The Middle East War

[JasonJ]

US abstains from UN resolution that says that Israeli settlements illegal even though many in the US including Trump wanted the US to veto the resolution.

 

 

 

The US abstained from a contentious UN Security Council resolution calling for an end to settlement construction while simultaneously declaring them illegal.

The resolution was put forth by Venezuela, New Zealand, Malaysia and Senegal a day after Egypt withdrew under heavy pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.

Israeli reactions
Earlier, an Israeli official on Friday accused President Barack Obama of colluding with the Palestinians in a "shameful move against Israel at the UN" after learning the White House did not intend to veto a Security Council resolution condemning settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem the day before.

"President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the UN," the official said. "The US administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti-Israeli resolution behind Israel's back which would be a tail wind for terror and boycotts and effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory," he said calling it "an abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN."

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon criticized the decision, saying, "Neither the Security Council nor UNESCO will rewrite history and to sever the link between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Efforts to attack Israel through the United Nations will not help and will not further a solution. Palestinians will not achieve anything if they do not stop the incitement and terrorism and return to direct negotiations with Israel. "

Danon addressed the American move saying, "Israel would expect her biggest friend to act in accordance with long-standing policy and veto the unilateral decision." Furthermore, Danon added that, "No doubt the change of US administration will bring a new era."

Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Friday the United States had abandoned Israel by abstaining from the vote.

"This is not a resolution against settlements, it is an anti-Israel resolution, against the Jewish people and the state of the Jews. The United States tonight has simply abandoned its only friend in the Middle East," said Steinitz, who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Voices of opposition in the US
US officials from across the board reacted to the decision, with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan calling the abstention "absolutely shameful" and a "blow to peace." Similarly, Republican Senator John McCain said the abstention makes the US "complicit in this outrageous attack" against Israel.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who oversees the Senate subcommittee that controls United States' UN funding, threatened on Friday to pull financial support for the international body if it moves forward with a vote on a resolution over Israeli settlements, and for any nation that backs the measure.

"If the United Nations moves forward with this ill-conceived resolution, I will work to form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations," said Graham. Furthermore, Graham said on Friday that US foreign policy under President Barack Obama "has gone from naive and foolish to flat-out reckless."

The senior Republican senator, in a note on Twitter after the vote, said: "With friends like these, #Israel doesn't need any enemies."

"Regardless of the terrorist attacks they suffer or the number of rockets fired their way, in the United Nations Israel is always the bad guy."

President-elect Trump responded to the vote saying, "Things will be different after Jan. 20th."

Palestinian reactions
"This is a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilized language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in Israel," Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters. "The international community has told the people of Israel that the way to security and peace is not going to be done through occupation ... but rather through peace, ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line," Erekat said.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the resolution "a slap in the face to Israeli policy" and an "absolute international condemnation to settlements and unanimous support for a two-state solution."

The internationally-recognized Palestinian terrorist group Hamas responded positively to the resolution, saying, "Hamas welcomes the UN Security Council regarding the settlements. This decision confirms the world's resistance to the Israeli occupation policy."

Last minute drama
Prior to the vote on the adoption of the UN resolution, Egypt called off a planned vote in the Security Council hours before it was to take place. In the diplomatic activity ahead of the postponement, both Netanyahu and Trump issued nearly identical statements urging the US to veto the measure.

Palestinian FM Riyad Al-Malki called the Egyptian move "suicidal" and noted that, "Palestine still hopes that there will be a reexamination of the issue because we believe that this draft resolution reflects a great victory not only for Palestinians, but also for the Arab world," said Al-Maliki.

According to a senior Israeli official, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned to President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team to help head off a critical UN resolution after learning that the White House did not intend to veto the measure.

The Egyptian-sponsored resolution had demanded that Israel halt settlement activities in occupied territories claimed by the Palestinians and declared that existing settlements "have no legal validity."

"After becoming aware that the administration would not veto the anti-Israel resolution, Israeli officials reached out to Trump's transition team to ask for the president-elect's help to avert the resolution," the Israeli official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity.

Additionally, the official added that Israel sees the Obama administration's intent to avoid vetoing the resolution as a violation of "core commitment" of US security and a final attempt to tie the hands of the incoming administration.

