The Pentagon is denying reporting that the Trump Administration is considering deploying an additional 14,000 troops to the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal had reported on Dec. 4 that the major potential deployment was being mulled in order to push back against Iran. The United States has shipped key missile defense systems and thousands of troops to defend Saudi Arabia in the past few months, with a focus on curtailing Iran’s influence across the region, but the question remains: what is America’s next move in the Middle East and what should the next decision be to avoid a 2020 being even worse for the region than 2019? As it sinks further into $23 trillion in debt, why exactly is the United States’ military extended to every reach of the globe and particularly the Middle East, and what are its precise objectives?

New War On The Horizon?

Nearly half of all US troops polled last October believed a major war involving the United States was on the horizon within the next year. Particularly strong concern existed around potential showdowns between the United States and Russia or China—concerns that have not gone away, to say the least. Should we be relieved that the pessimists appear to have been wrong or worried they may just have been slightly off about the date? While foreign policy “experts” pompously discuss the US-Israel relationship and the “new Great Game” in the Middle East and the fallback of the US dialing down its presence in the region, there is good reason for reasonable people who don’t live at 1 Ivory Tower Think Tank Lane to slow down, reassess and consider all the ways in which the ongoing great power struggles in the Middle East are a nightmare scenario that should not be entered lightly and are very hard to extricate from the further you get in.

Establishment Foreign Policy Experts And Their Repulsive Hubris

It is absurd to hear Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations talk recently about a drawdown in interest in human rights and democracy under the Trump Administration when he himself was a senior official for the George W. Bush Administration which launched the disastrous military invasion of Iraq. Trump’s own foreign policy reactivity and imbecility is only allowed to flourish in a climate in which foreign policy experts like Haass refuse to see that their time is up and continue to talk to an echo chamber in which they have the gall to imply that the post Cold War era of US primacy was a “plateau of stability” which is desirable to reattain in some form. Haass is certainly correct that it would take an optimist to think a US withdrawal from the Middle East will result in peace or lovely harmony, but his hypocrisy comes in not seeing how individuals like himself helped contribute to the much-worsened Middle East of today in which both leaving and staying have their own pile of negatives for the United States.

You cannot both help create a problem and then argue its existence is what justified your initial and ongoing presence unless you are a true blowhard and ideologue such as Haass or, for example, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who famous argued that starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death under Clinton Administration sanctions in the 1990s was “worth it” and then performed all over social media and her recent book tour about the need for compassion and asylum to refugees (that her and her colleagues’ policies helped create). People like Albright and Haass should be speaking with mental health professionals and possibly being institutionalized as a danger to others, not influencing US military or governmental policy.

US And Gulf State Focus: Iran

Iran, Russia and China are holding their first cooperative military drills in defiance of NATO and Western pressures. Iran is seeking to counter Israel and Saudi Arabia and keep a foothold in the wider Middle East from Iraq to Syria and Yemen. The reapplication of punishing sanctions in late 2018 sent the Iranian currency into a spiraling nosedive, and the leadership structure is seeking to shore up strategic power through deployment, consolidation of alliances and military cooperation with proxy groups and militias from Hezbollah to the Houthis, though granted the Houthis were fighting for years independently before being considered an Iran proxy by Western nations.

Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani has indicated Iran would be amenable to reopening negotiations if the US first ends sanctions, but that is clearly not going to happen. Rouhani walked away from speaking to Trump in early October after failing to receive agreement of waiving sanctions prior to any resumption of talks.

What About America’s Favorite Dictatorship?

Bolstering Saudi Arabia is certainly a key locus point of American military decision-making. Following the rhetoric and the military hardware leads to the inescapable conclusion that supporting and protecting Saudi Arabia is an integral plank of America’s ongoing, bipartisan foreign policy. Commenting last month, the head of US Central Command General Kenneth McKenzie made it clear that Saudi Arabia is a priority for US Middle Eastern military decisions, emphasizing that the United States has not stepped back from the region and has “reinforced Saudi Arabia” by having an aircraft carrier in theater.

While Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies like to highlight Iran’s considerable proxy aggression, they never mention their own war crimes and slaughter in Yemen, lack of coordinating in preventing 9/11 (at the very least), fomenting civil war in Iraq, occupying Bahrain, fleecing its own people from oil wealth, killing American resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and much more.

Current US Military Presence In The Middle East

With upwards of 60,000 US military members in the Middle Eastern theater currently and a number of ships, there certainly is still a significant footprint, albeit much less than 2003 and the recent past. Only five of America’s 11 aircraft carriers are currently battle ready, and some are worried about Russia or China encroaching in strategic zones, but that just goes to show the unwinnable task of global empire-building and maintenance. The US has spent more than $8 trillion in the Middle East on military-related expenditures since 2001: that’s a staggering figure.

