Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Re: Gulf Matters

For the time being, the syrian regime seems to be able to quell the uprising in the country. The army has, one after another, cleared all the relevant cities of any protests. With many soldiers and tanks on the streets, a lot of protestors arrested and defient neighbourhoods cropped of electricity and communications the momentum has really died down.
Briefly, there were reports that Assad was not actually really in control any more, but that these crackdowns were mainly enforced by hard core members of the regime trying to sideline him. For that reason Assad is not on any of the sanctions lists of either EU or USA. But I don't see any signs of Assad being merely a figurehead now.

But what I find much more interesting, what the heck is going on in Iran ?!
The president and the supreme (religious) leader have an ongoing open conflict and the clerics of theocratic Iran question the sanity of the president!
I think the story goes that Ahmadinejad, after finding out the phone of one of his closest aids has been taped, sacked the intelligence minister. Ayatollah Khamenei ordered his reinstatement, wich made the pres go to an 8 day strike not showing up for cabinet meetings. After returning, he fired three more ministers, without supreme leader's approvel. Some aids of Ahmadinejad have already been arrested because of "sorcery", and top clerics, including the personal one of the pres, say Ahmadinejad is under a "spell".

That shows a serious crack in the leadership to me. Has A. really become a little jaunty after quelling the uprisings two years ago?
Under A. the revolutionary guards have become really important and a lot more powerfull, I could also see that he wanted to create a powerbase here to secure more political power for himself. Although it appears that powerbase isn't really as loyal to him in person as he might have exspected. I really wonder if, in his personal vision for Iran's future, a different policy is required than what the theocratic model has done in the past. Seems like a possibility to me. Naturally, the mighty clerics see it different.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'under a spell', Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says
The former spiritual mentor to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly accused his protégé of being "under a spell" as a constitutional crisis engulfs the country.
By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent 5:46PM BST 15 May 2011

The president has taken the unprecedented step of refusing to obey orders handed down by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, less than two years after the pair formed a powerful political alliance to defeat anti-regime protests that swept the country.
Regime elements are taking sides, but the president is looking increasingly isolated as the Revolutionary Guard and the clerical establishment swing behind the Supreme Leader. Even Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, whose apocalyptic vision of Shia Islam Mr Ahmadinejad is thought to follow, has joined in the criticism.
"I've told some of my close friends that I am more than 90 per cent certain that he has been put under a spell," Ayatollah Yazdi told reporters. "This is not natural at all. "No sane person does such things unless his free will has been taken away."
The falling-out of the president and the Supreme Leader, who is supposed to have the final say in all important matters, is the most unexpected development in Iranian politics since the 2009 election and in some ways since the Iranian revolution.
The two men, both conservatives, had together pursued a hard line against the unrest following his re-election and the moderate opposition leaders they accused of being behind it.
But Ayatollah Khamenei is vigorously opposed to Mr Ahmadinejad's closest confidant, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie. He succeeded in stopping his appointment a vice-president, only to see him made chief of staff instead.
Last month, Mr Ahmadinejad sacked his intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, after discovering Mr Mashaie's telephone was being tapped. After refusing at first to obey orders to reinstate him, he then went on an eight-day strike, refusing to turn up to cabinet meetings.
When they resumed, he sacked three more ministers without seeking approval.
The accusation that Mr Mashaie has put the president under a spell is more than rhetorical: friends of Mr Mashaie have already been arrested for sorcery. "I do not know if it is hypnotism, a spell or relations with yogis. But there is something wrong," Ayatollah Yazdi said.

Click to expand...

EDIT:
The Washington Post also has an article on this now. They quote the FARS news agency as saying said Ahmadinejad aid Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei works to decrease the clerics role. So has A really maneuvered himself to the sideline in a political power struggle with the religious elite?
Parliament members are also voicing concern over him.

Re: Gulf Matters

I find in Asia Times on line this article by the former Indian ambassador M K Bhadrakumar:
.
He says that India and Pakistan will likely be accepted as full members of SCO and that Afghanistan submitted a request to grant it observer status in that organisation. This will provide cover for Karzai getting rid of US and NATO forces from his country. It would improve the security of India as well as Pakistan. The last is very important after the happenings of the last weeks.
The matter has an even wider import. It strengthens the hand of Maliki when he insists that the US forces leave his country at the end of this year. Which might well lead to the US increasing its support for the Khalifa regime in Bahrain.
And what will be the effect of the massacre of unarmed Palestinians by Israeli forces yesterday?

Re: Gulf Matters

Bahrain is making a mistake.. Shia in Bahrain are not as islamist or militant as say the ones in Lebanon. Sunni minority oppressing Shia majority is bound for failure..