On Friday, Egypt said its president had received a call from Trump in which they both agreed to give the incoming US administration a chance to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The call came hours after Egypt indefinitely postponed the UN vote.

Egyptian presidential spokesman Alaa Yousef said, "During the conversation, they discussed regional issues and developments in the Middle East. The Presidents agreed on the importance of providing adequate opportunity to the new US administration to deal with every aspect of the Palestinian issue, in order to achieve a full and final settlement".

The proposed resolution is more symbolic than practical. While it did not call for imposing sanctions on Israel, its language can hinder Israel's negotiating position in future peace talks.

Given the widespread international opposition to the settlements, it would have been nearly impossible for the Trump administration to reverse it.

In a Christmas greeting on Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said: "Despite the Israeli occupation, our presence in our homeland and the preservation of our cultural and national heritage are the most important form of resistance in the face of the darkness of a foreign colonialist occupying power."

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4897550,00.html

[RETAC21]

This is the biggest non-event of the year, the "anti-Israeli" Obama first approved the largest ever arms package for Israel, and the hysterics on this is just pandering to local audiences.

[JasonJ]

This is the biggest non-event of the year, the "anti-Israeli" Obama first approved the largest ever arms package for Israel, and the hysterics on this is just pandering to local audiences.

 

Perhaps, but maybe after factoring the Iran deal, the 38 billion over 10 year deal may not produce an overall net benefit to Israel. Of course Obama is on his way out so yeah pandering before taking his leave.

[RETAC21]

The Iran deal is also overblown, it's just a convenient cover for the fact that the Iranians don't need the bomb anymore, as they already have all they want and Team Sunni is reeling after their failed attempt at redrawing the ME.

[JasonJ]

The Iran deal is also overblown, it's just a convenient cover for the fact that the Iranians don't need the bomb anymore, as they already have all they want and Team Sunni is reeling after their failed attempt at redrawing the ME.

 

Iran doesn't want the bomb anymore?

[RETAC21]

They would like to have the bomb, but it still requires investment and they don't need it anymore, with the US having pulled out of the neighbourhood.

[JasonJ]

They would like to have the bomb, but it still requires investment and they don't need it anymore, with the US having pulled out of the neighbourhood.

 

I don't know what the current leaders are thinking in Iran, and I recall that someone said to be more mid-way president was elected recently, although he of course shares powers with others in Iran. However they are still conducting proxy operations in Syria and Yemen so I'm not so sure Iranian main strategy has changed. Regarding nuclear development, Iran did go through US-led international sanctions in response to nuclear weapon development. Since Iran put up with the sanctions, it shows their willingness to go through tough financial situation to proceed with development. And the sanctions ended up losing effectiveness after the first year or so partly because international cooperation of sanctions weakened. Countries like China and India continued to buy Iranian oil. So with the failure of the sanctions, the Obama administration took the negotiation path in order to stop Iran developing the nuclear bomb. Because of the Iran deal, it could be said that they no longer need the bomb because in exchange for letting up on the bomb, they got other things.But will Iran really honor the deal and not covertly continue development? Many seem skeptical on that. Also the US still is in the scene, rather American presence has ticked up a bit in Iraq. But heavy American presence (assuming there's always a US boat or aircraft lurking near them) didn't really seem to provoke the start of the nuclear program as it seems to have started in 2000, a few years before the US invaded Iraq

[RETAC21]

Makes sense when you look at it from the Persian perspective, Iraq is an obvious area of influence, being Shia in the South, but Syria and Yemen offer nice counterweights to Suni Arab power, Syria being ruled by the minority Alawites and the Houthis being Shia too.

 

Iranian bomb development can be traced back to the 1st Persian Gulf War, but the Iranian bomb main motivation was having a deterrent vs the US (and what they perceive as its lackeys, namely Israel) when the US took out the gloves and actually invaded Iraq with the stated objective of making it another lackey (in their eyes), which is what I meant when I wrote "neighbour". This was successfully countered by US/Israeli countermeasures sabotaging their program enough to delay it without having to actually bomb the place.

