Turkey’s Erdogan and Russia’s Putin Ignore Obama’s Requests

The initial repercussions to President Obama dithering and retreating from enforcing his Syrian chemical weapons use “red line” have begun and the ramifications are far more damaging to world peace and security than anything that Syria’s Civil War could ever produce. The initial shot across the bow came from Turkey where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated, “According to my plan, most probably I would be visiting Gaza in June.” Erdogan added referring to his intents to visit both Hamas leadership in Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, “I place a lot of significance on this visit in terms of peace in the Middle East. I’m hoping that that visit will contribute to unity in Palestine.”

 

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to the news declaring that, “As we’ve said consistently, we oppose engagement with Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization which remains a destabilizing force in Gaza and the region. We urge all parties who share our interest in the creation of a Palestinian state to take steps that promote the resumption of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.” Additionally, Secretary of State John Kerry commented during his visit to Turkey that Prime Minister Erdogan’s trip to Gaza would be “better delayed” waiting until the time when the “right circumstances” existed. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan struck back indignantly stating in response to Secretary Kerry’s impositions that “we wish he had not said that.”

 

Now the United States and the Obama Administration are facing a situation of explaining to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu exactly what he gained and where were the promised reconciliations with Turkey that President Obama had implied as a promise should Israel apologize. The Israeli-Turkish relations remain in a deep freeze with the charges and other legal actions by Turkish citizens and government agencies proceeding apace despite the humbling position Netanyahu was forced into taking at the close of President Obama’s visit, the visit where the President had promised there would be no surprises. The result is a slightly weakened Israel who now has been forced into a submissive position with Turkey and appearing weaker to the entire run of nations in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim World. The full ramifications of President Obama’s miscalculations and consistent demands on Israel along with his weakness showed Syria and his apparent subservience to the Muslim Brotherhood as he supports their rise to power resultant from the Arab Winter, Obama’s Arab Spring.

 

On another front which also has ramifications in Syria and throughout the Middle East comes from Russia. Despite the ramifications presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on a recent visit in Moscow which advised that the selling of the anti-aircraft S-300 advanced missile systems to Syria thus changing dramatically the balance of power in the Middle East, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated in an interview with Lebanese-based Al-Mayadeen television, the Russian government “committed to the agreements” signed with Syria regarding the advanced missiles and will “fully carry them out.” Lavrov further explained, “We have no intention of breaking international law. However, we do not want our reputation as reliable suppliers of weapons to be affected.” These statements came two days after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit leaving no doubt whether the ramifications and effects on Israel were known and able to be part of the equation.

 

Further comments on what other driving influences were behind the Russian’s decision were recently provided by Russian parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee Alexei Pushkov. His supplementary information paints a troubling picture of the credibility possessed by President Obama and on his ability to influence anything concerning world affairs. Alexei Pushkov was quoted to say, “We’re opposed to no-fly zones, because they are the first step toward aerial attack. Syria asked Russia to help it defend itself from aerial assault.” He also went further in explaining that Russia’s decision to send S-300 missile systems to Syria is, in part, a message to the United States. A more forceful message was also made with the deployment of at least twelve warships to patrol near a Russian Navy base in Syria. This was likely to be a message to all parties including NATO members and Israel not to interfere in Syria as Russia will act to defend their interests.

 

Both of these situations cast strong aspersions on the ability of President Obama to apply pressure or power in any situation anywhere in the world. This is an obvious reaction to President Obama’s timidity concerning the reported use by Syrian troops’ use of chemical weapons. The rules of unintended consequences applies to these actions which were primarily resultant of President Obama’s inept mishandling over the Syrian red line threat yet Israel will also pay a hard price as well. Reinforcing these feelings were also the well documented examples of his slow and tepid response to any military situation. These include but are not limited to President Obama taking months to approve the mission against Osama bin Laden after he was advised that all was prepared and certainty of success was extremely high, his complete lack of concern in addressing the situation in Benghazi where the American Ambassador to Libya Stevens and three others were murdered when had immediate actions been taken or even proper security increased in a timely manner after receiving requests for more readiness, and the President dithering and almost losing the opportunity to interdict Somali pirates holding American hostages. One more item which has the potential to have devastating consequences is the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons. How is it possible for any world leader concerned over the Iranian nuclear program take seriously President Obama’s promise that he will act if such becomes necessary. He did not act in Benghazi, nor did he act after the Syrian use of chemical weapons, he took close to six months to pull the trigger on the Osama bin Laden raid, so how could anyone expect a timely response to prevent the Iranians from attaining not just one nuclear device but tens or even hundreds of such devices before President Obama even begins to consider acting. This threat does not only pose a large problem for Israel as it also has serious ramifications for Saudi Arabia and the other members of the GCC as well as Europe, though the Europeans have blinders on and refuse to even notice any threat. The world is facing the same type of threats that were evident towards the end of President Carter’s term in office with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, a Middle East on fire, and a Soviet threat spreading throughout much of the planet. The main difference is we will have four full years of these ramifications and not just ten to fifteen months as was the case with Jimmy Carter. President Obama will very likely fulfill the prediction some who were at the time dismissed as alarmist pessimists when claiming that he would be another President Carter except on steroids. If even the slightest possibility exists that such may prove true, that should scare the life out of anybody, it sure does many of us here at BTC.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Will Iraq be the Next Syria?

