Beyond the Cusp

December 16, 2019

British Choose Conservative Party While People Riot in Iran

 

The British elections led to a victory and mandate to complete BREXIT with Boris Johnson as their Prime Minister. But there was a secondary message coming from these elections, namely that the British renounced the hateful racism and anti-Semitism which had become part of the messages coming from the Labour Party in general and from Jeremy Corbyn in particular. The British elections were just the next step coming from Europeans demanding their nations return to their independence and away from the European Union (EU) and centralized rule from Brussels. We have to add that most of the distrust of the centralized power without any input, that the EU intends to spread over all of Europe, has come from former Soviet nations which perhaps remember their former results from centralized power ruling from Moscow.

 

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson

 

These results will be used by some in the United States to boost their arguments about President Trump, both pro and con. These sorts of arguments are best just left behind as one walks away, as arguing with such people from either side, using the British elections as a predictor for the upcoming 2020 elections in the United States is simply a waste of one’s time. Yet, the results of the British elections will not be affecting much on the world’s stage as the central focus of the world revolves around two nations, the obvious is Iran followed by the favorite nation for United Nations General Assembly to condemn, Israel. Of these two, Iran is the larger problem which the world needs to find something to remove the current Judeophobia, prevent Iranian hegemony of the Middle East and, in a perfect world, return control over Iran to the Iranian people. These problems are far more important keeping a careful watch over Iran and the effects of her involvement in the Syrian strife and violence as well as her influences in places such as Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and beyond. Currently, the ball is on the Iranian side of the court leaving more room for speculation backed only by feelings. So, what do we expect in the coming future?

 

News about the internal struggle spreading throughout Iran has been sketchy at best and totally suppressed about the remainder. Meanwhile, the people of Iran are fighting for new governance which is more representative of the Iranian people. There is a large and growing undercurrent eroding at the power wielded by the Mullahs currently ruling in Iran through use of force. The situation in Iran is exactly as one might presume, with fixed elections and other shams giving a pretense of democratic elections. This is what has led to the current round of rioting and protests against the current rulers. News about the spreading protests has been relatively disorganized at best and imposed silence at its worst. This leads to much news being pure speculation mixed with hope for the Iranian people.

 

Our biggest fears are that this atmosphere of rejection targeting the ruling Mullahs could lead to an irresponsible set of actions by the Mullahs. The most feared scenario includes a nuclear attack on the American Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy assigned to patrol the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean as well as the nations bordering these waters. Their mandate includes Iran. Often another scenario is mentioned where Iran starts their offensive in earnest against Saudi Arabia while simultaneously launching a massive attack upon Israel used to distract the world’s attention. Such an attack would be played in Iran as their leadership taking care to protect the people from these outside menacing forces. We do not foresee Iran using force against Israel beyond the consistent launching rockets by the IRGC in Syria as any escalation could trigger a larger Israeli response. Iranian leaders are aware that Israeli leadership would be required to respond to missiles detected coming from Iran well before they would strike their targets and possibly crippling Israeli capabilities. Israeli leadership would need to decide how severe any Iranian attack might be as well as which warheads were launched, specifically as to whether any WMD’s were included in such an attack. Such weapons include chemical and bio weapons as well as nuclear warheads. Any such attack from Iran would be hopefully largely, if not totally, intercepted by the layered protective spheres of the Israeli anti-ballistic missile defenses.

 

Talking about any Iranian strike, our belief is that Iran has absolutely little if any desire to exchange ballistic missiles with Israel as they are aware that such an exchange would result in the destruction of much of Iran with potentially minimal destruction in Israel as Iranian missiles were intercepted by Israeli defensive systems. Should Iran strike anyone, the most likely target would be the American naval ships off her coasts. Iran has been observing how President Trump has pulled American forces from much, if not all, of the Middle East battlegrounds. This has probably led to their concluding that President Trump would avoid any direct conflict initiated by Iran. They likely feel that such an attack could lead to concessions from the United States in order to avoid further American casualties. Such presumptions are the perfect setting for an ever-escalating exchange between Iran and the United States where Iran would be the loser. The United States would not consider herself as the victor as the resulting protests against the use of force and against Trump would prove to be a divisive and destructive force in the country.

 

This leads to our final vision of the future and the results of the people rioting across Iran demanding new governance and an end to the rule by the Mullahs. We fear that the results from these protests will be the deaths of thousands of Iranians as the Mullahs will refuse to go down without a monumental fight. In the end, the rulers of Iran will unleash the IRGC and the Basenji Militias upon the protesters. It will result in a near exact copy of the 2009 protests except with far higher casualty count for those protesting. Should the pro-democracy Persians, the actual and correct name for most of the Iranian people, start taking to the streets in vast numbers, their success or failure will be dependent upon what response and potential arming the Iranians receive from the United States. The knife edge upon which the world currently sits has Iran and the United States in direct opposition to one another. Iran could initiate problems in any number of means. Iran could stop all the oil tankers from entering or leaving through the Strait of Hormuz or block the Bab el Mandeb (see map below) blocking the only exit and entrance to the Suez Canal from the south.