 

What the iranian regime surely didn't expect was that the US would hand them Iraq on a silver plate, which took the reason behind the urgent, covert bomb development. At this stage, they probably have the know how and may even have been partners in NK's experiments, but the cost/benefit is against a continuing development that gives them nothing when negotiating away the hardware has given them access to the World's markets again. Current US presence is propping up a pro-Iranian regime, so they are having their cake and eating it too.

[JasonJ]

Makes sense when you look at it from the Persian perspective, Iraq is an obvious area of influence, being Shia in the South, but Syria and Yemen offer nice counterweights to Suni Arab power, Syria being ruled by the minority Alawites and the Houthis being Shia too.

 

Iranian bomb development can be traced back to the 1st Persian Gulf War, but the Iranian bomb main motivation was having a deterrent vs the US (and what they perceive as its lackeys, namely Israel) when the US took out the gloves and actually invaded Iraq with the stated objective of making it another lackey (in their eyes), which is what I meant when I wrote "neighbour". This was successfully countered by US/Israeli countermeasures sabotaging their program enough to delay it without having to actually bomb the place.

 

What the iranian regime surely didn't expect was that the US would hand them Iraq on a silver plate, which took the reason behind the urgent, covert bomb development. At this stage, they probably have the know how and may even have been partners in NK's experiments, but the cost/benefit is against a continuing development that gives them nothing when negotiating away the hardware has given them access to the World's markets again. Current US presence is propping up a pro-Iranian regime, so they are having their cake and eating it too.

 

That's an interesting point in separating the purpose of the nuke program as a means to deter the US and the Syria and Yemen operations for making counterweights to Sunni. Although I might have phrased it the Syria and Yemen part of it as more than counterweights but as part of eventually seeking domination over all the ME as I wouldn't expect advances in Yemn and Syria to stop there but to continue expanding the Shia sphere. I always figured the nuke would also be part of seeking domination over all of the ME, because out of the many assets that make a country a power, nukes are one of them. But a more specific agenda to deter the US makes sense.

 

But I still have to raise a point which is that even though the US pulled out of Iraq, and Iran gained greater influence in Iraq because of it, it doesn't necessarily mean such gains will be maintained. I would thing that the Iranians would have to also sense the large amount of fluctuations and rapid changes that have occurred in the ME.. the raise of IS, the near collapse of Syria, the involvement of Russia and its Air Force, US protecting Iraqi Kurdistan from IS, Turkey getting involved an now have sent tanks in Syria.. there is a lot of things in play and predictability must be low. And now Trump won the election and people like Flynn and Mattis (albiet Mattis still needs official approval), surely the Iranians can't feel for sure that their gains will be maintained in the long run with all these things happening.

 

Maybe Iran will truly not pursue the nuclear weapons program so as to not provoke the new coming administration but surely the US will remain in the ME and very likely will carry out proxy battles with Iran in other theaters. What's interesting is that in Iraq, despite Iran's so-called greater influence in the region, the US is backing the Iraqi's in their campaign against IS. Maybe the Iraqi's are pushing half-heatedly so as to not to so in the interest of the US, or maybe there is division in Iraq and the US is backing elements that are against the Iranian backed Iraqis. But in either of those cases, IS actually seems to be mauling those Iraqis in Mosul. Iran may find itself needing to develop nukes again in accordance to their interest as the US may still going to want Iran to stop Yemen and Syria-like business. So does Iran just stop those operations or do they risk greater confrontation with the US again?

[RETAC21]

Who knows what the future may bring? but Persian influence needs not cover the whole ME as we understand it now, just parts that were part of the Seleucid empire, see this map:

 

 

Does it sound familiar? Note also the articles and their number here: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/history_periods.php

 

5 cover the period 1925-today, 37 the pre-islamic empires.

 

Long term, a US ground presence in the ME is not sustainable, it wasn't in Saudi Arabia and it isn't in Iraq because no overriding US interest is present there. The Gulf monarchies see it as paid protection against the Persians, the Russian are in only for the prestige (and are on the same side as the Iranians), the Turks are getting their hair singed, so they won't be back for some time either. Iran has become the biggest boy in the block by default.

[JasonJ]

Who knows what the future may bring? but Persian influence needs not cover the whole ME as we understand it now, just parts that were part of the Seleucid empire, see this map:

 

[picture]

 

Does it sound familiar? Note also the articles and their number here: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/history_periods.php

 

5 cover the period 1925-today, 37 the pre-islamic empires.