Troops Remaining To Guard Key Sites In Syria ‘Only For The Oil’

As Trump has previously said, troops remaining in Syria are there “only for the oil.” While Turkish troops ethnically cleanse Kurdish areas, American forces have a mainly economic mission around resource control. While this could be interpreted as hard-nosed realism, it is more clear-eyed to see it as mission creep: a mission and conflict is never truly “over” when the nature of conflict becomes nation-building, long-term stability and propping up nations with poorly trained armies, lack of regional control, faltering infrastructure and systemic corruption. Watching the 2010 The Battle for Marjah about coordinated American efforts to unseat the Taliban in the city of Marjah is a case-in-point. While the combat was successful, troops ended up in civil roles after the battle, trying to maintain the peace in the town and bazaar. With resources stretched thin, US command authorized paying cash to local youth to act as municipal security even while knowing some of them had been trying to kill them the day before. War and nation-building are two different things, and expecting troops to do both is foolhardy.

Prevention Is The Best Cure

Realist foreign policy thinking should be tending towards prevention of an all-out war in the Middle East as it lurches closer to a disastrous, world-shaking 1914 moment. The bluster of Trump and dismantling of the Iran nuclear deal coupled with an aggressive posture between Iran and its regional allies and Saudi Arabia and its allies could ultimately unravel into all-out chaos. The situation in the Middle East is ripe for wide-ranging, regional war and the last thing that is needed is more belligerence and cynical opportunism from the United States, Russia or any other large power. The United States should be pursuing modest goals in the Middle East, rather than trying to run the region or become more involved. America’s military leadership is far from a monolith and there are officials who recognize the foolhardiness of the United States always siding with Saudi Arabia.

The Sanctions Powderkeg

The United States should resist smaller actors trying to utilize American military might for their own goals and maintain a balanced, more detached position as Middle East power shifts continue. This includes on sanctions, where Trump’s policies have the potential to ignite a powderkeg, and already may have done so. Indeed, there are some indications that US sanctions are part of what is driving the uprisings and protests across the Middle East as the economies and governments of Lebanon, Iraq and others shudder under corruption and instability, but it is far from a sure thing that these upheavals will lead to any more positive results than the last Arab Spring considering they have no cohesive alternative or leadership structure in place to present instead of those who are being protested. The American military should resist being dragged further into the Middle East unless it is prepared to go to the lengths of global war to back it up, which would be a disaster. The current Trump Administration position of being reflexively obsessed with supporting Israeli interests and backing Saudi Arabia is not in the national interest of the United States and should be reassessed the next time a major deployment decision must be made. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the upheaval and suffering wracking the region, but America should focus on at least not adding to the already significant problems.

L'articolo America’s Next Move In The Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

Straight after the last US military vehicle had crossed the Syrian borders following president Trump’s long-declared decision to pull out US troops from Syria, the Turkish artillery started shelling Kurdish SDF military positions on the Tal Taweel hilltop in rural Hassakah close to the Turkish borders. US-backed Kurdish militias feel abandoned and desperate for protection after the US army units’ sudden and hasty departure from northeastern Syria, amid renewed Turkish announcements of an imminent military operation, with the help of pro-Turkish newly-united rebel forces under the banner of ‘Syrian National Army. The apparent Turkish military buildup along the borders indicates that Ankara means business, despite regional and American warnings of the consequences of any major Turkish onslaught against Syrian Kurds in the area.

Military Preparations for Action Complete, Says Turkey

All eyes are now focused on Ankara’s next move against Syrian Kurds in the north, as movement of Turkish forces and heavy weapons along the border with Syria has been confirmed by local and regional observers. Turkey has long branded the main US-backed Kurdish militia a ‘terrorist organization’ and an arm of the outlawed PKK Kurdish Workers Party, whose iconic mentor and leader, Abdullah Ocalan, is serving an aggravated life jail sentence in the secluded heavily-guarded Turkish Imrali prison island.

Meanwhile, the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan province, Nechirvan Barazani, has called for the annihilation of SDF militia whom he blamed for the paradigm of Syrian Kurds in the north, and asked Russia to protect Kurdish civilians, in light of the Turkish threats of a forthcoming large-scale and decisive military operation in Kurdish-controlled areas in northeastern Syria. Local Kurds who have waged and won some impressive battles against ISIS in the region over the past few years, are reported to have fortified their positions and moved some of their forces from Al Omar main oilfield to the border areas in anticipation of a major Turkish attack that could take place any minute now.

Pro-Turkish newly united militias are also reported to be mobilizing near the city of Manbij, some 50 kms from the Turkish borders, and are expected to play a key role in any forthcoming Turkish incursion into Syria. Kurdish leaders in the area have threatened to hand the city of over 150000 inhabitants over to the Syrian army rather than let the Turks and their proxy militias take control of Manbij.

A History of Abandonment Complex

Words cannot express strongly enough what Syria’s supposedly US-allied Kurds are going through at the moment.  Shock, despair, betrayal and abandonment at the crucial point by their US masters might sum up the feelings.  Similar to what happened to their brothers in Iraq a couple of years ago, they have been left in the open, alone, facing a grim destiny and a Turkish army intent to settle long and heavy accounts with the Kurds, pledging to wipe some of their militias out from the face of earth.

