining their nuclear ambitions but failed to result in regime change or a loosening of their grip on power. Similarly, sanctions imposed on Syria in 2011 have devastated the local economy but have not resulted in the ouster of dictator Bashar al Assad. In each of these cases, authoritarian rulers have been unwilling to give up power in exchange for economic relief for their people – the central logic underlying the imposition of economic sanctions. In a similar vein, the article describes the January 2020 attack on Qassim Soleimani as an impressive show of muscle, but an action that has done nothing to change the behavior of the Iranian regime and has only made U.S. troops in the Middle East more unsafe and vulnerable to attack.

Having lived in southern Iraq in 2015-16 on the heels on the signing of the JCPOA, I can attest that an opening of dialogue between the United States and Iran did result in a more permissive security environment for U.S. personnel living, working, and interacting with Iraqis in the country’s Shia heartland (basically in Iran’s backyard). By contrast, the U.S consulate in southern Iraq was recently closed in 2018  – due in part to a deteriorating security environment and threats emanating from Iranian-backed Shia militias. I wonder what might have been if the U.S. had remained in the JCPOA. The U.S. might still be flying a flag in Basra today.  In its absence, others will surely fill the gap.