 

Long term, a US ground presence in the ME is not sustainable, it wasn't in Saudi Arabia and it isn't in Iraq because no overriding US interest is present there. The Gulf monarchies see it as paid protection against the Persians, the Russian are in only for the prestige (and are on the same side as the Iranians), the Turks are getting their hair singed, so they won't be back for some time either. Iran has become the biggest boy in the block by default.

 

The Seleucid Empire sounds familiar as I've seen the name but I cannot claim to know much about it. Maybe the Sunni states and Israel can settled with Iran influence approximating the level of that empire if assurance that Iran wouldn't seek more is there. There are examples of empires/countries of expanding further than what has been precedent in their time, and then after more years, shrinking a bit, then the more recent acquired lost territories become the new goal. Historical territory can form part of justification for expanding territory/influence, but every period of time has its own circumstance such as relativity of power among all players in a giving theater and capability and opportunity. So what you say makes sense, and may be the actual thinking of some, but historical sentiment isn't the only factor that has a hand in things. But even with that said, it is an interesting perspective.

[RETAC21]

Well, of course, history can't be replayed, but once you map the different powers, Iranian power limits are Pakistan (a mess), Turkey (toopowerful), the Med (read,Libyal/Egypt, too far), leaving the Arab peninsula and the hinterland in between. Israel has historically been used to win cookie points with the Arab street, until the Arab spring, but the Arabs are probably too many to bite and hold.

[Simon Tan]

The Islamic Revolution is Shia based.

[rohala]

Who knows what the future may bring? but Persian influence needs not cover the whole ME as we understand it now, just parts that were part of the Seleucid empire,

The Seleucid empire was a Greek kingdom. There were other purely Persian empires before and after it. What is so special about the Seleucid empire that you picked it?

[RETAC21]

Afterwards Rome, before, disorganised resistance. It's a good ilustration of the limits given existing powers nowadays.

[RETAC21]

The Islamic Revolution is Shia based.

 

But not Shia driven, it's essentially Iranian, otherwise Saddam would have met the rope in the 80s

[mnm]

Alexander the Great carved a great empire from Egypt to India, made up mainly of provinces of the previous owner, the Persian Achaemenid Empire. After Alexander died his empire was broken up between his top commanders, Seleukos taking the Eastern portions and making up a large if unstable empire named - you guessed it - the Seleucid Empire. One of the consequences of this instability was that after a time a Persian branch started rising and formed the Arsdacid kingdom which wasn't so firm on its legs as well. After yet another bit of time yet another dynasty took over, the Sassanid Persians who were fanatically Zoroastrian, and declared that the Greeks were heathens and the Arsacids were rather Greekish too, so they were simply wiped off the record and descent was claimed straight from the Achaemenids who had been gone for hundreds of years already. Then the Muslims came...

 

Considering all this there is no real reason for anyone to claim descent from a Greek dynasty, unless they are fans of one Mr. Tsipras.

[Simon Tan]

The Saudis and their GCC clients have driven the Shia into the arms of Tehran.

[JasonJ]

[Dark_Falcon]

 

Pigeon 'caught with backpack of drugs'

 

 

 

Customs officials in Kuwait have apprehended a pigeon carrying drugs in a miniature backpack, Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai reports.

A total of 178 pills were found in the fabric pocket attached to its back, the newspaper says.

 

The bird was caught near the customs building in Abdali, close to the border with Iraq.

 

An al-Rai journalist said the drugs were a form of ketamine, an anaesthetic also used as an illegal party drug.

 

Abdullah Fahmi told the BBC that customs officials already knew pigeons were being used to smuggle drugs, but this was the first time they had caught a bird in the act.

 

 

As drug smuggling ideas go, this one is decidedly Coo-coo.

[glenn239]

He's obviously a stool pigeon.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Are they forcing him to sign a confession before they behead him?

 

The Kuwaiti airforces new commander....

[Roman Alymov]

Are they forcing him to sign a confession before they behead him?

 

I think they will replace load with GPS bacon, trace it and behead owner...

[Dark_Falcon]

Are they forcing him to sign a confession before they behead him?

 

The Kuwaiti airforces new commander....