 

Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait

Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait

 

The Bab el Mandeb blockade would also negate the sole Israeli port in the south, Eilat, from access to the Indian Ocean and beyond. Preventing access to shipping lanes is considered an act of war. Well, that is, except if the nation in question is Israel. That aside, the most likely conflict will break out between the United States and Iran and not Iran and Israel. Should the conflict turn to being between Iran and Israel, the world (aka General Assembly) will immediately blame Israel with minimum opposition. This is the one item you can bet and rest assured of a win. The world’s ‘blame Israel’ reaction is the one constant in this rattled and violent world. Directing hatred towards Israel is the latest Judeophobia spreading around the world. We can only pray that the world awakens and removes their blinders and finally accepts that Israel has been reborn as predicted in Torah and related commentaries and this time, we are returning home and have little if any desire to leave. Hopefully, the world comes to grips with their unsupportable Judeophobia before it leads to another great war which will result in much of the world being destroyed and a death toll beyond any other war.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

December 6, 2019

Ding-Dong Baghdadi’s Dead (Delayed)

 

We have had a rough time of late, but are planning to make a comeback as soon as possible. Here is the last article we wrote but were unable to publish at that time. We thank our readers for their understanding.

According to reports we have read, Islamic State founder and spiritual guide, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was cornered by a combined American Special Forces team and detonated himself when he messed up taking a tunnel which was a dead end. Strangely enough, it was not the approaching American soldiers which frightened him into murdering his three children while committing suicide; it was the unnamed hero, their full partner and soldier, their service K-9. Facing the immediate and singular threat of this brave and faithful soldier caused this supposed brave soldier of Allah to surrender his life rather than try and fight this wonderful animal. So much for his presumed vicious and valiant fighting skills as he appeared to be more of a frighten child than a soldier of Allah. The end would not have been any different as the rest of the team was not far behind and would have finished whatever was required to complete their mission. The Service K-9 was injured during the operation and is reported to be making a full recovery and remains in theater and has been returned to duty with its handler. These beautiful animals are inseparable from their teams and specifically tied to their handlers, better stated as best friend and protector, though the dog will claim they are protecting those serving with them.

 

American Service K-9 Who Trapped Baghdadi

American Service K-9 Who Trapped Baghdadi

 

The details are thus far scant with further details sure to surface over time. President Trump Tweeted, “We have declassified a picture of the wonderful dog (name not declassified) that did such a GREAT JOB in capturing and killing the Leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi!” Finally, President Trump has committed to an understatement as the Service K-9 Corps has historically produced some of the most unbelievable animals. In Armed Services history, these animals have come in all shapes and sizes from some camels gifted to President Lincoln to help fight the Civil War to porpoises to K-9s to rodents trained for infiltration using small cameras and microphones. These Service K-9s are just as well trained as the humans they serve alongside. One cannot overplay the fearlessness and awareness of these beautiful beasts. There have been uncountable times that they have warned of approaching ambush points to sniffing out explosive devices such as mines on to almost anything one could imagine.

President Trump further commented about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that he died like a dog. Perhaps a better retort might have been that he died facing an American dog as referring to al-Baghdadi as a dog is an insult to dogs everywhere. It is known that at least two of al-Baghdadi’s wives also died during the operation but it is unclear if they were struck by crossfire or committed suicide, but who really cares. The fact that al-Baghdadi surrounded himself with his children for protection and murdered them when taking his own life tells chapters about his character, if there was any. He was no different than the “brave” Arab Palestinians who place children at the front throwing stones at soldiers while they stand well back out of harms way and shoot at the IDF soldiers. Soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan have reported about the terrorist use of children as their protective armor understanding that American soldiers, just like their IDF counterparts, will not engage targets if doing so imperils the lives if children. But this is one of the main and most basic differences between their psychology and that of the civilized world, life for us means everything, to them it is just a throw-away tool. When it comes down to the bottom line, the current war, World War III, is about values and the survival of civilization or taking the world back ten centuries or more. Only one side can prevail, either the civilized or the barbarous, that is the decision we need to realize and focus upon, nothing else. Thank you our brave American Special Forces and all soldiers fighting for civilization to survive and a special affectionate thank you to one brave service K-9 who went first into harms way protecting his troops.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