US warnings of strong sanctions that will cripple the Turkish economy should Ankara wage a major military operation against its now ‘former’ Kurdish allies, have done very little to calm Kurdish fears and dispel their strong feelings of abandonment by Trump who wanted out of this ‘ silly and endless war’ in Syria. However, President Donald Trump warned he would “obliterate” the NATO ally’s economy if it took action in Syria that he considered “off-limits” following his decision on Sunday to withdraw American special forces troops from Syria’s border region. Egypt, Cyprus and Greece have all expressed opposition and condemnation of any Turkish effort that undermines the integrity of Syria’s territorial integrity.

Deeper into the Syrian Quagmire?

Turkish Defence Ministry said in a tweet on Tuesday that its “armed forces will never tolerate the establishment of a terror corridor on our borders. All preparations for the operation have been completed. It is essential to establish a safe zone/peace corridor to contribute to our region’s peace and stability, and for Syrians to achieve a safe life,” it maintained. All this comes as President Trump announced that he left the matter up to Russia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and the Kurds to find their own solution.  No wonder, Trump’s repetitive threats and warnings to Ankara appear to have failed make Syrian Kurds in the northeast, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in particular, feel any less vulnerable. The US landmark pull out decision has inevitably deepened the Kurdish abandonment complex which is now proven to be well-founded and more painful than ever.

As the SDF has expressed  its readiness to take on Turkish forces – Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Syria have demonstrated extraordinary will and skill in defending their territories over the years- the Syrian-Turkish border region in the northeast  looks set for a new, fierce, long and costly war of attrition that could easily draw Erdogan’s Turkey further and deeper into the abyss of the Syrian quagmire.

L'articolo Turkey Shells Kurds Ahead of Operation in Syria proviene da InsideOver.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to the Black Sea city of Sochi on September 12th for his 13th meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ostensibly discuss Iran and the “harm” it does to Israel’s security.

However, Netanyahu was interested in a more pressing issue, five days before the general election in his country, namely securing support from hundreds of thousands of Russian immigrants in his country.

Putin, who kept Netanyahu waiting for about three hours before he met him at his summer residence in the Black Sea city, was apparently aware of Netanyahu’s prime interest.

Putin made sure to make a point about his country’s interest in the September 17th Knesset election in Israel as well as about the 1.5 million Russian immigrants in Israel functioning as a bridge between Moscow and Tel Aviv.

“The results of the Knesset election are very important to Moscow,” Putin said at a press briefing following his three-hour meeting with Netanyahu. “It hopes that politicians will be elected who maintain close ties with Russia.”

Netanyahu’s interest in Russian votes in the election boils down to the fact that Russian immigrants are the main support base for his rival Avigdor Liberman and his secular nationalist Yisrael Beytenu Party.

Netanyahu was hoping to secure a statement from the administration of US President Donald Trump about creating a “‘defence pact’” with Israel to boost his chances in the election. He failed to get this. He was also hoping to get something from Putin to boost his election chances. He got nothing from the Russian leader either. Perhaps Putin’s lack of enthusiasm for Netanyahu is linked to Moscow’s anger at his latest statements that he would annex parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank to his country following the September 17th election.

Moscow detracted the potential move two days before Netanyahu’s plane touched down in Sochi. It said the annexation of parts of the West Bank would torpedo chances for Middle East peace. Equally angry at Netanyahu’s plan are Arab states whose foreign ministers said on September 10th that the plan is an “aggression” that will undermine chances of a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the Israeli premier and the Russian leader had serious issues on the table to discuss, including security coordination between their countries in Syria, especially when it comes to Iranian threats to Israeli security.

Israel has been striking Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria for a long time now, but it is keen on avoiding friction with Russian troops in the war-torn Arab state. Netanyahu referred to the importance of security coordination between Israel and Russia at the press briefing with Putin.

“Security coordination is always important, but it is especially important now, in light of the past month’s sharp spike in the number and the scope of Iran’s attempts to harm Israel from Syrian territory and transfer precision missiles to Syria,” the Israeli premier said.

He added that his country would not tolerate this threat, which is why Israel and Russia needed to avoid friction, especially when Israel acts against Iran in Syria.

Iran has been a pivotal part of the ongoing war in Syria, offering solid support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as Russia does. Israel has always viewed Iranian presence in Syria as a danger coming close to its borders. In late August, Israel said it had struck Iranian military sites in Syria to prevent potential drone attacks by Iran. At his joint press briefing with Netanyahu, Putin seemed mindful of the Israeli concerns. He noted the importance of cooperation on security issues between Tel Aviv and Moscow. Largely thanks to Netanyahu’s efforts, he said, security ties and military cooperation between the two states have taken on a new quality.

L'articolo Netanyahu Fails to Impress Putin Ahead of Knesset Poll proviene da InsideOver.