Re: Gulf Matters

delft said:

I find in Asia Times on line this article by the former Indian ambassador M K Bhadrakumar:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
He says that India and Pakistan will likely be accepted as full members of SCO and that Afghanistan submitted a request to grant it observer status in that organisation. This will provide cover for Karzai getting rid of US and NATO forces from his country. It would improve the security of India as well as Pakistan. The last is very important after the happenings of the last weeks.
The matter has an even wider import. It strengthens the hand of Maliki when he insists that the US forces leave his country at the end of this year. Which might well lead to the US increasing its support for the Khalifa regime in Bahrain.
And what will be the effect of the massacre of unarmed Palestinians by Israeli forces yesterday?

Click to expand...

This is not exactly "The Gulf", but that Bhadrakumar article is quite interesting, as almost all of his articles are. He is a journalist, so he tends to dramatize things -- making them more fun -- and in this case there are lots of "hints" from Lavrov and such... not hard information.

What he predicts may or not happen at the next SCO meeting, but the trends he is detecting are certainly there:

• the Pakistani government and Karzai are now "cooperating", whereas some 2 years ago they were at each other's throats.

• Pakistan and Iran have improved their relations considerably as well. Events in the 90's in Afghanistan are often described as a proxy war between Iran and Pakistan, so this is actually very significant.

• India has improved its relations with Iran, after a 2 or 3 year spat (caused by India's anti-Iran vote regarding nuclear issues back then).

• China and Russia are exercising "tight" coordination, says Lavrov, and evidence suggests this is true. For example, while China has launched a "charm offensive" towards India (in the words of Peter Lee of Asia Times Online), Zardari is visiting Moscow. If India does "play ball" with China, under these circumstances, it looses out!

In my view, he is right, that an alternative "security architecture" for the region has been established. Some days back I read an article, I think in the NY Times, about the Pakistani reaction to the whole bin Laden episode, where they basically stated that Pakistan was playing the China card against the US. The article tended to dismiss this, with the generally correct observation from some academic "expert" that China is always weary of taking on responsibilities beyond what it is capable of, especially in military affairs.

What strikes me is that all of the players in the region have recognized that NATO and the US, powers from "far away", can only impact on the situation effectively by playing on the regional differences. Therefore, they have all decided to cooperate, on some level, at least. This is a sort of "tectonic" shift!

Meanwhile, the general, global, loss of "standing" on the part of the US, has generally meant that the US can no longer dictate. Obama has been shifting from India to Pakistan to India to Pakistan almost as frequently as he has gone up against Netanyahu... and then backed down. This means that everybody in the region is forced to seek what that same Bhadrakumar calls a "multivector" policy, rather than alignment with one or another power. So the relative loss of American power (or the perception of this) is what has made these changes possible.

As to the "expert" quoted by the NY times... did he take these changes into account? I know that his general proposition, about Chinese caution, is correct, but I think American calculations regarding the Korean peninsula last year, for example, proved wrong. The patient diplomatic work in South Asia/Central Asia, in which I would presume China had an important role, may have prepared things for a more "nuanced" Chinese position. Indeed, I am seeing stronger statements about cooperation with Pakistan from the Chinese press.

Re: Gulf Matters

M.K.Bhadrakumar comments on the relations between Sunni, Shiites and the US:

It seems that trouble between Sunni and Shia is most serious in Pakistan. Why?

Re: Gulf Matters

Victor Kotsev, a journalist and political analyst based in Tel Aviv, writes in Asia Times On Line

about the prospects of some country attacking Iran, more likely Saudi Arabia than Israel. Saudi Arabia might use Pakistan (?). The US could in such a case hardly not intervene.
A main purpose would be defeating the Arab spring:
"From a more global perspective, tensions involving Iran are clearly at a high, even though the known facts fail to implicate convincingly the Jewish state. A source close to Russia reports that the Kremlin has started to pull out significant numbers of nuclear technicians and other specialists from the Islamic Republic; if confirmed, this information could mean that Russia anticipates a military campaign in the near future.
The same source speculates that a military operation against Iran could be seen as a necessity in order to suppress the Arab Spring, or to further the interests of the alleged counter-revolution. "A hit against a big country could do the job," he says."
And about Libya and Yemen:
"Some analysts have applied a similar logic to the campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but the Libyan debacle has clearly not done the job. Moreover, the now increasingly possible ouster of Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh could rekindle the protests throughout the Arab world. As a prominent figure in the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood told Reuters, "The departure of Saleh is a turning point not just for the Yemeni revolution but also is a huge push for the current changes in the Arab region and is the start of the real victory." "

He refers to an earlier article in ATOL by Brian M Downing:
.
This suggest the possibility of a "nuclear and conventional consortium of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China come into being - a new entente stretching from East Asia to the Persian Gulf" in opposition to Iran.