The news coverage given by the mainstream media about the growing violence between the different factions in Iraq has been very slanted in order to shield the Shiite Muslims from responsibility for mass violence while heaping all of the blame upon the Sunni Muslims and especially al-Qaeda terrorists. The only groups being covered fairly are the Kurds who are, as much as they are able, living their lives independent from any governance from Baghdad while exercising as much autonomy as they possibly are able. During the past week there was reported in some of the international media of the Shiite commanders in the military ordering their troops to disperse unarmed groups of Sunni protesters using live fire from the main machinegun of Abrams M1A1 heavy battle tanks. Also not given much coverage at the time was after United States President Obama allowed the Shiite leadership of the Iraqi government to order the segregation of the United States military forces to an isolated base out in the middle of the dessert and restrict any United States military movements or maneuvers under restrictions allowing only those actions approved by the Iraqi Shiite dominated government that charges were drawn up for treason against the Sunni Vice-President of Iraq. Following soon behind this was the purge of most of the Sunni and Kurdish representatives within the government, especially any who held positions of consequence. The United States backed candidate to lead Iraq, President Nuri al-Maliki, has taken complete and unchallengeable control over the reins of power and now rules as the Shiite version of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

The most evident difference between al-Maliki and Iraq under Saddam Hussein is that under Saddam the Christians were among those who were protected along with the favored Muslims who were the Sunnis while they are the Shiites under al-Maliki. Surprisingly, in many ways al-Maliki is just as vicious and strident in his hatreds as Saddam ever was. The main consequence of this along with numerous other positions supported by President Obama is that the Sunni Muslims, who are over seventy percent of all followers of Islam, will never again trust the United States to stand behind their promises and protect those whom they promised security when their assistance was necessitated by the tactical situation. The Sunni were the Iraqis who assisted the surge troops brought into the Sunni Triangle in order to take on al-Qaeda in Iraq on their home ground and drove them from Iraq enabling the establishment of the Iraqi’s first honestly and freely elected government. This brought al-Maliki to power with the blessings of the United States under both President George W. Bush and then under President Barack Obama.

 

What was even more troubling was the fact that as time passed it became unavoidably evident that al-Maliki was really a puppet willing to do the bidding and give his loyalty to Iran. One might have expected his showing his allegiance to Iran would have made al-Maliki a nonstarter for any position supported by the United States considering the efforts by the United States and their allies to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from reaching its goals. Despite this, al-Maliki has consistently moved closer and closer to Iran to the point that he has blessed with protection the Iranian transfers of supplies across Iraq in order to bolster the dictator Bashir Assad in his fight against the rebel forces in Syria. This travesty and complete waste of all the efforts which were committed in the removal of Saddam Hussein simply to allow al-Maliki to make Iraq into a subsidiary nation under Iranian control is an insult to the brave Americans who fought and even died to free Iraq from one oppressor only to place them under a new and different oppressor. This also completed the Iranian dream of a Shiite crescent reaching from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea along the path starting in Iran and passing through Iraq and Syria and terminating in Lebanon which is controlled through Hezballah. The two weakest links in this chain are Syria and Iran as both have sizeable non-Shiite populations. What we have witnessed in Syria where Christians are being targeted by all sides while there is a fight between Bashir Assad as the pro-Iranian influence, against two rebel forces one of which is pure Sunni Islamists represented by the al-Nusra Front, and the Muslim Brotherhood represented by the Free Syrian Army. What is often left out is that even should Bashir Assad fall it would not automatically mean the end of the Iranian influence as Iran has also built a semi-rebel force consisting of Basenji Militia, IRGC and Hezballah who would continue to be content to control as much area as they were able with a concentration on connecting Damascus and its international airport with the coastal Alawite and Shiite areas of Syria.

 

Meanwhile, in Iraq the Sunni are likely to revolt and to form around al-Qaeda on one side and possibly with Saudi Arabia Wahhabi influence as another front similar to the Muslim Brotherhood rebel forces in Syria and the latter will attempt to forge an alliance with the Kurdish forces in the north of Iraq. The Kurds would be well served to stay out of such a revolt and instead declare themselves a state using the Palestinian Authority as their precedent for establishing Kurdistan in an area which minimally includes the northern forty percent of Iraq and pull as many of Kurdish ancestry from within eastern Turkey and northern Iran to solidify their new country in the north of a fractured Iraq. What is actually the most ironic, sarcastic and completely insane quality is what likely lies just over the horizon for Iraq, the distinct possibility that Iraq will end up splitting into three states, Shiite Iraq, Sunni Iraq (also could be called Southern Iraq and Northern Iraq), and Kurdistan, just as Joe Biden had suggested it should have been divided up to start with. Who knew that Biden was not just somewhat strange and spoke insanities from time to time, but could actually be prophetic. Wait a minute, let’s not get carried away just because old Joe finally got one right, after all, a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Which Faction in Syria Fielding Terrorist Soldiers?