 

No, because the pigeon was only found with sedatives. It's not like it was found with an Israeli-made bird-tracker or something really 'evil' like that.

 

/Sorta kidding

[Panzermann]

World News | Mon Jun 5, 2017 | 7:20am EDT

Saudi, Egypt lead Arab states cutting Qatar ties, Iran blames Trump

By Noah Browning | DUBAI

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain severed their ties with Qatar on Monday, accusing it of supporting terrorism and opening up the worst rift in years among some of the most powerful states in the Arab world.

Iran -- long at odds with Saudi Arabia and a behind-the-scenes target of the move -- immediately blamed U.S. President Donald Trump for setting the stage during his recent trip to Riyadh.

Gulf Arab states and Egypt have already long resented Qatar's support for Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood which they regard as a dangerous political enemy.

The coordinated move, with Yemen and Libya's eastern-based government joining in later, created a dramatic rift among the Arab nations, many of which are in OPEC.

Announcing the closure of transport ties with Qatar, the three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave. Qatar was also expelled from the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.

Oil giant Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of backing militant groups -- some backed by regional arch-rival Iran -- and broadcasting their ideology, an apparent reference to Qatar's influential state-owned satellite channel al Jazeera.

 

"(Qatar) embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly," Saudi state news agency SPA said.

 

It accused Qatar of supporting what it described as Iranian-backed militants in its restive and largely Shi'ite Muslim-populated Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain.

Qatar said it was facing a campaign aimed at weakening it, denying it was interfering in the affairs of other countries.

"The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications," the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement.

Iran saw America pulling the strings.

"What is happening is the preliminary result of the sword dance," Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted in a reference to Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

Trump and other U.S. officials participated in a traditional sword dance during the trip in which he called on Muslim countries to stand united against Islamist extremists and singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters in Sydney on Monday that the spat would not effect the fight against Islamist militants and that Washington has encouraged its Gulf allies to resolve their differences.

A split between Doha and its closest allies can have repercussions around the Middle East, where Gulf states have used their financial and political power to influence events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

(For a graphic on trade balance between Qatar and its diplomatic critics, click reut.rs/2rsbaTi)

 

FALLOUT

The economic fallout loomed immediately, as Abu Dhabi's state-owned Ethihad Airways, Dubai's Emirates Airline and budget carrier Flydubai said they would suspend all flights to and from Doha from Tuesday morning until further notice.

Qatar Airways said on its official website it had suspended all flights to Saudi Arabia.

Qatar's stock market index sank 7.5 percent with some of the market's top blue chips hardest hit.

The measures are more severe than during a previous eight-month rift in 2014, when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Doha, again alleging Qatari support for militant groups. At that time, travel links were maintained and Qataris were not expelled.

The diplomatic broadside threatens the international prestige of Qatar, which hosts a large U.S. military base and is set to host the 2022 World Cup. It has for years presented itself as a mediator and power broker for the region's many disputes.

Kristian Ulrichsen, a Gulf expert at the U.S-based Baker Institute, said if Qatar's land borders and air space were closed for any length of time "it would wreak havoc on the timeline and delivery" of the World Cup.

"It seems that the Saudis and Emiratis feel emboldened by the alignment of their regional interests - toward Iran and Islamism - with the Trump administration," Ulrichsen said. "(They) have decided to deal with Qatar's alternative approach on the assumption that they will have the (Trump) administration's backing."

Qatar used its media and political clout to support long-repressed Islamists during the 2011 pro-democracy "Arab Spring" uprisings in several Arab countries.

Muslim Brotherhood groups allied to Doha are now mostly on the backfoot in the region, especially after a 2013 military takeover in Egypt ousted the elected Islamist president.

The former army chief and now president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with the new government's allies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, blacklist the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, said on its state news agency that Qatar's policy "threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation."

Oil prices rose after the moves against Qatar, which is the biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and a major seller of condensate - a low-density liquid fuel and refining product derived from natural gas.

(Additional reporting by William Maclean, Mohammed el-Sherif, Sylvia Westall, Tom Finn and Amina Ismail; Editing by Jeremy Gaunt)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN18W0DQ

 

 

 

 

Qatar is now the bad guy at the persian gulf?