This last article is rather waffling. A coalition involving Iran rather than Saudi Arabia makes much more sense economically as well as military.

Re: Gulf Matters

delft said:

Victor Kotsev, a journalist and political analyst based in Tel Aviv, writes in Asia Times On Line

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

about the prospects of some country attacking Iran, more likely Saudi Arabia than Israel. Saudi Arabia might use Pakistan (?). The US could in such a case hardly not intervene.
A main purpose would be defeating the Arab spring:
"From a more global perspective, tensions involving Iran are clearly at a high, even though the known facts fail to implicate convincingly the Jewish state. A source close to Russia reports that the Kremlin has started to pull out significant numbers of nuclear technicians and other specialists from the Islamic Republic; if confirmed, this information could mean that Russia anticipates a military campaign in the near future.
The same source speculates that a military operation against Iran could be seen as a necessity in order to suppress the Arab Spring, or to further the interests of the alleged counter-revolution. "A hit against a big country could do the job," he says."
And about Libya and Yemen:
"Some analysts have applied a similar logic to the campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but the Libyan debacle has clearly not done the job. Moreover, the now increasingly possible ouster of Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh could rekindle the protests throughout the Arab world. As a prominent figure in the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood told Reuters, "The departure of Saleh is a turning point not just for the Yemeni revolution but also is a huge push for the current changes in the Arab region and is the start of the real victory." "

He refers to an earlier article in ATOL by Brian M Downing:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
This suggest the possibility of a "nuclear and conventional consortium of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China come into being - a new entente stretching from East Asia to the Persian Gulf" in opposition to Iran.

This last article is rather waffling. A coalition involving Iran rather than Saudi Arabia makes much more sense economically as well as military.

Click to expand...

Actually, Iran-Pakistan ties are much weaker compared to Saudi-Pakistani ties. While Pakistan and Iran do cooperate on a number of matters, there is some distrust between Pakistan and Iran because of religious differences, and because Iran and Pakistan both compete regionally in Central Asia for influence. Pakistani-Saudi ties are much stronger because the two are Sunni-majority, the long military cooperation, and various other cultural and commercial ties (such as Saudi Arabia accounts for the bulk of Pakistan's oil supply).

Re: Gulf Matters

Pointblank said:

Actually, Iran-Pakistan ties are much weaker compared to Saudi-Pakistani ties. While Pakistan and Iran do cooperate on a number of matters, there is some distrust between Pakistan and Iran because of religious differences, and because Iran and Pakistan both compete regionally in Central Asia for influence. Pakistani-Saudi ties are much stronger because the two are Sunni-majority, the long military cooperation, and various other cultural and commercial ties (such as Saudi Arabia accounts for the bulk of Pakistan's oil supply).

Click to expand...

True, but China has a major interest in improving relations between Iran and Pakistan and the influence of the US in the other direction is weakening. The railway between Iran and Pakistan is being improved and Pakistan will be converting its railways from 5'6" to standard gauge to make contact with the railways of Iran, China and soon Afghanistan even better. Pakistan connected with Iran and China and with all these three having a major influence in Afghanistan after the departure of the US can feel much more secure vis-a-vis India. And that without India having to feel insecure. If Pakistan were to prefer Saudi Arabia it would be much more isolated and even more if something were to happen to the House of Saud.

Re: Gulf Matters

delft said:

True, but China has a major interest in improving relations between Iran and Pakistan and the influence of the US in the other direction is weakening. The railway between Iran and Pakistan is being improved and Pakistan will be converting its railways from 5'6" to standard gauge to make contact with the railways of Iran, China and soon Afghanistan even better. Pakistan connected with Iran and China and with all these three having a major influence in Afghanistan after the departure of the US can feel much more secure vis-a-vis India. And that without India having to feel insecure. If Pakistan were to prefer Saudi Arabia it would be much more isolated and even more if something were to happen to the House of Saud.

Click to expand...

However, Pakistan and Iran are major rivals for influence in Central Asia, especially in Afghanistan. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is extremely deep as it goes back many decades and the two nations have very strong cultural, social and economic ties that cannot be discounted. The Pakistani diaspora in Saudi Arabia composes a very large percentage of Saudi Arabia's population, and Saudi Arabia of course is a top immigration destination for Pakistani's.

Re: Gulf Matters

True, and Pakistan received a lot of money from Saudi Arabia and such education as Pakistani children receive is largely paid for by Saudi Arabia. But Pakistani military leaders looking forward twenty years have a lot to think about.