October 22, 2019

The Kurdish Dilemma

History will judge and rejudge President Trump’s move to pull American forces out of the Kurdish region of northern Syria allowing a Turkish invasion. This move by the President is likely traceable to his main weakness, taking leaders of other nations at their word. In the situation with the Kurds, the word of Turkish President Erdoğan stating that he was merely going to keep the Islamic State and other terrorists from making bases and a home in Syria and leaving civilian Syrians at peace is worthless. President Trump and his advisors should know from history that President Erdoğan considers all Kurds to be terrorists. Further, they should have researched and found where Erdoğan claimed to be leading the reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire and desires absorbing Syria as far as Aleppo and Iraq all the way through Mosul and the Mosul oil fields. This would also place almost all the remaining Kurds outside of Turkey within the enlarged Turkey and thus facing genocidal efforts. We had discussed and revealed Erdoğan’s plans back on April 25, 2017, in our article Turkey Has a New Caliph Called THE President complete with a map of the Greater Turkey he envisions. We understood that the argument favoring Erdoğan’s expansionist plans was the fact that Turkey is a NATO member state and thus the United States is obliged to militarily support Turkey against perceived threats. If that is what NATO demands, then this we elucidated upon in our January 25, 2018, article, Time for United States or Turkey to Leave NATO. We discussed and proposed establishing Kurdistan numerous times including here, here and here. These should stand as providing a solid background and so now on to the current set of events.

We understand that President Trump promised on the campaign trail to disengage from all the Middle East squabbling and specifically the Arab on Arab fighting. This promise was his direct reference when announcing the pullout of American forces from the Kurdish regions of Syria and probably will soon be followed by the same in Iraq if our premises prove accurate. There are a few intractable facts which make the situation with the Kurds different and separate from President Trump’s campaign promise. The Kurds are amongst the very few peoples who refused to Arabize and thereby have kept much of their culture, kept their language and have distinct practices and are not uniformly following the Arab or Islamic dictates which have influenced most of the cultures which the Arabs have absorbed and destroyed. The Kurdish tribes include a large minority of Christians who the Islamic State had trapped and were set to annihilate them. These were the Yazidis of whom we spoke during our article of November 13, 2016, titled Erdogan Declares Border War on European Union, where the world, United States and her State Department included, ignored the plight of these largely unarmed civilians trapped on a mountain where ISIS promised to slaughter the men and use the women as they pleased. The Kurds of northern Iraq and Syria came to the rescue and pulled a majority of the Yazidis to safety. This is not an Arab on Arab fight but a Turk vs, Kurd war. We agree with President Trump when he complains that these wars between MENA tribes have been going on for centuries and the United States has fought in a few too many. We understand his not wanting to be dragged into another MENA conflict. We will even go so far as to understand his premise that the Kurds have received aid moneys, arms, training and support from the United States and it is time for them to stand on their own and emulate Israel, the one MENA nation to never have foreign troops defending them from her enemies. This begs one simple set of questions; can the Kurds be equated with the Israelis, does the United States owe the Kurds protections, and lastly, is there some means by which the United States can prevent a genocidal war by Turkey against the Kurds. We will take them one at a time.

Can the Kurds be equated with Israel? Actually, this is possible in a plethora of means. The first concerns statehood. When the Iraqi Kurds held their referendum and of those polled over 75% desired their declaring their independence, this was where the United States could have assisted the Kurds greatly. Instead, the State Department insisted that the United States would not provide them with support or even recognition as a new country insisting that this was not a good time for such a declaration. The State Department promised to let the Kurds know when it would be convenient. Read the top of this paragraph and instead of Kurds or Kurdish, replace it with Israel and Jewish and you have the reaction of the State Department to Israeli declaration of independence in May of 1948. Yes, President Truman recognized Israel and then the American government slapped an arms embargo on the entire region. As the Soviets were arming the Arabs, this embargo really only affected Israel. With the Kurds you have a heavily armed with American weapons Turkish military, one of the largest and presumed best armies in the world ranking within the top ten and the Kurdish militias who have limited armor and no air cover. Israel had far less equipped armies when the several Arab states augmented by militias attacking her on the very first morning of her existence. Israel received a fair amount of military aid from Czechoslovakia who sold Israel most of the arms remaining within their borders from the several armies of World War II. This aid included some armor and aircraft. The aid granted the Kurds had largely not included armor and had never included aircraft and minimal artillery. Any war between Turkey and the Kurds of either northern Syria or Iraq would be similar to Godzilla vs. Bambi. Israel was very fortunate to not be crushed in the 1948 Arab war to annihilate the Jewish State at her birth. Many feel it was nothing short of a miracle. Should the Kurds manage to throw off any Turkish attack, that too would be a miracle.