We hear claims about the existence of terrorist fighters fighting alongside of others in the multiple-front battles going on in the Syrian civil war. Spokespeople for President Obama, the European Union and other Western sources of aid to the Syrian rebels are making statements that their aid is intended and funneled solely to the secular rebel forces and are not going to any terrorist interests. Then there is Syrian President Bashir al-Assad who has claimed from the outset that he is fighting against terrorists who are attempting to conquer Syria and impose Islamist governance. Before we can determine which sides might be fielding terrorist forces and which might be truly supporting what could be classified as free and democratic governance we must recognize all the disparate forces fighting to take control of Syria. There is the Syrian army which has remained largely loyal to President Bashir al-Assad who has some so-called volunteer forces also fighting alongside the regulars of the Syrian armed forces. These would be forces best described as loyal to the Syrian Ba’ath Party government and the Alawite tribal preeminence. Among the groups who are collectively described as the rebel forces there are the Syrian National Coalition; the groups allied with the Al-Nusra Front which include for argument’s sake the Ghuraba al-Sham and the Syrian Islamic Front; and the Kurdish Democratic Union Party. So, let’s take them one at a time and inspect who exactly make up these groups.

The Syrian Military which has remained loyal to President Bashir al-Assad is made up largely, especially the officers corps, of Alawite Tribal members and some Bedouin tribal members from within Syria. Fighting alongside the Syrian Military are Iranian Military units from the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) who are an arm of the Iranian government which are a secondary military force which is largely responsible for training terrorists forces and carrying out enforcement and other missions beyond the Iranian border. A number of countries have classified at least parts of the IRGC to be a terrorist group or tied to terror operations. Additionally fighting to keep President al-Assad in power are fighters from Lebanon who belong to Hezballah, an almost universally recognized terrorist entity. At best one would have to conclude that a goodly portion of the forces defending the al-Assad regime are composed of actual terrorists and some terror related groups such as the IRGC and likely the al-Quds forces which are an elite corps from within the IRGC assigned almost exclusively to carry out terror operations often in collaboration of Hezballah and similar terrorist groups.

The Al-Nusra Front is a declared al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group by their own admission and by declaration of al-Qaeda sources. They are allied with two other terrorist groups, Ghuraba al-Sham and the Syrian Islamic Front. These terrorist groups have imported Mujahedeen fighters and other related terrorist entities. There is no disagreement that this sector of the rebel forces are strongly terror related. They have also been the beneficiaries of arms shipments from fellow terrorist groups in Libya who have a large cache of arms consisting of those inherited from the overthrown Gadhafi dictatorship as well as arms provided the rebels by NATO in the Western support of their revolt. There have been reports of other Muslim countries providing these terror forces with arms as well with most of them flowing into Syria from Turkey.

The Syrian National Coalition is supported by the Western powers who claim thus far to only supplying non-arms related support including food, medical supplies and other such provisions. If one desires to simply take the government’s word at face value, then the Syrian National Coalition is a terrorist free organization. The troubling part in simply believing the government position is it is based on the definition of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the government admits is the organizing and financial force behind the Syrian National Coalition, as a purely secular organization which has eschewed violence and represents a democratic movement within the Muslim world. This definition does run into some troubling complications once one considers any of the groups which have been spawned from and supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. The likely most well-known of these groups would be Hamas which is a recognized terrorist entity which currently rules the Palestinians of Gaza and regularly has launched rockets and mortars into Israel aimed at civilian targets.

If you take a relatively uncomplicated and simple approach to the Syrian civil war one could easily claim that all the three factions mentioned above are all in some form or another terrorist groups or supported by terrorist groups. So, if you wish not to risk supporting any form of terror groups, who can one support. There is the Kurdish Democratic Union Party which for the most part is taking a purely defensive approach to the entire conflict and merely attempting to protect the Kurdish community within Syria or in the refugee camps where millions of Syrians have sought safety. There are similar groups doing much the same with the Christians who remain in Syria or have fled over the borders. Both of these groups, the Kurds and the Christians, realize that they are not going to be winners no matter which groups prevails in this three way civil war. For those who will claim the struggle in Syria is not a three way affair, all I ask is wait and should al-Assad be dethroned see if the war does not continue with the groups supporting the al-Nusra Front continue the fight against the Syrian National Coalition for control over Syria. Simply put, this conflict must have but one result, terrorists of some degree will control Syria and as is the way with terrorist groups, there can be only one reigning supreme in the end.

Beyond the Cusp