مقالي الجديد: هل تتدخل أمريكا عسكريا في باكستان؟

إذا كان هدف الولايات المتحدة وحلفائها من الوجود في أفغانستان هو القضاء على مصدر هجمات 11 سبتمبر 2001 أي القاعدة، فإن ما يجري على أرض الواقع حاليا وتحديدا في باكستان يقول بضرورة إعادة الحسابات وإعادة تحديد المصدر الحقيقي لخطر الإرهاب الدولي وتوجيه الضربات إليه، وهو ما لا يتأتى - من وجهة النظر الغربية - إلا بالوجود العسكري المكثف لقوات حلف الناتو في باكستان، وإعادة تعريف جبهة القتال، وتحديد معنى "النصر" الذي تقصده أمريكا في الحرب التي لاتزال مستمرة بعد مرور أكثر من 9 سنوات على بدئها.


المقال كامل: http://www.akhbar-alkhaleej.com/#!400802



منشور من خلال مركز الخليج للدراسات الاستراتيجية

CNN "insults" President Obama!

I found this profound "typo", which I think if intended would place CNN in a huge swamp of troubles!

In an article about the US boycott of the UN racism conference next week because it criticizes Israel, the article had this inside:

Meanwhile, the Congressional Black Caucus said it was "deeply dismayed" by the decision made by the nation's first African-African president, saying it was inconsistent with administration policies.

If indented, the CNN would be accusing Obama of adopting the African old racism policies or reminding him of his origins!


Check article here: U.S. boycotts racism conference, says it 'singles out' Israel

Annapolis Conference: Gloomy as it Seems!

The threat against Israeli has became internal no more, yet its survival will depend on the acceptance and relations with its neighbors. Time, circumstances, and other factors have helped shaping the current internal Palestinian division, where the most heard party is the one which denounced resistance and is willing to give in several used-to-be constants in the Palestinian cause. Marginalizing Hamas, including Syria in the talks, and making Saudi Arabia join in with senior representation — for the first time in the presence of Israel — the Annapolis conference will mostly result into one of two options.

First, the desired US "peace" which is full Israeli peace and normalization with its neighboring Arab countries — leaving Hamas and Hizbullah as the only "extremist" resistance. In such case, international support and Israeli strict security measures — as that currently imposed on Hamas and the 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza — will act jointly to fight "terror". Consequently, virtual peace will be achieved, sure on the state levels and not "people's peace," and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be summarized by the declaration of an Abbas led Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza with no rigid promises on the main points of Jerusalem, 1967 borders, or the refugees right of return.

Gloomy as it seems, the Palestinian resistance will be washed away and the Arab street support for the Palestinian rights will be repressed as it has always been. The only hope would then resides in a major change in the ruling regimes in the countries of the Middle East with other regimes democratically elected that would hopefully revive the call for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Jerusalem as its capital, as well as a solution for the Palestinian forced in refugee camps and diasporas.

The second expected output will be "devastating consequences," as the former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, describes it.

The Sordid Proxy War

$30 Billion to Israel, 13 to Egypt, and 20 to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states ... a pretty big sum of money for the US to offer at one time. What makes it an extremely crucial deal is the factor of time, sum, and the attached agenda.

Iran is roaring out of the US control, Bush feel and is week in Iraq and the ME, and the US allies seems to be slipping away from their Uncle Sam friend.

For sometime Bush has been using diplomacy to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, aka using the Rice approach; seemingly diplomacy yielded out ineffective, Bush is turning to the Cheney approach. The Guardian reported that Bush has debated the military choice in dealing with Iran and eventually "the balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favor of military action."

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Apparently, Cheney played all his capital and managed to mobilize the White House towards a more-than-diplomatic action against Iran. However, the US current situation in Iraq doesn't allow it to argue for any kind of further direct military action in the region. Thus, the old game of Uncle Sam has to be played, proxy wars as Ramzy Baroud calls it.

Factors for Success

For such kind of strategy, factors of success is an enemy, with power, and and incentive for conflict to happen. In other words, Iran has to be having an active competitive enemy in the Middle East.

The Gulf states is one. Yet, how much is it militarily capable of confronting the almost nuclear Iranian rival? Size of states and military capabilities of the Gulf states collected would not present a viable threat to Iran. Hence, the enemy factor is satisfied, yet the power is not.
At this point, the US needed to attach some kind of power for the Gulf states to be able to stand for the US against Iran.

The Rice and Gates visit perfectly fits in. Time-wise and agenda-wise arming the Gulf states with assistance support is the only apparent way out for the US administration to bring the Iranian power expansion to an end.

$13 billion to Egypt and $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states - as reported by Reuters - made the joint statement of the eight Arab states in the Foreign Minister's meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Jordan, and the United States in Sharm El-Sheikh on the 31st of July state: "The participants expressed their steadfast support to any Gulf states in facing external threats to its sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Now, Gulf states do have power, enmity is already there with Iran, yet an incentive of conflict is awaited.

The US administration is not too naive to put its oil interests in the Gulf under the Iranian threat, one would argue. However, that would be the same exact point the US would need to back the Gulf up with arms and supporters. It would be a new card the US can use against Iran in any future expected negotiations.