Next, we ask, does the United States owe the Kurds protections? The answer in realpolitik is an abrupt, “No!” According to realpolitik, no nation ever really owes another country or group anything just because they faced a common foe together. Britain used the animosity existing between Spain and France to their advantage by backing the weaker of the two turning the tables on the more powerful nation. When such a war ended, and during the lead-up to the next bout between France and Spain, Britain often was required to change sides as the other was not the weaker of the two. Britain never felt any debt to their last ally as for them, it was about preventing either France or Spain from becoming strong enough to challenge Britain. The United States never felt any debt to France for their aid in the Revolutionary War against Britain thus when the French Revolution erupted, the United States simply watched officially from the other side of the pond. If any nation has shown to be out of character and actually shown allegiance to former allies, that has been the United States who gives preference to things European, and particularly British. So, in the real-world of everyone out for number one, the United States does not actually owe the Kurds anything as they were fighting a common foe which the Kurds would have been required to face with or without any assist from the United States. This was proven when the Kurds went to the aid of the Yazidis and the world twiddled their thumbs.

And lastly, is there some means by which the United States can prevent a genocidal war by Turkey against the Kurds? The answer is that there is a means by which the United States can assist the Kurds, and not all of them require the use of any military force. Probably the most obvious would be for the United States to pressure Turkey such that they decide that it is not worth the sacrifice just to attack the Kurds of Syria and probably Iraq after them. President Trump honestly believes that economic threats and potential sanctions will be sufficient to persuade President Erdoğan to largely remain within his borders. One only need look at the collapsing economy and currency of Turkey to realize that Erdoğan does not care about these things anywhere near as much as he desires to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, or at least taking the initial steps, which he defines as taking northern Syria and Iraq south to Aleppo and Mosul along with the oil fields and the elimination of the Kurds. One would not be unfair to expect Turkey to follow up with the elimination of the Kurds within their current borders. They have carried out such attacks previously. The United States, had the Kurds been of any real importance, could have aided them far more greatly by aiding their declaring independence at least from Iraq after the resolution for independence. There are two means by which America could back their former allied Kurds at this late date. The first would be to threaten to remove Turkey from NATO, something which should have been done over a decade past. The other would be to provide air cover for the Kurds against Turkish air power which the Kurds have no ability to fight alone. This could be provided by providing them with anti-aircraft missiles, namely MANPADS. The other would be using American air-power to prevent Turkish raids on Kurdish villages, something we predict will soon be part of the Turkish offensive. Without such aid, the Kurds will prove to be sitting ducks falling victim to Turkish air attacks aiding their military thrusts into northern Syria and probably northern Iraq soon thereafter. President Erdoğan was completely serious when he claimed to be the new leader of the reestablished Ottoman Empire and his desire to capture Aleppo and Mosul.

Shiite Crescent including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran

Shiite Crescent including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran

Could there be a bright side to the presumed coming Turkish assault on northern Syria and Iraq? Yes, there is one positive in that Turkey will become a threat to the Iranians establishing their Shiite Crescent pictured above connecting Iran with the Mediterranean and placing them on the borders of Israel. The downside would be a conflict between Iran and Turkey which would bathe the entire region in blood. Such a conflict would greatly weaken one side while likely eliminating the military ability of the other. In case of a war between Iran and Turkey, the United States can expect to be drawn into a far more costly war in the Middle East as Turkey could call upon NATO to aid in any conflict with Iran. Should NATO members agree to intervene, their decision would mean that most of the fighting would be conducted by the United States with perhaps moral support from the remainder of NATO. American air power should be used either as a threat or, should it be necessary, as a hammer to crush any ability for the genocidal assault on the Kurds. Still, much of the problem the Kurds currently face comes down to two main factors. The first is the Kurds not following through and establishing their own nation of Kurdistan and the second the inability for the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds from being able to join together and form a political entity which both could endure. There are strong differences in their political outlooks with one favoring a democratic rule and the other a socialist government under a strong leadership. The coming conflagration between the Kurds and Erdoğan’s Turkey could result in a far greater conflict between Iran and Turkey which will result in a great loss of life and far reaching destruction. Such a conflict could result in one side initiating the use of nuclear weapons. We have stated often our expectation that Iran already had dozens of nuclear weapons and possibly a number of thermonuclear weapons while Turkey had a sharing agreement with NATO should they face nuclear attacks to utilize in their response, NATO willing. Should an Iran-Turkey war turn to nuclear weapons, it will be unavoidable for NATO to remain neutral as Turkey would most likely be the one attacked with such weapons which obligates the intervention of NATO and thus the United States. Such an escalation could pull Russia, amongst others, into the fray leading to escalation after escalation with nobody knowing what would be the end result.

Beyond the Cusp

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.